Menu Icon

Debt Rattle July 28 2025

Jul 282025
 
 July 28, 2025  Posted by at 8:21 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  58 Responses »


L.S. Lowry The mill, Pendlebury 1943

 

• Trump, EU Reach Tariff Deal To Avoid Trade War (ZH)
• ‘I’ll Never Be the Same’: Dan Bongino on FBI Secrets That Shook Him (Margolis)
• Trump Urges Prosecution of Kamala Harris (Catherine Salgado)
• The John Bolton Connection to the Steele Dossier (Margolis)
• More Russia Hoax Evidence Set To Drop, Implicating Hillary Clinton (Margolis)
• Intel Board Chairman Wants Security Clearances Revoked, Spies Fired (JTN)
• Trump Says Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Likely Helps Obama (ET)
• Declassified Russian Probe Material Shows a Familiar Rogue’s Gallery (Turley)
• What Is It With Russia? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• ‘Corrupt’ Ukraine Cannot Be Trusted – Former Trump Advisor (RT)
• EU Slashes $1.7bn In Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption Concerns (ZH)
• The Epstein Saga: What It Is Really About (Paul Craig Roberts)
• German Police Raid AfD MEP’s Property For The 22nd Time (RMX)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/KingBobIIV/status/1949360213288690157

Ratcliffe
https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1949476942962377025

Kirk

Flynn

DOGE
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1949267658068660537

Shell

 

 

 

 

Looking through the deal, I think the negotiators, Ursula first of all, were afraid to be stuck with 35% tariffs on Aug 1. So they agreed to trillions in spending. Good for Europe? Doubtful. Trump now takes it all.

The EU has agreed:
• To purchase $750 billion in energy
• Invest $600 billion in the US on top of existing investments
• Open up countries’ markets to trade with US at zero tariffs
• Purchase “vast amounts” of military equipment

• Trump, EU Reach Tariff Deal To Avoid Trade War (ZH)

President Trump said he reached a trade deal with the European Union late on Sunday, avoiding a trade war with the US’s largest trading partner and marking his biggest deal so far in his attempt to remake the global trading system through higher tariffs for U.S. trading partners. The pact comes less than a week before a Friday deadline for President Donald Trump’s higher tariffs to take effect on August 1. The president in May threatened to impose a 50% duty on nearly all EU goods, adding pressure that accelerated negotiations, before lowering that to 30%. Trump made the announcement at Trump Turnberry, his seaside golf resort in western Scotland, after meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who leads the EU’s executive body.

Trump said the U.S. would set a baseline tariff of 15% for European goods, including automobiles. He said steel and aluminum tariffs, which are currently at 50%, would remain unchanged. He added that the EU had agreed as part of the deal to buy $750 billion worth of energy products from the US, and the EU would agree to invest $600 billion more than previously in the US, although similar to the $550BN “investment” promised by Japan, this is unlikely to every materialize. Adding to the list of ludicrously big numbers disclosed (or as the case may be undisclosed) today, Trump also said that the EU would buy “a vast amount” of military equipment, and while he explained that “we don’t know what number is” but added that the US makes “the best military equipment in the world so you have to do that.”

To summarize, the US EU has agreed:
• To purchase $750 billion in energy
• Invest $600 billion in the US on top of existing investments
• Open up countries’ markets to trade with US at zero tariffs
• Purchase “vast amounts” of military equipment

“I think it’s going to be great for both parties, I think your various countries are very happy about this,” Trump said, sitting alongside von der Leyen. The two met for about an hour with their top representatives. “We made it,” von der Leyen said. She said the two sides wanted to rebalance their trade relationship, “and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic.” Currently, the EU faces a 10% baseline tariff on most of its goods exports to the U.S., as well as a 25% tariff on its auto industry and a 50% tariff for steel and aluminum. “I think that basically concludes the deal,” Trump told reporters at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland. “It’s the biggest of all the deals.” The terms disclosed on Sunday suggest that 15% is likely a new minimum tariff level for most American trading partners. Economists and trade analysts say that tariffs at that level will have an impact on companies’ decisions and are expected to contribute to higher prices for Americans, but won’t stop global trade flows.

“They are not at the level where the global economy burns down,” said Dmitry Grozoubinski, senior trade adviser at Aurora Macro Strategies. The deal comes after a flurry of recent trade announcements. Trump said this past week that he had reached a deal with Japan, another top U.S. trading partner, which put baseline tariffs at 15%. Separate agreements set Vietnam’s baseline tariff level at 20% and established a 19% rate for the Philippines and Indonesia, Trump has said. The U.K. has the lowest tariffs Trump has so far agreed to as part of a deal, at 10%. Trump also was expected to iron out final details of the U.K. agreement in meetings with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Sunday and Monday.

The EU pact removes a major risk for markets and the global economy, a trade war involving $1.7 trillion worth of cross-border commerce, even though it means European shipments to the US are getting hit with a higher tax at the border. The goals, Trump said, were more production in the US and wider access for American exporters to the European market. Von der Leyen acknowledged that part of the drive behind the talks was a rebalancing of trade, but cast it as beneficial for both sides. “The starting point was an imbalance,” von der Leyen said. “We wanted to rebalance the trade we made, and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic, because the two biggest economies should have a good trade flow.”

As Bloomberg notes, US and European negotiators had been zeroing in on an agreement this past week. Officials have discussed terms for a quota system for steel and aluminum imports, which would face a lower import tax below a certain threshold and would be charged the regular 50% rate above it. The EU had also been seeking quotas and a ceiling on future industry-specific tariffs, but it’s unclear if the initial agreement will shield the bloc from potential levies that have yet to be implemented. The announcement capped off months of often tense shuttle diplomacy between Brussels and Washington. The EU had prepared to put levies on about €100 billion ($117 billion), about a third of American exports to the bloc, if a deal wasn’t reached and Trump followed through on his warning.

For weeks, the EU has indicated a willingness to accept an unbalanced pact involving a reduced rate of around 15%, while seeking relief on sectoral tariffs critical to the European economy. The US president has also imposed 25% levies on cars and double that rate on steel and aluminum, as well as copper. The deal comes just days after we learned that in June the US collected a new record in tariff revenue, some $26.6 billion: a number which annualizes to an impressive $320 billion. Several exporters in Asia, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, have negotiated reciprocal rates between 15% to 20%, and the EU saw Japan’s deal for 15% on autos as a breakthrough worth seeking as well. Washington’s talks also continue with Switzerland, South Korea and Taiwan.

Read more …

Dan Bongino is a real man.

• ‘I’ll Never Be the Same’: Dan Bongino on FBI Secrets That Shook Him (Margolis)

In a political era addicted to facades and orchestrated outrage, some moments cut through the noise with a force that startles even seasoned observers. Enter Dan Bongino. The former radio firebrand turned deputy director of the FBI has become a lightning rod within Donald Trump’s second-term administration. In recent weeks, there were rumors he was going to quit the administration over frustration with Pam Bondi over how she’s handled the Epstein files. A source close to the matter said Bongino felt betrayed by what he saw as Bondi’s backpedaling and stonewalling—especially after she downplayed the existence of Epstein’s “client list” and dismissed speculation about blackmail or foul play. Bongino, who took the job hoping to help restore public trust, came to believe that mission was dead in the water unless Bondi stepped aside. “He’s done if she stays,” the source said at the time.

And then nothing happened. But Bongino’s recent statement on X is raising eyebrows. In a powerful and emotional message, Dan Bongino pulled back the curtain on what he described as deeply troubling revelations during his time at the FBI, vowing accountability and transparency in the face of corruption. “During my tenure here as the Deputy Director of the FBI,” Bongino began, “I have repeatedly relayed to you that things are happening that might not be immediately visible, but they are happening.” He emphasized a top-down commitment to justice, writing, “The Director and I are committed to stamping out public corruption and the political weaponization of both law enforcement and intelligence operations. It is a priority for us.”

But what he’s uncovered, Bongino said, has changed him forever. “What I have learned in the course of our properly predicated and necessary investigations into these aforementioned matters, has shocked me down to my core. We cannot run a Republic like this. I’ll never be the same after learning what I’ve learned.” He promised that the investigations will be carried out “by the book and in accordance with the law,” adding, “We are going to get the answers WE ALL DESERVE.” “As with any investigation, I cannot predict where it will land,” Bongino admitted, “but I can promise you an honest and dignified effort at truth. Not ‘my truth,’ or ‘your truth,’ but THE TRUTH.”

If that doesn’t sound like a battle cry from inside the halls of federal law enforcement, what does? For years, Americans have watched as justice and intelligence agencies faced allegations of bias, political leaks, and “weaponization” against dissenters from the prevailing establishment narrative. Critics—many of whom once dismissed such talk as conspiracy theory—have realized that these warnings carry real weight. Bongino, who once sat behind a conservative microphone dissecting exactly these threats, now finds himself not only confronting them but, by his own account, being rocked by what he’s uncovered. The message is unmistakable: accountability isn’t optional. Bongino’s cryptic post bears the signature of a man who has glimpsed truths that will shake the nation’s confidence in its governing institutions.

The question is not whether heads will roll, but how deep the rot goes and whether the rot can be cut out before it destroys what those institutions are supposed to protect. Forget the media’s hope for another administration scandal. The real scandal is what Bongino is finding—and what he warns America must soon confront. No matter how much the press wishes otherwise, Bongino’s mission to purge corruption is underway. His refusal to sugarcoat the stakes, and his insistence that “we cannot run a Republic like this,” target the very heart of what’s ailing the country. Whether Bongino ultimately prevails isn’t a footnote; it’s a battle for the soul of the Republic. One thing is certain: Washington can’t ignore Bongino’s warning shot. Nor should anyone else.

Read more …

“Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!)..”

• Trump Urges Prosecution of Kamala Harris (Catherine Salgado)

The Founding Fathers intended that, in America, no one would have a title and no one would be above the law. Too often in modern times, that no longer seems true of our country. But Donald Trump is starting to call for a change to the double standard of justice. Reviewing potentially illegal payouts from the Democratic Party and apparent bookkeeping errors, Donald Trump understandably wants to get to the bottom of the allegations and wants to see the former vice president in court over them. If you or I committed a federal immigration felony, received massive amounts of money from foreign hostile governments, engaged in money-laundering, committed classified documents felonies, fabricated evidence against a rival, or committed other serious crimes, we would almost certainly be going to jail.

But if you have a title like vice president or congressman or governor now, it seems as if you have the “get out of jail free” card. That is terribly dangerous. We quite simply cannot have a Republic if there is one set of laws for ordinary citizens and a totally different set of standards for rich and powerful people. Trump is at least right to recognize the underlying problem here. Trump posted on Truth Social Saturday, “I’m looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for ‘expenses,’ to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV ‘anchor,’ Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records.”

It is unclear whether paying large sums to a celebrity for an endorsement definitively violates Federal Election Commission guidelines. However, failing to properly report high-cost endorsement payments is a violation. These allegations would be worth investigating legally and in accordance with election laws and standards.

Trump, though he did not clarify that the violation depends on the amount of the payment for endorsement and the level of coordination with a candidate/campaign, referred to this in his usual emphatic style: “YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The Federal Election Commission states: Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents. If celebrities were paid huge amounts of money by the Democrat party and Harris’s campaign to endorse Kamala, this would indeed seem to be a violation of the FEC rules.

Read more …

This John Bolton connection is straight out of the Baskervilles. The dog that didn’t bark. He had a file on Brennan and sat on it for years.

• The John Bolton Connection to the Steele Dossier (Margolis)

The Steele Dossier saga isn’t over—not even close. If anything, its rot is more obvious than ever, with each new revelation pointing directly to the highest levels of the Obama administration and even reaching into the early days of the Trump White House. What we now know is already damning: the phony Steele Dossier wasn’t just opposition research—it was weaponized disinformation, deliberately shoved into the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment under orders from Barack Obama himself. Senior analysts warned it was unverified and unreliable, but those concerns were bulldozed in the name of politics.

Obama ordered the revised ICA not because Russia flipped the election, but because the original findings made it clear they hadn’t. That truth was politically inconvenient. So instead of accepting it, they rewrote reality, stuffing baseless allegations into an official intelligence report and turning it into a blunt instrument to kneecap a duly elected president. At the very least, John Brennan, the Obama-era CIA director, may soon find himself in legal jeopardy over his role in this scandal. But this story just took another turn—as it ensnared John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Trump.

In 2018, Bolton received a classified memorandum directly connected to Brennan’s actions. Astonishingly, he chose to bury it, locking it away in a National Security Council safe instead of bringing it to Trump’s attention. His trust in Brennan’s fabricated intelligence prevailed over his duty to the president he served. According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, in 2018, Bolton received that classified summary, detailing how Brennan manufactured the Putin-Trump intelligence out of thin air—but Bolton left it untouched, sealed from sight and scrutiny.

The list of bad actors goes on. Oleg Smolenkov and Igor Danchenko, once hyped as top-tier Russian sources, turned out to be opportunists with no real intel. But John Brennan needed a show, so Smolenkov was sold as Moscow’s James Bond, just like Comey inflated Steele’s fiction as “Crown material.” It was never about truth—just building a weapon.

Now, thanks to declassified intelligence, reality is catching up with fiction. While Vladimir Putin never possessed any compromising material to blackmail Trump, he did have an extensive dossier on Hillary Clinton. Had she won the presidency, she would have entered the White House compromised, vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow, her decisions always shadowed by the possibility of Russian extortion.

In short, a cabal of partisans weaponized compromised intelligence, invented a Russian conspiracy out of nothing, and employed it to kneecap an incoming president. The deception ran so deep that even those entrusted to defend the presidency—like Bolton—became complicit by omission, not intervention.

Read more …

“CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed Sunday that explosive new evidence tied to the Russia collusion hoax is about to be declassified..”

• More Russia Hoax Evidence Set To Drop, Implicating Hillary Clinton (Margolis)

CIA Director John Ratcliffe revealed Sunday that explosive new evidence tied to the Russia collusion hoax is about to be declassified—and it points directly at Hillary Clinton and key Obama-era intelligence officials. During an appearance on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo on Fox News, Ratcliffe confirmed that the classified annex to Special Counsel John Durham’s report will soon be made public, and what it contains could dramatically shift the narrative on the origins of Crossfire Hurricane. “And what that intelligence shows, Maria, is that part of this was a Hillary Clinton plan, but part of it was an FBI plan to, uh, be an accelerant to that fake Steele dossier, to those fake Russia collusion claims by pouring oil on the fire, by amplifying the lie and burying the truth of … what Hillary Clinton was up to,” Ratcliffe said.

This comes on the heels of fresh scrutiny over former CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and FBI Director James Comey, all of whom, according to Ratcliffe, knowingly pushed a false narrative into official intelligence assessments. “What hasn’t come out yet—and what’s going to come out—is the underlying intelligence that I have spent the last few months making recommendations about for final declassification,” Ratcliffe explained. “That will come out in the John Durham report classified annex.” If accurate, this revelation would confirm what conservatives have long suspected: that the Clinton campaign not only fabricated the Russian collusion story but had help from deep-state operatives inside the federal government.

“And much of that testimony is frankly completely inconsistent with what our underlying intelligence… reflects,” he added, referring to sworn statements given by Brennan, Clinton, and Comey between 2020 and 2022. Ratcliffe emphasized that this was not just a political hit job against Trump—it was a coordinated effort to manipulate both the intelligence community and the public. “You know, Pam Bondi does have a strike force. It is a different Department of Justice, a different FBI, and an opportunity to look at how these people really did conspire to run a hoax, a fraud on the American people, and against Donald Trump’s presidency. ”Despite predictable pushback from Democrats and legacy media dismissing renewed investigations as “revenge” or “retribution,” Ratcliffe said it’s clear why the public supports these efforts.

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1949484568639127875

“They said to everyone, ‘We know what you did to Donald Trump, and we reelected him because we know this was all fake. We know it was a hoax. Now we want to understand how you did it so that it can’t happen again.’” “This declassification process… is so important,” Ratcliffe continued. “There can be accountability and preventability to prevent the same people that did it in 2016 with the Steele dossier, with the Hunter Biden laptop in 2020, from doing it again in the future.” In short, the hoax that consumed years of Trump’s first presidency may finally be fully exposed—and Hillary Clinton’s role in launching it, with FBI help, will no longer be shielded by redactions or media deflection. Investigative reporter Paul Sperry revealed similar news on X Sunday morning:

Read more …

“I just continue to be fascinated by the people who are still carrying a security clearance. It’s amazing who are still in these agencies,” Nunes said..”

• Intel Board Chairman Wants Security Clearances Revoked, Spies Fired (JTN)

The chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board says he believes crimes were committed by intelligence and law enforcement officials who relentlessly pursued President Donald Trump over the last decade, and he also wants to make sure that spies who abused their powers are stripped of their security clearances and their jobs. “Look, it’s really simple. There’s lots of criminals here, and it was a grand conspiracy,” former House Intelligence Committee Chairman and current PIAB chief Devin Nunes told Just the News. “Remember, we made, I don’t know, a dozen criminal referrals when I was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,” he added during an exclusive interview on the Just the News, No Noise television show Thursday night.

Nunes said whether people are prosecuted now will depend on whether the statute of limitations for crimes have expired, or whether those deadlines get extended by the pursuit of a conspiracy case. He said he’s comfortable leaving those decisions to FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The former Republican lawmaker from California said he’s focused in his role as the head of the civilian oversight board for U.S. intelligence on making sure that intelligence officers face discipline and consequences, regardless of whether they are prosecuted eventually.

“I just continue to be fascinated by the people who are still carrying a security clearance. It’s amazing who are still in these agencies,” Nunes said. “And I’m just shaking my head like every time I turn around, like, wait, wait, wait, wasn’t that person in that position a Russia hoax person. “All of those people need to get their security clearances pulled, and they should not be working anywhere near law enforcement or intelligence for that matter,” he added. “So it’s one of the things that our board is tasked with.”

Read more …

There are plenty of them without immunity. Start there.

• Trump Says Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Likely Helps Obama (ET)

President Donald Trump on Friday said that former President Barack Obama likely has immunity following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in light of a report that was declassified by Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard earlier this month. Gabbard said the documents showed that Obama and his then-Cabinet members “manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump,” which Obama denied in a statement earlier this week. Gabbard said in a Sunday interview that she referred some Obama-era officials for criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI. Trump on Friday was asked by a reporter during a press gaggle at the White House, “How do you think that the Supreme Court’s ruling that benefited you on presidential immunity would apply to former President Barack Obama and what you’re accusing him of doing?”

The question for Trump was referring to the Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling in 2024 that stated presidents have prosecutorial immunity for official acts within the executive presidential authority that Congress has no jurisdiction over.
“It probably helps him a lot,” Trump said in response, adding that the ruling “doesn’t help the people around him at all. But it probably helps him a lot.” The president said he believed Obama had committed “criminal acts,” but that “he has Immunity,” which he said “probably helps him a lot.” “Obama owes me big” for the Supreme Court ruling, Trump said. Earlier this week, the president said that Obama officials “tried to rig the election, and they got caught, and there should be very severe consequences for that.” Responding to accusations from Gabbard, a spokesperson for Obama reiterated the assertion that Russia attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

“Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes,” the spokesperson said on July 22.
Obama’s spokesperson also pointed to a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, saying the committee affirmed that Russia worked to influence the election. Earlier this week, Gabbard said, “There is irrefutable evidence that details how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.” Among the documents declassified by the DNI is a House Intelligence report dated Sept. 18, 2020, which found that several intelligence reports that suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin aspired to help then-presidential candidate Trump in the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election were “substandard.”

Specifically, three reports published internally by the CIA after the election contained information that was potentially biased, implausible, unclear, or of uncertain origin, the House Intelligence Committee said in the report that was released by Gabbard on Wednesday. “One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,” the panel stated. The reports were used as foundational sources for an intelligence community assessment made public in January 2017.

The intelligence community “ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged—and in some cases undermined—judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump” and failed to consider plausible alternative explanations, the House report stated. The DOJ on July 23 announced that it was forming a task force following the declassification of the documents. In a statement posted to X, the DOJ said that the task force would “assess the evidence publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures.”

Read more …

View from the law professor.

• Declassified Russian Probe Material Shows a Familiar Rogue’s Gallery (Turley)

The release of declassified material has shed new light on the creation of the Russian collusion investigation and many of the names are crushingly familiar. Indeed, Congress is moving to “round up the usual suspects” in light of the new revelations. It is the story of the real Russian conspiracy: how high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration seeded this false claim with the help of an eager, unquestioning press corps. Not surprisingly, the media (which spent years repeating the false Russian collusion claims) is doing a full-court press to kill the story. Yet, many of these key figures are retaining counsel in anticipation of the unfolding investigation. Many previously secured contracts with MSNBC or CNN, or book deals, where they doubled down on the false claims detailed in these new documents. Here are just a few of the usual suspects:

John Brennan, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency Brennan is arguably the most at risk in the new disclosures, which allegedly contradict his prior testimony before Congress. On May 23, 2017, Brennan testified that the infamous Steele dossier “wasn’t part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done.” However, the new material shows that Brennan was the key figure insisting on the inclusion of the Steele dossier in an intelligence assessment, suggesting that the Russians did influence the election in favor of Trump.

Brennan not only intervened to include the dossier but overruled the CIA’s two most senior Russia experts, who said it “did not meet even the most basic tradecraft standards.” One analyst recounted how “[Brennan] refused to remove it, and when confronted with the dossier’s main flaws, [Brennan] responded, ‘Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?’” Notably, it was Brennan who briefed Obama in 2016 about Hillary Clinton’s plan to create a Russian conspiracy “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” Months later, it would be Brennan who would actively incorporate the dossier secretly funded by Clinton’s campaign.

James Clapper, Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former DNI under Obama, is expecting the worst and said that he has “lawyered up.” Clapper was in the briefing in July 2016 when Obama was told that Clinton was planning to create a Russian conspiracy narrative. In November 2016, Clapper received an assessment from the intelligence community that Russia was “probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.” He also received talking points from staff on December 7, 2016, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”

On December 9, 2016, another report stated that “Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.” That Presidential Daily Brief was scheduled to be published on December 9, 2016, but CDNI Clapper’s office stopped its publication “based on some new guidance.” Clapper later joined Obama with John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, in a meeting where a new assessment was ordered that would detail the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” Brennan then reportedly handpicked the analysts who seemed to flip the earlier assessments without any credible intelligence.

In a 2018 interview with the Harvard Gazette, Clapper continued to spread the false narrative, referring to the high-confidence judgment that “Putin directly ordered the hacking and election interference.” He added, “I think they [Russians] actually influenced the outcome.” Clapper later added to his tarnished legacy by signing the letter with more than 50 former intelligence officials dismissing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 presidential election as likely “Russian disinformation.”

James Comey, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey would use this contrived intelligence to green-light the investigations that overwhelmed the first Trump term. The FBI was aware early that the Steele dossier was an unreliable political hit job funded by the Clinton campaign. Moreover, the CIA told the FBI that Trump associate Carter Page was a U.S. intelligence asset, not a Russian spy. The FBI ignored such countervailing intelligence, violated protocols, and lied to a federal court to maintain the Russian investigation. In an interview with Fox’s Bret Baier, Comey was asked about the lack of evidence of “Russian collusion.” Comey dismissed the question by saying “collusion’s not a word that I’m familiar with.”

Putting aside the lunacy of that statement, Comey then says the question is whether Americans were “in cahoots with the foreign intelligence activities.” It appears “cahoots” is a word he is familiar with. He then denied knowing, in April 2018, that the Clinton campaign had funded the report. Comey often appears unfamiliar with terms or facts that contradicted his investigation of Trump, even years later. Comey repeatedly testified to a lack of memory on key decisions made in the Russian investigation. However, documents show that it was Comey who pushed back on a planned statement by Clapper, stating that they had not determined the dossier to be reliable.

Andrew McCabe, Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now a CNN contributor, was fired after career Justice Department officials found that the former acting FBI director not only lied to investigators but deserved to be fired. That recommendation was reportedly embraced by the career officials in the inspector general’s office. He was accused of lying four times, including twice under oath. Not surprisingly, McCabe makes appearances in the new disclosures. He is not only present at critical meetings, but it also appears that McCabe was allegedly responsible for blocking congressional investigators from interviewing the FBI analysts who supported Brennan and the drafters of the controversial ICA.

Congress alleged that McCabe walled off at least 30 FBI employees associated with the dossier. These and other names are not new. As the media was spreading the false narrative of Russian collusion, many of these figures knew that there was no evidence of such collusion. They said nothing. Instead, after Obama ordered a new assessment, effectively flipping the conclusions of the earlier assessment, anonymous sources leaked the false narrative to the media, which eagerly ran with the story. While leaks of the false narrative were rampant, none of the actual facts were leaked to the media.

In the meantime, figures like Schiff continued to claim, even after the Special Counsel rejected evidence of collusion, that he had secret evidence to the contrary in the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff never revealed that evidence, and the public now knows that the intelligence community rejected the collusion claims from the outset. The public is now learning about the real Russian conspiracy and its key players. It was the most infamous — and successful — political hit job in history. The same media that pushed the false claims are now, again, imposing a news blackout as they did with the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem is that the truth, like water, tends to find a way out. That trickle just turned into a flood for the architects of the Russian collusion hoax.

Read more …

“..only Trump and Putin can resolve the conflict. Trump has made no attempt to resolve it. He has passed it off to Zelensky..”

• What Is It With Russia? (Paul Craig Roberts)

The unreality that prevails in Russia is puzzling. It is not just Putin’s inability to comprehend that by refusing to win the conflict after 3.5 years, he has allowed the conflict to widen out of control. Now Putin is faced with all of Europe organizing to support the West’s proxy war against Russia by purchasing US weapons and supplying the weapons to Ukraine. Trump and Germany have signaled that the next widening is to attack Moscow with missiles. Apparently Russians still haven’t learned anything. Ivan Timofeev, the program director of the Valdai Club, says that “We’re close to the war nobody wants but everyone’s preparing for.” He is wrong. Israel wants America at war with Iran. Zelensky wants Europe at war with Russia. The Zionist neoconservatives want more color revolutions to set at war with Russia. The CIA wants to weaken BRICS by setting India and China against one another.

Putin himself has done more to guarantee future conflict by refusing to use sufficient force to end the conflict in Ukraine before it widens out of control. Timofeev actually believes, God help him, that Trump has pushed for peace in Ukraine. How can Trump push for peace when the military/security complex needs the Russian enemy, without which its budget and power are reduced? Trump has not repudiated the Wolfowitz Doctrine of US hegemony. Trump has not met with Putin. As the Ukraine conflict is Washington’s proxy war with Russia, only Trump and Putin can resolve the conflict. Trump has made no attempt to resolve it. He has passed it off to Zelensky, who cannot resolve it, because it is Washington’s war.

The Western world has not heard a word that Putin has said. Putin said, repeatedly, that the war cannot be resolved unless it deals with the root cause, which is the absence of a mutual security agreement. The West has made it perfectly clear that it does not want a mutual security agreement with Russia. What else explains Washington’s use of the conflict to expand NATO into Finland and Sweden, to militarize Moldavia, to stir up trouble in Soviet Central Asia against Russia? It is extraordinary that one never sees, with the exception of Sputnik journalist Ekaterina Blinova, any intelligent analysis from a Russian commentator available in English. No doubt there is Russian discussion that is kept from us.

Another example of Kremlin insouciance is the announcement last Friday by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “The only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is through the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.” Here we have again the “two-state solution” that has been the cover since 1947 for Israel’s theft of Palestine. Every year Israel steals a little more of Palestine, and the complicit West says “the two-state solution.” The Kremlin is still saying it when there is not a building standing in Gaza and an Israeli government minister has declared the Israeli parliament has in effect annexed the tiny remnants of the West Bank. Trump has already claimed Gaza, so where is Palestine? It is a county that no longer exists. America and Israel have wiped it off the planet.

The Israeli government declaration reads: “the creation of a Palestinian state poses a Mortal danger to Israel’s existence. The Knesset declares that the State of Israel has the natural, historical, and legal right to all parts of the Land of Israel.” In other words, Palestine doesn’t exist. In the face of this unequivocal statement by the Israeli government the Kremlin says the solution is a two-state solution. What more do you need to see that Russia is disconnected from reality, has no comprehension of what is happening, and by failing to exercise a leadership role has committed the world to Third War Three.

Read more …

“This raid reeks – and it smells like gangsterism, not democracy.”

• ‘Corrupt’ Ukraine Cannot Be Trusted – Former Trump Advisor (RT)

Kiev’s recent crackdown on anti-corruption agencies is yet more proof that Ukrainian leaders are leaning towards authoritarianism and “cannot be trusted,” Steve Cortes, a former advisor to US President Donald Trump, has said. Earlier this month, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky moved to place the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) under executive oversight – which would essentially strip them of any independence – while claiming the agencies were under Russian influence. The move, however, prompted mass protests at home and Western criticism, with EU officials warning that they could reconsider further aid to Kiev. In an op-ed for Newsweek on Friday, Cortes, who is now the president of the League of American Workers advocacy group, described the crackdown as “an extra-judicial attack on decency.”

“This raid reeks – and it smells like gangsterism, not democracy.” The move by Zelensky, reportedly backed by his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak – whom Cortes described as “co-president” – shows that they “act in very authoritarian ways themselves – and increasingly reveal to the world that they are not transparent, reliable partners for the United States.” Cortes went on to accuse Kiev of entrenched high-level corruption and argued that continued US aid is unjustified. “It is no wonder that Americans increasingly realize that sending $175 billion of borrowed money to corrupt leaders in Ukraine is just not sound policy,” he wrote. “Sending mountains of borrowed funds to kleptocrats actually harms America’s national security, all while making our country poorer,” he said while urging Americans to stop lionizing Zelensky and comprehend the reality of Ukraine’s corruption.

The American people have been unbelievably generous, but our patience is wearing thin… In this case, given the latest tactics and optics of the Zelensky/Yermak regime, it becomes ever clearer that these counterparts cannot be trusted. Following domestic and international backlash, Zelensky backpedaled on the crackdown, proposing that the independence of Ukraine’s anti-graft institutions be restored. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that neither NABU nor SAPO is really fighting corruption but rather are used by Kiev’s backers as tools “to control the flow of money coming to Ukraine from the West.”

Read more …

That seems to be a hopeful first. Then again, if the total is $100 billion…

• EU Slashes $1.7bn In Aid To Ukraine Over Corruption Concerns (ZH)

Have we reached the beginning of the end for Zelensky? Does this spell game-over and victory for Putin and Russia? The following is a very rare admission from the hard news pages of The New York Times: “James Wasserstrom, an American anticorruption expert, said in an interview that “the luster is definitely coming off” Mr. Zelensky’s wartime leadership among governments providing financial assistance. He added, “There is exasperation at Zelensky in the donor community.” Early last week, there were unexpected images coming from Kiev of the largest demonstrations against the Ukrainian government since Russia invaded more than three years ago, as more than 2,000 people gathered near the president’s office, shouting “shame” and “veto the law,” after President Zelensky signed a law gutting the country’s anti-corruption agency.

This was enough to get the attention of Kiev’s biggest donors, and days later on Friday the European Union announced it would suspend part of a €4.5 billion fund tied to good governance standards, with the NY Times reporting that the bloc has frozen €1.5 billion (about $1.7 billion) in financial aid to Ukraine over concerns about corruption and delays in key reforms. The decision is said to not be ‘final’ yet, and on Sunday President Zelensky held a crucial call with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. His office confirmed they discussed Ukraine’s anti-corruption system (…or we should say lack thereof). What is tantamount to EU sanctions being on the table would impact access to the funding, dependent on Ukraine meeting specific reform requirements known as “progress benchmarks.”

One critical unmet benchmark is the appointment of judges to the High Anti-Corruption Court, which is supposed to be an independent judiciary apparatus given the power to spotlight and battle elite corruption. The EU has also raised concerns about a lack of transparency and slow progress in the area of judicial reforms. This rare backlash from close allies with the deepest pocketbooks marks a huge blow to Zelensky – who has also kept himself in power way past his term mandate (citing the war with Russia) – after he pushed legislation through the Verkhovna Rada seen as greatly underminng the independence of two key anti-corruption bodies: the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).

Critics have increasingly highlighted that these actions have come in unison with other martial law policies during the war, including the silencing of journalists, civil society activists, the suppression of the Russian language, the persecution of the Orthodox Church, as well as the wholesale banning of opposition parties. The New York Times comments as follows: “The two agencies — the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine and the Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office — had been investigating top ministers in the Zelensky government. The president’s decision to kneecap them, though reversed, prompted accusations of cronyism that jeopardized backing from civil society groups at home and Western nations bankrolling the war.

The European Union established this aid mechanism, the Ukraine Facility, last year and promised 50 billion euros over three years for repairing war damage and preparing the country for E.U. accession. The European Commission spokesman, Guillaume Mercier, told journalists in Brussels on Friday that Ukraine had requested a disbursement in June despite falling short on three of 16 benchmarks, including failing to make appointments to a specialized anticorruption court.”

Further, the report noted “That court tries cases brought by the two agencies whose independence Mr. Zelensky threatened this week.” Even British prime minister Kier Starmer has reportedly phoned Zelensky’s office this past week to discuss his latest moves regarding corruption investigations. And when you’ve potentially lost the Brits and Europeans, your wartime star power has most definitely faded. President Putin and Kremlin officials are sure to seize on the anti-Zelensky momentum diplomatically, as they engage Trump officials behind the scenes as part of ongoing bilateral talks. Trump has of course never been a close friend of “the world’s greatest salesman” Zelensky – and could be ready to dump him especially if the mood turns drastically in Europe.

Read more …

Yes, you can make it confusing. Yes, in some places 8 is the age of consent.

• The Epstein Saga: What It Is Really About (Paul Craig Roberts)

We have to decide whether the Epstein story is child rape or Mossad blackmail. If “child” is defined as under the statutory age of female sexual consent, in the US depending on the state, a child is a female under 16 years of age, under 17 years of age, or under 18 years of age. In New York the age of female consent is 17. In Hawaii it is 16. Hawaii has a “close-in-age” exception that allows 14 year olds to consent with those up to 21 years in age. In Hawaii the goal seems to be not to prevent underaged females from sexual intercourse but to prevent overaged males (over 21) from sex with females declared underaged for them but not for younger men. There is an element here of age discrimination. In the Philippines the age of female consent is 12. In Germany the requirement is for a female to be 14 years old in order for a sexual relationship with a male over 18 to be legal.

In Mexico the age of consent is 15. In Russia it is 16. It Japan it is 13 but is being raised to 16. In England it is 16. In Italy and China the age of consent is 14. In Denmark and Poland it is 15. In Saudi Arabia sex is only legal within marriage. The legal age for marriage for males is 18, for females 16. In the 1950s the age of consent in the state of Georgia was 14. In Delaware in the late 19th century it was 7, yes 7, not a typo. During the 1880s the age of consent in many US states varied between 10 and 12. Whatever the varying legislated age, if the information provided me is correct that some mothers have 12 year old daughters on birth control pills, the de facto age of female sexual consent in the US is 12.

Was Virginia Giuffre a child? If she is American it depends on her state of residence. If she is British, Australian or a New York resident, she is not a child. There was no child rape of Virginia Giuffre for which she collected three million pounds according to reports. Normally we think of a child as before puberty. I don’t know if Epstein had such young kids as sex bait for his entrapment scheme. If so, it would seem to involve kidnapping in addition to illegal underage sex. Would the prominent Jewish billionaires, who Ryan Dawson says was Mossad’s way of directing funds to Epstein, put themselves at risk by being complicit in kidnapping and underage sex? Why would they when there are volunteers attracted to influential men just as groupies are attracted to rock stars.

Young women are not what they formerly were. It is a fact that many young women have porn sites on which they proudly demonstrate themselves in sexual activity that not long ago would have been regarded as depraved. Some of them compete in having the largest number of sexual partners in a 24 hour time period. One has a goal of 1,000 sexual partners in 24 hours, which with no breaks for food, water, or toilet, comes to about 80 seconds per partner. It has become a matter of pride to achieve sexual penetration by 1,000 strangers in 24 hours. According to reports, young women in Internet chat brag about having had 150 sexual partners. True or false, it shows they are not shamed by their behavior whether claimed or real. What I have reported are facts, not a brief for pedophilia. Use the facts to decide whether the Epstein Saga is one of child sex-trafficking or one of a Mossad honey-trap for blackmail purposes to ensure US policy in the Middle East conforms to Israel’s.

Sex-trafficking of children in the US is far more extensive than Epstein’s operation. Principally, the sex-trafficking of illegal alien children. Many were separated from their parents, and if reports are correct tens of thousands, or is it hundreds of thousands, of them have been “lost.” US authorities don’t know where they are. Another source was the seizure of children by Child Protective Services, many of whom allegedly ended up in child prostitution. As far as I know, nothing has been done to find and to rescue these children. As a final suggestion, consider whether the purpose of the hullabaloo over Epstein’s sex-trafficking is to focus attention off the Israeli spy operation that has succeeded in destroying an independent American Middle East policy and five Muslim countries regarded as obstacles to Greater Israel.

Read more …

“Anyone who expresses critical views on war preparations must apparently expect house searches…”

” In the latest Yougov poll, the [..] CDU lost 3.5 percent of the vote, while the AfD has jumped 4.2 points.”

• German Police Raid AfD MEP’s Property For The 22nd Time (RMX)

German police have raided Alternative for Germany (AfD) MEP Petr Bystron’s property for the 22nd time, using the pretext of his connection to the defunct Voice of Europe website, which was run by a man exiled from Ukraine. The house raid came while Bystron was in Washington D.C., meeting with Trump officials, including congressmen and allies of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. On early Tuesday morning, German police searched an older warehouse where Bystron conducted business a decade ago. “This is targeted terror against the opposition,” Bystron said in a press release. “There is no other way to classify the absurd behavior of the authorities.” Bystron was the target of Czech intelligence services last year, who decided to release a variety of allegations surrounding their investigation at a rather opportune time—right before EU parliamentary elections.

The raid against Voice of Europe (VoE) and the accusations against Bystron, which Remix News covered, was widely seen as damaging the AfD’s reputation before voters headed to the polls. Notably, Czech intelligence claimed to have voice recordings that revealed Bystron was involved with a scheme to provide politicians with money in exchange for conducting interviews with the outlet VoE. The Czech authorities have never made the recording of Bystron public despite demands from the AfD to release it. Nobody has ever been charged to date in connection with the allegations, including Bystron himself. Bystron, however, was the only name that was released in connection with the case, although authorities claimed six European politicians received money from VoE.

The raid against Bystron may be seen as especially provocative as it was conducted at a time when Bystron was out of the country and meeting with Trump officials and congressmen. He is seen as the AfD party’s key bridge to American policymakers and is known for his connections to the Republican Party. Bystron himself said that despite his properties being raided 21 times, the police have not turned up any incriminating information against him. He also said that the police have even raided his elderly mother’s room in her retirement home and took testimony from her, despite her having been officially declared by the court as a dementia patient. “Every single one of these 22 searches was illegal. Each one marks a step away from a democratic constitutional state and toward an authoritarian regime that seeks to silence dissent by any means necessary,” Bystron told the Gateway Pundit.

Notably, the house raid of Bystron also occurred on the same day that a top German court in Leipzig rejected a significant AfD’s appeal. The party was working to overturn its current designation as a “suspected extremist” party by the powerful domestic spy agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). With all appeals now exhausted, this means the BfV can conduct extraordinary surveillance on the AfD, including targeting members with wiretaps, reading their chats and emails, and using informants to infiltrate the party. A number of prominent commentators on the German right have already highlighted the case on X, with Naomi Seibt stating: “They are spitting in the face of J.D. Vance.”

Other news outlets have also met the news of the incredible number of house searches targeting the AfD MEP with concern about Germany’s quickly evolving totalitarian methods for dealing with dissent. “Anyone who expresses critical views on war preparations must apparently expect house searches,” said a reporter from AUF1 in a video post shared by Bystron himself. Pressure has grown on the German government over the incredible growth of the AfD. In the latest Yougov poll, the party is tied for first place with the CDU, with 25 percent of the vote. The CDU lost 3.5 percent of the vote, while the AfD has jumped 4.2 points.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Arno

Piers

Bleach

Blue
https://twitter.com/Amelia13brown/status/1949128022013181963

Baby owls

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 27 2025

Jul 272025
 
 July 27, 2025  Posted by at 10:02 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  121 Responses »


René Magritte La belle captive 1946

 

• Devin Nunes Discusses the DNI Revelations Released by Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)
• Trump Goes There: Calls Out Bill Clinton in Epstein Scandal (Margolis)
• Obama’s CIA Chief ‘Knowingly Used False Intelligence’ To Undermine Trump (Margolis)
• Team Obama Is Running Scared as Russiagate Cover Story Collapses (Margolis)
• Democrats Let California Burn While Aid Went Missing – Trump (RT)
• From Hero to Zero (Ian Proud)
• Kiev Kleptocracy… Stench of Corruption Fouls NATO Regime’s Endgame (SCF)
• Zelensky Thought He Was Killing It. He Was (Loginov)
• The Kremlin Hates von der Leyen About As Much As EU Lawmakers Do (Marsden)
• Hungary Opposes Turning EU’s Budget Into Ukraine’s (RT)
• Ukraine’s Accession Will Bring War To EU – Orban (RT)
• EU Secretly Pressures US Firms To Censor Immigration Criticism: House GOP (JTN)
• Ghislaine Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity, Gives DOJ ‘100 Different People’ (NYP)
• Rubio Shares Trump’s Feelings About Russia-Ukraine Conflict (RT)
• Destroy Russia. Fail? No Problem: Let’s Destroy China! (Pepe Escobar)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1948832714456793580

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1948791933859508340

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1948855003319591176

debt
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1949108419891225023

 

 

 

 

Little things. Devin Nunes is the former chairman of the House Intelligence Commitee, head of Trump Media, and now Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Through him, Sundance describes a March 2022 lawsuit filed by Trump vs a large group of individuals and entities. Only, it didn’t look like a lawsuit, lots of details were missing. Sundance figured out that it wasn’t meant as a lawsuit, it was “a legal transfer mechanism”. Trump needed evidence available to lawyers somewhere, things needed to be “on the record”, but ‘because of the construct of the lawfare being deployed against Trump, any lawyer would need a “reason* to review the evidence. The Trump -v- Clinton et al lawsuit becomes that ‘reason.’

Great conversation with Gaetz and Nunes.

• Devin Nunes Discusses the DNI Revelations Released by Tulsi Gabbard (CTH)

Former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes appears on OAN with former Congressman Matt Gaetz to discuss the information released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. As noted by Nunes, why did it take this long for the information to surface? That question showcases how corrupt the DC system -the Intelligence Community- is in its effort to protect itself from accountability. Nunes also points to the raid on Mar-a-Lago as a possible entry point for investigative accountability.

Let me refresh on something that could potentially be a revelation down the road. In 2022 a Florida judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by President Trump against Hillary Clinton. [65-page Ruling Here] The media enjoyed ridiculing Trump using the words of the judge who dismissed the case. As noted by the Washington Times, “Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, a Clinton appointee, said Mr. Trump’s filing was too lengthy, detailing events that “are implausible because they lack any specific allegations which might provide factual support for the conclusions reached.” When I originally read the 108-page Donald Trump lawsuit filed in March 2022, it took me a few moments, and then I realized this was not a lawsuit; this was a legal transfer mechanism created by lawyers to establish a proprietary information silo.

Here’s a totally different take on the issues surrounding the Trump -v- Clinton lawsuit, which -from the outset- I always believed was going to be dismissed because suing all of those characters under the auspices of a civil RICO case was never the objective. In the aftermath of the filing, the silo created by the lawsuit is grounded upon attorney-client privilege, a legal countermeasure to a predictable DOJ-NSD lawfare maneuver, which unfolded in the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid and the subsequent Jack Smith targeting operation. In March 2022 President Trump filed a civil lawsuit against: Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe. [108-Page Lawsuit Here]

When I was about one-third of the way through reading the lawsuit, I initially stopped and said to myself this is going to take a lot of documentary evidence to back up the claims in the assertions. Dozens of attachments would be needed and hundreds of citations to the dozens of attachments would be mandatory. Except, they were not there. After reading further, while completely understanding the background material that was being described in the filing, I realized this wasn’t a lawsuit per se’. The 108-pages I was holding in my hands was more akin to legal transfer mechanism from President Trump to lawyers who needed it. The lawsuit filing was contingent upon a series of documents that would be needed to support the claims within it. Whoever wrote the lawsuit had obviously reviewed the evidence to support the filing. However, the attachments and citations were missing. That was weird.

That’s when I realized the purpose of the lawsuit. In hindsight, things became clear when the FBI later raided the home of Donald Trump, and suddenly the motive to confiscate documents, perhaps the missing lawsuit attachments and citations, surfaced. With the manipulative, and I said intentional, “ongoing investigation” angle created by the John Durham probe essentially blocking public release of declassified documents showing the efforts of all the lawsuit participants (Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax), in 2021 President Trump needed a legal way to secure and more importantly share evidence.

Think of it like the people around Trump wanting to show lawyers the evidence in the documents. However,because of the construct of the lawfare being deployed against Trump, any lawyer would need a *reason* to review the evidence. The Trump -v- Clinton et al lawsuit becomes that ‘reason.’ The “documents” (classified or not) were likely reviewed by lawyers in preparation for the lawsuit. This is their legal justification for reviewing the documents. In essence, the lawsuit was a transfer mechanism permitting the Trump legal team to review the evidence on behalf of their client, former President Donald Trump.

Read more …

Why does Trump go there? “Clinton flew with a known predator, when to his island, and is seen in photographs with Epstein victims… yet the press won’t ask why..”

• Trump Goes There: Calls Out Bill Clinton in Epstein Scandal (Margolis)

In a political world where Democrats are scrambling to memory-hole every scrap of the Jeffrey Epstein disaster that is damaging to their own party, and trying to make it a Donald Trump scandal, the media is more than happy to help them rewrite history. And President Trump has had enough. After all the fake news and the bogus accusations, on Friday, Trump decided he’d had enough, and barreled right into the hornet’s nest and started torching it with a flamethrower. Reporters asked about the pervert financier’s infamous sex trafficking operation—and Trump didn’t dodge or deflect. He unloaded, pointing the finger straight at former President Bill Clinton. “You ought to be speaking about [former Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. You ought to be speaking about some of, uh, his friends that are hedge fund guys. They’re all over the place. You ought to be speaking about Bill Clinton, who went to the island 28 times. I never went to the island.”

When a reporter followed up by asking whether he had written a letter for Epstein’s birthday party, Trump flatly rejected the claim. “I don’t even know what they’re talking about,” he said. “Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name, but that’s happened a lot. All you have to do is take a look at the dossier, the fake dossier.” He continued attacking Democrats, accusing them of spreading misinformation and fabricating evidence: “Everything’s fake with that administration. Everything’s fake with the Democrats. Take a look at what they just found about, about the dossier.” Repeating the theme, Trump added, “Everything is fake. They’re a bunch of sick people.”

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1948743571495899323

Clinton has spent years denying he ever visited Epstein’s island. In his 2024 memoir, he repeats the same tired line, pretending he barely knew Epstein, however, it’s public record at this point that Bill Clinton hobnobbed with Epstein, jetted off to his notorious island over and over. But the media has turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton’s deep, well-documented relationship with Epstein. Clinton wants America to take his word that he was just there for the sunshine and cocktails. However, Johanna Sjoberg, an Epstein accuser who testified under oath in 2016, says Epstein once told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” Meanwhile, Clinton’s team refused to answer questions about a birthday letter he reportedly sent to Epstein, and instead recycled the same tired statement that he cut ties with Epstein “more than a decade before” Epstein’s 2019 arrest—and supposedly knew nothing about his crimes.

Trump, meanwhile, has said plainly he never set foot on the island—and there’s no evidence to the contrary. But the press keeps hounding him, while running cover for Democrats. Working-class Americans see the double standard. Clinton flew with a known predator, when to his island, and is seen in photographs with Epstein victims… yet the press won’t ask why. There’s no outrage, no wall-to-wall coverage—just more selective silence, buried like the Hunter Biden laptop. The hypocrisy is obvious. If Trump sneezes, it’s a crisis. But Democrats can cozy up to monsters and never be called out for it. Well, Trump’s calling them out now.

Read more …

“Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe obstructed the House Intel Committee by prohibiting interviews with more than 30 FBI employees involved in supporting Brennan’s notorious “fusion cell.”

“Brennan “knowingly used false intelligence” to try to undermine President-elect Trump, a federal offense that constitutes outright fraud against the American government..”

[..the Steele Dossier]: “When senior officers called out its obvious flaws in a Dec. 2016 Langley meeting, Brennan stubbornly insisted, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?”

• Obama’s CIA Chief ‘Knowingly Used False Intelligence’ To Undermine Trump (Margolis)

If you thought the Russian collusion hoax couldn’t get any uglier, think again. The circus orchestrated by Obama’s intelligence brass is unraveling in spectacular fashion, and John Brennan finds himself squarely in the crosshairs, not for a political dispute, but for criminal prosecution. This latest chapter, now marked by damning revelations, reeks of a conspiracy to subvert not only a presidency, but the very core of American democracy. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s recent confirmation hit like a thunderbolt: Barack Obama, the architect of this mess, has been named in an official criminal referral to the Justice Department. Brennan, Obama’s CIA chief and a man whose fingerprints are found all over this operation, is most likely staring down an indictment. James Comey isn’t far behind, either; both he and Brennan are already under extreme scrutiny by the FBI. It’s as if each turn yields another layer of deception and abuse of power. Even hardened law professors like Jonathan Turley recognize Brennan as a high-profile trophy for prosecutors—he’s now the “30-point buck out in the open,” primed to fall.

The scope of misconduct here borders on the surreal. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) dropped a 46-page bombshell report that systematically destroyed Brennan’s ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment), which Obama ordered up as a final act of sabotage against Donald Trump. According to Paul Sperry, an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations, the findings were so relentlessly damning that the CIA refused to cooperate, went as far as obfuscating evidence, and sabotaged committee investigators: Shockingly, two key developments torpedoed any last defense for Brennan.

First, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe obstructed the House Intel Committee by prohibiting interviews with more than 30 FBI employees involved in supporting Brennan’s notorious “fusion cell.” Not a single FBI analyst connected to the ICA was allowed to testify; they were all silenced. Second, DNI Gabbard revealed that Brennan “knowingly used false intelligence” to try to undermine President-elect Trump, a federal offense that constitutes outright fraud against the American government. But perhaps the most grotesque twist in this saga is the beating heart of the Russian collusion hoax: the Steele Dossier. Long debunked, thoroughly discredited, and condemned by the same CIA Russia analysts Brennan himself supervised, the dossier was forcibly embedded in Obama’s handpicked ICA.

When senior officers called out its obvious flaws in a Dec. 2016 Langley meeting, Brennan stubbornly insisted, “Yes, but doesn’t it ring true?” In other words, narrative trumped evidence for Obama’s CIA. Despite heated objections, the ICA’s drafters, chosen by Brennan himself, followed marching orders to weaponize dubious rumor and produce a document that served political ends, not reality. As we’ve noted before, the original assessments from Obama’s own intelligence community found no evidence that Russia altered the outcome of the 2016 election. But that didn’t suit the narrative Obama wanted. So he ordered the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to be rewritten—pressuring John Brennan and his allies to force their preferred conclusion into the official record.

It wasn’t about accuracy or national security. It was about sabotage. They leaked their distortions to a compliant media and set out to delegitimize a duly elected president. The damage they caused to the American republic was—and still is—immeasurable. Now, the truth tumbles out into the open. Brennan’s strategy of “just making it ring true” has collapsed. Those responsible must be held accountable—not because of partisanship but because weaponizing U.S. intelligence agencies to undermine the will of the people is one of the gravest threats imaginable. Americans deserve justice, and the reckoning for Brennan and his Obama-era co-conspirators cannot come soon enough.

Read more …

“The legacy media is once again doing damage control—this time by rolling out anonymous Obama allies to accuse Trump and Gabbard of fabricating “treason” claims to distract from the Epstein scandal..”

• Team Obama Is Running Scared as Russiagate Cover Story Collapses (Margolis)

Team Obama is panicking. You can see it in every flailing move, every desperate media blitz, and every attempt to deflect from the deep, unresolved questions about the origins of Russiagate. The architects of the infamous hoax—Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey—have all been exposed, thanks to the tenacity of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who recently dropped declassified documents implicating the Obama-era intelligence cabal in concocting and perpetuating the false Russia narrative that hounded President Donald Trump throughout his first term. The stakes are real. Gabbard’s release didn’t just shine a light on the feverish efforts to smear Trump; it laid bare how these intelligence heavyweights cobbled together artificial intel on Trump while deliberately concealing explosive evidence that raised grave concerns about Hillary Clinton’s fitness for office.

Yeah, we’re not forgetting about that. The legacy media is once again doing damage control—this time by rolling out anonymous Obama allies to accuse Trump and Gabbard of fabricating “treason” claims to distract from the Epstein scandal. It’s a transparent attempt to spin the narrative and pressure Republicans into ignoring the growing pile of evidence. I previously wrote about how former State Department spokesperson Ned Price, an Obama White House veteran and ex-CIA analyst, wrote a panicked op-ed for Fox News, lashing out at Tulsi Gabbard, accusing her of pushing revisionist history and dangerously inflating the 2016 Russia collusion narrative. Remarkably absent from his piece is any substantive defense of the narrative he once championed, namely, that Russia tried to influence the election. Of course, he’s not alone.

Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has not only hit the media circuit but has also revealed he’s lawyered up. Former CIA Director John Brennan slammed the Trump administration’s findings about the 2016 Russia assessment as “unsurprising, very troubling, and very dangerous.” He called the administration’s defense “ludicrous,” comparing it to “a third-rate lawyer who realizes she has nothing to defend her client and is going to put together an absurd brief that’s laughable on its face.” Brennan claimed the original report was “very carefully worded, meticulously done,” and “stands up to scrutiny,” and continued to lean on the claim it showed Russia acted “at President Putin’s direction” to influence the election in favor of Trump. Susan Miller, a retired CIA officer who helped craft the 2017 intel assessment on Russian election interference, is accusing Gabbard and the Trump White House of “lying” about the intel report’s findings.

Speaking to NBC News, Miller claims the intelligence clearly showed Russia aimed to help Trump win in 2016—though she acknowledged there was no evidence of collusion between Trump’s team and Moscow. Her remarks appear to be a defensive pushback against growing scrutiny of the intel community’s role in shaping the now-discredited Trump-Russia narrative. Team Obama’s panic is nothing short of palpable. The exposure of their manufactured narrative is unraveling before their eyes. Each frantic appearance, each attempt to discredit their critics, only serves to confirm what the American public is starting to see: The hoax was real, and its architects are running out of places to hide. The more they scramble, the more obvious it becomes—Obama’s team is scared, and for the first time, genuinely unsure of what awaits them next.

Read more …

$100 million dollars was raised through a FireAid concert for victims of California’s January wildfires. $100 million dollars is missing.

• Democrats Let California Burn While Aid Went Missing – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump has accused Democrats of mishandling $100 million raised through a FireAid concert for victims of California’s January wildfires, calling the initiative “a total disaster” and alleging the money has not reached those affected. Wildfires broke out in early January across Southern California, killing at least 31 people, destroying more than 18,000 structures, leaving tens of thousands displaced, and causing total property losses between $76 billion and $131 billion. The FireAid concert, held January 30, was said to have raised approximately $100 million for wildfire relief. During the broadcast, host Samuel L. Jackson told viewers that “all the money will go directly to people who need help.”

However, in a Truth Social post published on Friday, Trump slammed FireAid as a “total disaster” and “another Democrat inspired scam.” “100 million dollars is missing. Was supposed to go to the Los Angeles fire victims, fires that, with proper management, would never have even happened,” Trump wrote. His comments come after several investigations found that the FireAid funds never reached the wildfire victims. David Howard, who lost two homes in Pacific Palisades, told Fox News, “I have not seen any benefit from the FireAid money, and I am very involved here and neither have my neighbors.” Another victim, Mark Jones, said he expected help after the concert but was never contacted.

FireAid has since stated that it does not distribute funds directly to individuals and has reported that $75 million has been granted so far to 188 nonprofits, with the remaining $25 million scheduled for release in August for long-term recovery, environmental resilience, and rebuilding. While no evidence of fraud has been disclosed, Trump has said that he would be referring the case of the missing funds to the US attorney general, telling reporters that “I think they are going to act very strongly.” Trump has repeatedly blamed California Governor Gavin Newsom and his policies for the fires, accusing him of restricting access to water in the state. Newsom has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling the claims “pure fiction.”

Read more …

Zelensky is losing “it”. The tide is turning.

“He has been completely immune from any criticism in the west, with all allegations dismissed and labelled as Kremlin talking points. Yet, in an instant, that illusion has been shattered.”

• From Hero to Zero (Ian Proud)

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, in February 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky has been elevated to the status of a hero King, pure in thought and deed, interested only in saving humble Ukraine from the onrushing hordes of Russian Orcs. Like Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, but short, thin-skinned and with a gravelly voice. He has been completely immune from any criticism in the west, with all allegations dismissed and labelled as Kremlin talking points. Yet, in an instant, that illusion has been shattered. For the first time since February 2022, Zelensky has been revealed as, in practical terms, no different from other Ukrainian Presidents who have preceded him since the country gained independence in August 1991; corrupt and authoritarian. This comes as no surprise to most realists, but will be a devastating blow to the neo-liberal true-believers who have invested their reputations and cash into defeating Russia.

This week, President Zelensky signed a law that strips two important anti-corruption bodies – the National Anti-Courrption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of their independence, making them report to the Prosecutor General, who he appointed. Let’s be clear, corruption is and has been a hugely totemic issue in Ukraine, right back to the onset of the Maidan protests in late 2013. During my visits to Ukraine, while posted to Russia, it was absolutely clear that young people believed tackling corruption to be a top priority for the government. This formed part of their desire for Ukraine to move towards European Union membership, for their country to integrate into a community more clearly governed by democracy and the rule of law.

Whether they might consider the European Union to be democratic today, as unelected Commission President Ursula von der Leyen centralises ever more powers, is another question. But that European and anti-corruption aspiration was very real back in 2013. Yet scant progress has been made in tackling corruption since that time. In February 2015, one year after the heigh of the Maidan protests, the British Guardian newspaper published a long piece entitled ‘Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe’. The Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, who had been personally selected by Victoria Nuland at the U.S. State Department, was forced to resign in April 2016 in the face of allegations of widespread corruption within his government.

In 2021, the European Court of Auditors produced a report entitled Reducing Grand Corruption in Ukraine: several EU initiatives, but still insufficient results. It defined Grand Corruption as ‘the abuse of high-level power that benefits the few, and causes serious and widespread harm to individuals and society’. In January 2023, an article in the Hill remarked on the need to defeat corruption as Ukraine’s ‘other enemy’. Shortly after that article, a piece, again in the Guardian, discussed the challenges faced by the Head of Ukraine’s National Agency for Corruption Prevention (NACP), which works closely with the now de-clawed NABU and SAPO.

That report in particular talked about specific examples of corruption in President Zelensky’s inner circle. Occasionally, Zelensky has purged his cabinet, to show his commitment to governmental reform, for example, sacking his former Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, in the face of widespread accusations that the Ukrainian Defence Ministry was siphoning off foreign donations on an industrial scale. But the occasional show trial has never taken the whiff away that Zelensky’s administration is every bit as corrupt as those that preceded it. And President Zelensky was voted into office in 2019 on a platform to eradicate corruption in Ukraine. In truth, he has done nothing to tackle it.

Read more …

“The Washington Post reported: “Ukrainians protest as Zelensky cracks down on corruption watchdogs.” Ditto, among others, The New York Times, Time, CNN, France 24, The Economist, BBC, and even the usually supportive CIA-run Radio Free Europe. With remarkable uniformity, the Western media were condemning their erstwhile favorite “Churchillian figure”..

• Kiev Kleptocracy… Stench of Corruption Fouls NATO Regime’s Endgame (SCF)

Previously, any observer who had pointed out the rampant corruption that is endemic in the Kiev regime was automatically denounced by Western governments and media as a peddler of Russian disinformation. Hilariously, though, this week, the Kiev kleptocracy burst open in such a spectacular way that even the American and European apologists for the regime could no longer maintain the worst-kept secret of their charade. The fiasco exploded after the self-appointed President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, passed a law that stripped two anti-corruption agencies of their independent powers. Citizens took to the streets of Kiev and other cities in furious protest against what they openly lambasted as an autocratic regime trying to prolong its corrupt racketeering. The demonstrations were the largest seen on the streets of Ukraine despite the country being at war with Russia for over three years.

As the Wall Street Journal reported: “The protests exposed long dormant divisions between the government and society.” Zelensky, whose official presidential mandate expired last year, was stunned by the upsurge in public anger. By the end of the week, he was backtracking on the move to close the anti-graft agencies and was claiming, somewhat unconvincingly, that he was drafting a new bill to return the investigative powers. It was damage-limitation mode and largely prompted by the alarm of his Western backers. It is not clear if the U-turn will appease the Ukrainian public, who appear to have reached a pivotal level of disgust with the Kiev regime, not just over its endemic corruption but also over the grinding war with Russia and forced mobilization of reluctant military recruits.

Significantly, the Western governments and media also reacted with extraordinary contempt towards Zelensky and his ruling circle. Western media headlines highlighted the problem of corruption in Ukraine and Zelensky’s brazen attempt to curb the anti-corruption organizations. The Washington Post reported: “Ukrainians protest as Zelensky cracks down on corruption watchdogs.” Ditto, among others, The New York Times, Time, CNN, France 24, The Economist, BBC, and even the usually supportive CIA-run Radio Free Europe. With remarkable uniformity, the Western media were condemning their erstwhile favorite “Churchillian figure”. Even the slavishly supportive U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham rebuked Zelensky. Were they all of a sudden drinking Russian Kool-Aid?

The Wall Street Journal reported: “Ukrainians ramp up protests as Zelensky tries to find a way out.” Likewise, the BBC headlined: “Zelensky backtracks on law over anticorruption bodies after protests.” There are signs that the scandal has gone too far for Zelensky to now try to put the stench back in the bottle. This is what the staunchest backers of the Kiev regime are really worried about. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer were among the European leaders who vigorously remonstrated with Zelensky over the corruption debacle. Von der Leyen chided Zelensky that anti-corruption was key to the country’s path towards eventually joining the EU, if it ever does, which, like its aspiration to join NATO, is doubtful.

What worries the NATO sponsors of the proxy war against Russia is that the corruption in Kiev will hasten a disorderly collapse of the regime. And with that, their long-term geopolitical game to confront and weaken Russia is over. The news of corruption is hardly new, and the Western governments know that. Pentagon auditors have long noted the vast amount of money that has disappeared unaccountably under Zelensky.

The racketeering has become even more brazen since Zelensky declared martial law and cancelled elections last year, making him a self-appointed president indefinitely. The Ukrainian people have had it with his crony rule, while thousands of men are killed and maimed every week on the front lines. Adding to the public anger and resistance are the goon squads that the regime dispatches to drag men off the streets to be sent to the front lines and certain death. Videos increasingly show Ukrainian communities standing up to snatch squads who are terrorizing them.

Read more …

“Over time, it became clear that Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party.”

• Zelensky Thought He Was Killing It. He Was (Loginov)

Ukrainians have had plenty of reasons to take to the streets: the cancellation of elections, forced mobilization, the refusal to demobilize soldiers who’ve been on the front lines for over three years, the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, corruption in the construction of fortifications, the state’s failure to have the bodies of fallen soldiers returned, and – above all – the complete absence of a plan for ending the conflict with Russia. This list could go on. And yet, none of these issues has triggered large-scale protests. What we’ve seen instead are isolated outbursts: in towns and villages, women block draft officers from entering their neighborhoods; churchgoers physically defend their parishes; the wives and mothers of Ukrainian soldiers stage small rallies to draw attention to their plight.

And yet, even in this atmosphere of fear and suppression, Vladimir Zelensky has managed to ignite a political crisis. The hasty passage of Bill No. 12414 – which stripped the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of their independence – sparked a wave of demonstrations that haven’t let up for days. It’s the first major popular protest since the start of Russia’s military operation, and it poses a serious challenge to Zelensky’s grip on power. Rallies have broken out in Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Rovno, and Nikolayev. While officials have tried to frame them as spontaneous, local expressions of concern about anti-corruption institutions, the scope and coordination suggest otherwise. The message to Zelensky is simple: the pressure is just beginning.

To understand why the anti-corruption issue struck such a nerve, we need to go back to the beginning. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) were established in 2015 with active backing from the United States – just a year after the coup in Kiev. At the time, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin openly stated that the idea for NABU came directly from then–Vice President Joe Biden. From the outset, these agencies functioned as tools of external oversight over the post-Maidan Ukrainian government. President Petro Poroshenko, who was still consolidating power and ideology, did not resist Washington’s involvement. NABU’s early targets included oligarchs like Igor Kolomoysky and Rinat Akhmetov, who controlled major media holdings. This suited Poroshenko, whose own business interests, notably, remained untouched.

Over time, it became clear that Ukraine’s anti-corruption bodies served not only their official mission but also the political interests of a specific faction – namely, the US Democratic Party. A prime example is the Paul Manafort case. In 2016, The New York Times, citing NABU sources, published claims that Manafort – then campaign chairman for Donald Trump – had received undisclosed payments from Ukraine’s Party of Regions under President Viktor Yanukovych. These claims prompted a US investigation into possible Ukrainian interference in the American election. In 2019, the Senate ultimately found no evidence – but the episode left a lasting impression. That same year, NABU played a role in deflecting scrutiny from the Burisma scandal – the energy company whose board included Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Over time, the link between these anti-corruption institutions and the US Democratic Party became apparent to many Ukrainians. And with Republicans now back in power in Washington, Zelensky appears to have decided it was time to free himself from external control. Zelensky likely assumed that the new American administration wouldn’t go out of its way to defend the Democratic Party’s proxies in Ukraine. Judging by Washington’s muted response, that calculation may have been correct. What he failed to consider, however, was the level of domestic resistance to his growing concentration of power.

Ukraine today is full of pressure points. Discontent is widespread – but scattered and disorganized. Zelensky’s opponents simply lack the means to unseat him. Moreover, Zelensky remains the centerpiece of the West’s anti-Russian strategy – a leader willing to accept any domestic cost in service of that agenda. Even policies that threaten the foundations of Ukrainian statehood are tolerated, so long as the broader project of an “anti-Russia” continues.

Read more …

“If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space.”

• The Kremlin Hates von der Leyen About As Much As EU Lawmakers Do (Marsden)

Apparently, trying to hold Ursula von der Leyen accountable is now a Russian op, reports Der Spiegel, citing a new NATO-linked think tank report. The study treats elected oversight and European lawmakers whose job, ideally, involves more than clapping like trained seals every time an unelected Eurocrat lights public money on fire, like elements of some kind of Russian infiltration plot. “Massive support for this effort was also found by pro-Kremlin media outlets, bloggers, and online influencers, as the Lithuania-based organization Debunk.org specializes in analyzing disinformation and Russian propaganda, which is seen as part of Russia’s hybrid warfare against the EU,” Spiegel wrote, describing Russian-linked media “fueling” a recent von der Leyen non-confidence vote in the EU Parliament. “Among the larger portals were those of the Russian propaganda channel RT…”

According to the advance copy of this report seen by Spiegel, the study reviewed 284 articles from Russian-linked media. Exactly how many of those articles expressed something like only von der Leyen’s ouster could save Europe? 90%? 75%? Maybe half? Nope, just 35%. Roughly the same percentage of voting EU lawmakers who favored ejecting her (32.7%). So by this logic, the Kremlin is about as supportive of Ursula as Brussels is. Awkward. Spiegel said that was the most common so-called Kremlin-backed narrative that the study found. Others included the suggestion that von der Leyen is part of a corrupt elite that robbed citizens to fill Big Pharma’s pockets. Because apparently, saying that hey, maybe EU contracts shouldn’t be inked via disappearing text messages with the CEO of a company, means that you’re doing Putin’s bidding. Real democracy means that you shut your mouth when you see your overlords doing shady stuff.

Another alleged Kremlin line? That Ursula, despite her presidential title, was never elected. As someone who personally refers to her as “Queen Ursula,” I’m actually surprised that one didn’t rank higher. It’s not like she won a popular vote or anything. She was handpicked in shady backrooms and then subjected to a simple confirmation by EU lawmakers. Her sole opponent in this so-called “election” was literally just “not Ursula.” Only the EU, in all its dystopian delusion, would call that an “election”. Then there was the claim that she’s obsessed with confronting Russia. Which is just, uh, objectively true? I mean, come on. If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space.

Even right before the vote, she accused the lawmakers subjecting her to democratic accountability of being Kremlin stooges just because they wanted her to explain herself. “There is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers, to put in apologists and you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean,” she pleaded.

Let’s back up here. Why exactly did she face this no-confidence vote? Because no one who’s elected and accountable at the EU has actually been able to provide concrete details of contract terms for the tens of billions of euros in Covid jabs that she strong-armed European governments into paying for. Jabs that are now so useless they’re being dumped in landfills all over Europe, where one-eyed stuffed animals, soggy pizza boxes, and a moldy futon just got their third booster, courtesy of the EU taxpayer. One of those contracts followed a flurry of text exchanges between Ursula and Pfizer CEO, Robert Bourla, which she bragged about to the New York Times right before they pulled a Houdini.

The courts have so far politely asked her to explain herself. And that’s where we’re stuck right now. So frustrated lawmakers figured that they could at least make her publicly squirm with a non-confidence vote in an attempt to get her to cough up at least some of the answers for taxpayers. The result? Ursula’s interpretive song and tap-dance routine in Parliament: “Putin Did It: Paranoia in Three Acts.” She ultimately survived the vote thanks to some budget crumbs thrown at the lefties who were otherwise saying that they would have voted against her. But even they told Politico that it was her “absolute last chance.”

Read more …

“The €2 trillion ($2.17 trillion) 2028–2034 [budget].”

“..analysts who estimate up to 25% of the budget could end up being spent on Kiev.”

That’s $500 billion. Fool’s gold.

• Hungary Opposes Turning EU’s Budget Into Ukraine’s (RT)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has slammed the European Commission’s proposed seven-year EU budget as a “budget for Ukraine,” in an interview with RIA Novosti published on Friday. The €2 trillion ($2.17 trillion) 2028–2034 spending plan published by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, which includes around €100 billion in aid for Ukraine and funds for potential EU accession, is “unacceptable,” according to the top Hungarian diplomat. The budget must be approved unanimously by all 27 member states, giving Hungary the power to block it. “We will not give it support or consent,” Szijjarto told RIA Novosti, adding, “this isn’t even the budget of the European Union – it’s a budget for Ukraine.”

Budapest has also warned that the draft shifts funds from cohesion policies and agricultural subsidies, which are vital to Central Europe. The proposal could undermine EU food security by forcing farmers out of business and increasing import reliance, Hungarian officials have said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also denounced the draft budget, warning it could “destroy the EU” and claiming its only purpose is “to admit Ukraine to the EU.” He has also cited analysts who estimate up to 25% of the budget could end up being spent on Kiev.

Germany has likewise rejected the plan, calling it “unacceptable” amid efforts by EU members to reduce their national deficits. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has noted that Ukraine is unlikely to even join the bloc before 2034, when the current budget cycle ends. Ukraine has designated EU accession as a national priority. While Brussels has suggested Kiev could join by 2030, all existing members must approve its entry. Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland remain opposed, citing concerns about Ukraine’s readiness and its potential financial burden on the bloc. While the Kremlin initially said Ukraine had the sovereign right to join the EU, Russian officials have since hardened their stance, accusing the bloc of undergoing “rabid militarization” and becoming an offshoot of NATO.

Read more …

“He argued that Kiev’s full membership would come with “war risks.” “Ukraine is a buffer state, and we do not wish to share its fate. We understand what that means, having once been on the western periphery of the Soviet Union..”

• Ukraine’s Accession Will Bring War To EU – Orban (RT)

Ukrainian membership in the European Union would threaten Hungary’s security and raise the risk of war in the region, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said. Ukraine, which was granted EU candidate status in 2022, has made joining the bloc a national priority. While Brussels has floated 2030 as a possible accession date, all current member states must approve the move. Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland remain opposed, citing concerns over the country’s preparedness and the financial strain its membership could place on the EU. Warsaw has additionally insisted that Kiev come to terms with war crimes committed by Ukrainians during WWII. In an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday,

Orban said that Hungary, which shares a border with Ukraine, would be especially vulnerable to any escalation resulting from the EU’s expansion. He argued that Kiev’s full membership would come with “war risks.” “Ukraine is a buffer state, and we do not wish to share its fate. We understand what that means, having once been on the western periphery of the Soviet Union,” he said. “If Ukraine’s membership is accepted, then we will become the battlefield. The war will geographically affect the neighboring region. This is unacceptable. A lot of young Hungarians would also die. This is not a tactical issue, but an existential one,” Orban added. He proposed a strategic partnership with the EU as an alternative to full accession.

Earlier this week, Orban – a frequent critic of EU leadership – rejected the European Commission’s proposed seven-year budget, warning that it could “destroy the European Union.” He claimed the proposal was designed primarily to finance Ukraine’s membership, citing estimates that up to 25% of the budget could be allocated to Kiev. Budapest has blocked multiple EU military aid packages for Kiev and has repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire with Russia. Hungary has also warned that the financial and security implications of Ukraine’s integration could outweigh any potential benefits, framing the issue as a matter of national survival rather than political preference.

Read more …

Trump will not like this one bit.

• EU Secretly Pressures US Firms To Censor Immigration Criticism: House GOP (JTN)

The European Union is secretly leaning on tech platforms to censor routine political speech and even jokes as a legal obligation under its Digital Services Act, according to an interim staff report Friday by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, which has also probed Brazil’s censorship, Biden administration jawboning and ideological advertiser boycotts. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said it was prompted by then-EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton’s threat against X last summer, later disavowed by the European Commission, that owner Elon Musk’s scheduled livestream with then-presidential candidate Donald Trump might constitute “illegal content” under the DSA. Though Breton resigned “under pressure from EU President Ursula von der Leyen” after Jordan demanded a briefing from Breton on his threats, his successor, Henna Virkkunen, “remains strongly supportive of the DSA’s censorship provisions and continues to enforce them against American companies,” the report says.

“Camouflaged as a regulation to increase online safety,” the DSA lets European regulators “suppress speech globally” by threatening fines up to 6% of global revenue against platforms, based anywhere, that refuse to censor “humor, satire, and core political speech” that offends bureaucrats and align content moderation with EC preferences, it says. The law empowers them to “temporarily shut down platforms within the EU” if “extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union.” Platforms must allow “certified third-party arbitrators to resolve content moderation disputes,” who “do not need to be independent from the European regulators who certify them, incentivizing arbitrators to heed regulators’ censorship demands,” the report says.

Because “platforms bear the cost when they lose at arbitration,” they are also incentivized to censor flagged content “before arbitration begins.” The DSA has an “arbitrary threshold” of 45 million monthly users to qualify as a strictly regulated “very large online platform,” seemingly chosen to “sweep in major American companies while carving out Europe’s top tech companies,” with only Booking.com and “pornography websites” qualifying, the report says. The EC “invented workarounds” to exempt other European companies from VLOP classification, for example Spotify, which gets to split its products between music and podcasts “for the purpose of counting EU users,” the report says. It cites a critic that alleges a “clear discrepancy” between “self-declared” monthly users and “reality.”

“Absolutely nothing in the DSA requires a platform to remove lawful content,” EC spokesperson Thomas Regnier told Politico EU in response to the staff report, claiming freedom of expression is “a fundamental right in the EU” and “at the heart of our legislations.” Regnier said “content removals based on regulatory authorities’ orders to act against illegal content account for less than 0.001 percent” of the content moderation decisions, with platforms “proactively” deciding the rest based on their own terms and conditions. ‘I’m not racist, but …’ is ‘coded language to express anti-Muslim sentiment’

The committee’s subpoenas revealed content from the EC’s May 7 workshop with DSA stakeholders, which unlike its “contemporaneous” Digital Markets Act workshops was closed to the public and operated under the Chatham House Rule, banning participants from describing “exercise scenarios” or naming or quoting participants without permission. It also obtained emails between EC staff and tech companies on purportedly “voluntary” codes of conduct on hate speech and disinformation, showing “regulators repeatedly and deliberately reached out to pressure reluctant platforms to join” and retaliated against resisters, opening a probe of X for refusing to use purported fact-checkers. “The censorship is largely one-sided, almost uniformly targeting political conservatives,” the report’s press release says.

Read more …

“The proffer immunity granted to Maxwell allowed her to answer questions without her responses later being used against her in a criminal case..”

• Ghislaine Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity, Gives DOJ ‘100 Different People’ (NYP)

Notorious sex criminal Ghislaine Maxwell answered questions from Justice Department officials about “100 different people” linked to late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, an attorney for the disgraced socialite claimed Friday following two days of interrogation led by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during which she was reportedly granted limited immunity. David Oscar Markus told reporters that his client, currently serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted in Manhattan of federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges in December 2021, was “asked about every possible thing you could imagine – everything.” “This was the first opportunity she’s ever been given to answer questions about what happened,” Markus added. “The truth will come out about what happened with Mr. Epstein and she’s the person who’s answering those questions.”

Blanche had “every single question” answered during the sitdown, Maxwell’s attorney also said, with the British-born convict declining to plead the Fifth Amendment. “If she lies they could charge her with lying,” Markus noted. “They did charge her with lying,” a reporter challenged him, referring to two perjury counts that Markus noted were dropped by the feds after her conviction. “No one is above the law — and no lead is off-limits,” Blanche posted on X Tuesday in announcing he would speak with Maxwell. Maxwell, 63, is appealing her conviction and sentencing, and legal observers have speculated her willingness to answer questions is tied to a potential clemency grant by President Trump. Her attorney described the commander in chief Friday as “the ultimate dealmaker” and claimed his client had “been treated unfairly for the past five years” and “didn’t get a fair trial.”

“We hope he exercises that power in a right and just way,” Markus added. Trump, 79, told reporters after landing in Glasgow, Scotland that “I don’t know anything about the conversation” between Blanche and Maxwell because “I haven’t really been following it.” “This is no time to be talking about pardons,” the president added after saying hours earlier while leaving the White House that “I haven’t thought” about the idea. Maxwell reportedly initiated the sitdowns with the DOJ and answered questions for roughly nine hours, according to ABC News. The proffer immunity granted to Maxwell allowed her to answer questions without her responses later being used against her in a criminal case, sources told the outlet. Proffer immunity is typically granted to individuals prosecutors want cooperation from in a criminal case.

In 2022, the Department of Justice expressed doubts that Maxwell could be truthful, writing in court filings that she displayed a “significant pattern of dishonest conduct” and failed to take responsibility for her heinous crimes. Court papers the prior year revealed that prosecutors never seriously entertained the prospect of offering the women dubbed “Epstein’s madam” a plea agreement after the financier was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting his own federal trial on Aug. 10, 2019. According to Markus, Epstein’s attorneys had been informed that “no potential co-conspirators would be prosecuted” as part of his talks with government lawyers following his July 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. “I don’t think President Trump knows that the Justice Department took the position that that promise should not be upheld,” he claimed.

Read more …

Go to Moscow. Leave the European and US warmongers alone.

• Rubio Shares Trump’s Feelings About Russia-Ukraine Conflict (RT)

US President Donald Trump is growing impatient with Russia over resolving the Ukraine conflict, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said. Moscow maintains it is open to diplomacy, but has said any settlement must take into account its security concerns. Speaking to Fox News on Saturday, Rubio claimed that while Trump is focused on peace and has done his best to bring hostilities to a close, his overtures to Russia appear to be yielding little result so far. “He’s done everything possible to bring it to an end. I think he is growing increasingly frustrated,” he said. According to Rubio, despite “good interactions with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and phone calls, it never leads to anything.”

“He is losing patience, losing his willingness to continue to wait for the Russian side to do something to bring an end to this war that wasn’t his, but he wants to see it come to an end,” Rubio added, accusing Moscow of using “delaying tactics.” His comments come after Trump imposed a 50-day ceasefire deadline on Moscow, warning of “very severe” new sanctions, including 100% “secondary tariffs” on countries buying Russian oil.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned that the sanctions threat would be interpreted by Kiev as a “signal to continue the war” rather than to seek peace. He has also described Trump’s style as “rather harsh,” while confirming that “Moscow intends to continue dialogue with Washington” and follow “a line of repairing the significantly broken bilateral relations.”

Earlier this week, Russia and Ukraine held a third round of direct talks in Istanbul, with Moscow proposing short ceasefires for retrieving wounded and fallen soldiers. Additionally, the Kremlin offered to continue prisoner exchanges and return the remains of fallen soldiers. However, the two sides remain far apart on a potential peace settlement, with Moscow insisting that Ukraine should recognize the loss of five of its former regions that joined Russia in public referendums, withdraw its forces from them, commit to neutrality, and limit its own military capabilities. Kiev has dismissed the terms as an “ultimatum.”

Read more …

“China is encouraging BRICS nations and partners to use the yuan “for trade settlement, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle” driven by “real trade demand.” This is the system those clowns want to regime-change.”

• Destroy Russia. Fail? No Problem: Let’s Destroy China! (Pepe Escobar)

[..] On the American ability to maintain the US dollar’s reserve currency status, Miao points to two factors: “whether the United States can continue to lead the technological revolution”; and “whether it can preserve the advantages of its financial system, such as the Federal Reserve’s independence and the self-regulating and corrective capabilities of its financial markets.” Yet what’s accelerating now is rather the “fragmentation of the international monetary system”. So we should expect increased use of yuan in payment settlements and as “a store of value”; that’s already happening all across BRICS. Miao points to the key vector: the yuan is now “a low-interest currency, while the US dollar is high-interest.” Trump 2.0 tariffs “on all countries have contributed to the appreciation” of the yuan.

This high-speed train is now leaving the station: “By leveraging China’s manufacturing strengths in sectors such as machinery, electronics, and new energy equipment”, China is encouraging BRICS nations and partners to use the yuan “for trade settlement, thereby creating a self-sustaining cycle” driven by “real trade demand.” This is the system those clowns want to regime-change. Well, they did not learn anything out of the collective West humiliation in the proxy war in Ukraine. A top old school hand of the Deep State, now retired, and familiar with the glory days of the OSS, sums it all up. Relevant excerpts of our conversation: “The US and Europe are already at war with Russia and they are losing it. The US has 20,000 armed troops in Europe to face Russia. NATO forces are largely a figment of the imagination.

Ukraine is nothing but a front in the US battle for control of the Eurasian land mass a la Mackinder. The US cannot supply both Israel and Europe at the same time. It has overstretched itself. As for Europe, it has no army of any consequence and most of its equipment is antiquated. All of it is pure bluff.” He adds, “the Europeans are waking up to the fact that the US has a moat around it so that it can be reached only by ICBMs and submarine missiles but Europe is in itself indefensible as short range conventional missiles can destroy it. Nukes are not required to destroy Europe in one day but a rain of Russian missiles.” Now compare that with Russia’s top negotiator in the Istanbul kabuki, historian Medinsky, when asked whether Moscow fears new sanctions by the EU and the US:

“This is not a question for us, not for the negotiating group. I can tell you this. After the revolution and civil war in 1920, again, another historical reference, we had not only sanctions, we had an absolute diplomatic and economic blockade of Soviet Russia from everyone. Everyone! It did not prevent us from winning World War II (…) Nothing will prevent Russia from winning now, The only question is the price of victory and the time it takes to achieve it.” This is something that will never sink in amongst Think Tankland in D.C. As much as the technological accomplishments – now visible – of the Made in China 2025 plan will never sink in. Enter bluster, hubris, the regime change obsession – and worse. Because if the US ruling class psycho killers finally conclude they cannot maintain their unilateral world hegemony even via war, they will abandon their cherished Think Tankland “reports” for good and even resort, in despair, to a Samson option.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

vibrate


NY
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1948995283410374806

foal

scott

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 18 2025

Jul 182025
 
 July 18, 2025  Posted by at 9:38 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  80 Responses »


Paul Gauguin Tahitians at rest (unfinished) 1891

 

• Trump’s Ultimatum Isn’t An Ultimatum – and Moscow Knows It (Ryumshin)
• Trump Has Backed Himself Into A Corner On Ukraine (Proud)
• It’s Time, Ukraine: Kiev Braces For A Final Reckoning (Poletaev)
• The Emotional Alliance Between Ukrainians and the Russian Federation (Dionísio)
• US Hubris-Driven Blunders Transform The Wider War (Alastair Crooke)
• Three Rational Calculations By Trump’s Men (Helmer)
• ‘Obvious Similarity’ Between Ukraine and Nazi Germany – Medvedev (RT)
• Kiev Setting Stage For Chemical Disaster – Moscow (RT)
• Trump Orders Release Of Epstein ‘Transcripts’ (RT)
• Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over ‘Bawdy Letter To Epstein’ (RT)
• Trump Convinces Coca-Cola To Return To Cane Sugar In The US (JTN)
• James Comey’s Daughter Fired From Top US Attorney’s Office Job (NYP)
• I Can’t Believe The NYTimes Thought It Would Get Away With This (Margolis)
• Von der Leyen’s Final Plan: A False Democracy For A False Europe (Pacini)

 

 

Bernal

Lutnick
https://twitter.com/HustleBitch_/status/1945325183717531878

What do we make of these Yellowstone videos?
https://twitter.com/777katemt/status/1945531246571835631

Rhys

 

 

 

 

“Trump’s famed “art of the deal” may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he’s done it masterfully.”

• Trump’s Ultimatum Isn’t An Ultimatum – and Moscow Knows It (Ryumshin)

US President Donald Trump has finally issued his much-anticipated “important statement” on Russia. For days, speculation swirled, particularly among pro-Ukrainian circles, that the long-awaited U-turn was coming. Trump, they hoped, would finally get tough – perhaps inspired by the increasingly hawkish rhetoric of Senator Lindsey Graham (who, incidentally, is designated a terrorist and extremist in Russia). Even skeptics began to believe that Trump was gearing up to show Moscow “Kuzka’s mother,” a famous idiomatic expression of aggression used by Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War. But in classic Trump fashion, expectations were dashed. The supposedly “extremely tough ultimatum” turned out to be something else entirely. Trump threatened tariff sanctions against Russia and its trading partners – but scrapped Graham’s extreme proposal of 500% duties.

Instead, he floated the idea of 100% tariffs that would only take effect after 50 days, if he chooses to enforce them, and if Russia fails to strike a deal. Trump also announced new arms deliveries to Ukraine. But these aren’t gifts – they’ll be sold, not given, and passed through European intermediaries. Supposedly, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems. Yet we soon learned the first of these deliveries won’t arrive for at least two months – again, 50 days. And even now, basic questions remain unanswered. What exactly did Trump mean by “17 Patriots”? Seventeen batteries? Launchers? Missiles? If he meant 17 batteries, that’s simply not plausible. The US itself only operates around 30 active batteries. Germany and Israel combined don’t have anywhere near that many available systems. Such a figure would significantly boost Ukraine’s air defenses – but it’s almost certainly exaggerated.

Seventeen missiles? That would be laughable – but not unthinkable. Washington recently sent just 10 Patriot missiles in a “military aid” package so modest it wouldn’t suffice for a single battle. Seventeen launchers? That seems more realistic. A typical battery consists of six to eight launchers, so this would amount to two or three batteries – more than what Germany and Norway have promised to purchase for Ukraine. Yet even the Pentagon can’t confirm the details. And one suspects Trump himself may be fuzzy on the specifics. His role, after all, is to make the pronouncements; others are left to clean up the mess. The so-called “14 July ultimatum” has already become a textbook example of Trump’s diplomatic approach. In fact, a new phrase has emerged in American political slang: “Trump Always Chickens Out” or TACO.

The acronym speaks for itself. It refers to the president’s habit in trade and security talks of making grandiose threats, only to backtrack or delay implementation.This appears to be another case in point. The negotiations are at an impasse. Trump still craves a Nobel Peace Prize. And he’s reluctant to become too entangled in the Ukrainian conflict. So he’s reached for the oldest trick in his playbook: the non-ultimatum ultimatum. This allows him to sound tough while giving Moscow space – and perhaps even time – to act. It also offers cover with his MAGA base, many of whom are frustrated by distractions like Iran or the Epstein scandal and aren’t eager to see America dragged further into Ukraine. The genius of it, from Trump’s perspective, is that it promises everything and nothing at once.

No clear strategy. No detailed demands. Just an open-ended threat backed by ambiguous timelines. It’s pressure without posture. Leverage without leadership. What’s striking is that the White House didn’t even ask Russia to de-escalate. There were no appeals to halt the almost daily strikes on Ukraine or curb battlefield activity. In effect, Russia has been handed a 50-day window – intentionally or not – to do as it sees fit. A quiet concession to the Kremlin? Perhaps. A careless side effect? Possibly. Either way, Moscow gains. America, too, comes out ahead – at least financially. Under the new arrangement, Western Europe picks up the tab for Ukraine’s defense, while US companies get paid to offload ageing equipment.

Trump’s famed “art of the deal” may amount to little more than selling junk with a smile. But if so, he’s done it masterfully. Still, as a political maneuver, the outcome is more uncertain. Trump may believe he’s found the sweet spot between hawks and doves, between NATO allies and nationalist critics. But trying to be all things to all people rarely ends well. Appeasement disguised as firmness satisfies no one for long. And while Trump plays for time, Russia holds the initiative. That’s the real story here.

Read more …

Trump is trying to resist the fast growing pressure, in the US and Europe, to declare outright war on Russia.

• Trump Has Backed Himself Into A Corner On Ukraine (Proud)

One year after he undertook to end the Ukraine war in one day, and just past six months into his Presidency, Donald Trump has kicked the peace can down the road by fifty days. The ultimatum to President Putin to make peace or face sanctions has practically no chance to changing Russian aims in Ukraine. Backed into a corner, Trump may finally be forced to address Russia’s underlying concerns. In televised remarks on 14 July during his meeting with NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, President Trump said, ‘if we don’t have a [peace] deal in fifty days, we’re going to be doing very severe tariffs, tariffs at about a hundred percent, you’d call them secondary tariffs.’ As he was in 2017, Trump also now finds himself hemmed in by beltway politics and unable to deliver a reset in U.S.-Russia relations that he instinctively seems to want.

The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 would put in place so-called secondary sanctions on Russia by imposing stiff tariffs of up to 500% against countries such as China and India that inter alia import Russian energy. U.S. lawmakers want to strong arm Trump into forcing President Putin to back down in Ukraine via the back door. But there is a yawn-inducing sense of déjà vu here. The 2017 Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, signed into law on 2 August 2017, had no impact on Russian policy towards Ukraine, but led to a huge collapse in U.S.-Russia relations. This was illustrated most clearly by the decision to cut U.S. diplomatic staffing in Russia by 755 personnel, meaning among other things, that today it is practically impossible for a Russian citizen to apply for a U.S. visa inside of Russia itself; the U.S. Embassy simply doesn’t have enough staff.

To avoid a repeat of 2017, Trump now appears to be buying himself fifty days in DC to reach peace in Ukraine before he is forced by the Senate to impose secondary sanctions on Russia. The 14 July announcement was therefore about domestic U.S. politics more than about foreign policy. But what Trump has in fact done is to set a clear ultimatum on Russia to reach a peace deal with Ukraine, with no clear commitment to meeting Russia’s specific demands, the key demand being Ukraine’s neutrality and revocation of its NATO aspiration. As an ultimatum, this won’t work, because the additional military support that the U.S. is now offering to Ukraine, paid for by European NATO allies, won’t be sufficient to tip the military balance in Ukraine’s favour.

Additional Patriot missiles and interceptors may well reduce the overall impact of Russian drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. But the military facts on the ground are that Russia continues to gain ground. At several points along the front line, around Pokrovsk, and Kupiansk, towards Konstiantynivka and Siversk, there have been significant recent Russian gains, by the slow attritional standards of this war. As reported by the Guardian in the UK, even some Ukrainian politicians and bloggers have come out to say that fifty days will simply allow Russia to occupy further Ukrainian land. The most interesting point about that report is the revelation that a British mainstream media outlet is reporting oppositionist views from Ukraine, rather than the narrative from Zelensky’s propaganda machine. So, fifty days favours Russia more than Ukraine, militarily.

Read more …

“In just the first half of this year, Ukraine recorded over 107,000 criminal cases for desertion – 20% more than in all of 2024, and nearly half of the total since the war began.”

• It’s Time, Ukraine: Kiev Braces For A Final Reckoning (Poletaev)

In our previous pieces, we examined Donald Trump’s half-hearted attempts to cast himself as a deus ex machina, descending to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Peace did not follow. Trump, boxed in by political inertia, continued Biden’s policy of disengagement while trying to dump the Ukrainian problem on Western Europe – just as we predicted back in January. Its leaders weren’t prepared. While Macron and Starmer formed coalitions of the willing and delivered lofty speeches, Germany quietly picked up the tab. Berlin, under its new chancellor, has shown more flexibility, but the broader Western European strategy remains unchanged: keep Washington bankrolling Ukraine at all costs. That plan is now crumbling. Trump is slipping away, and without a dramatic turn of events, no new major aid packages should be expected from the US.

This is not hard to understand. Other global crises are emerging, and the depleted American arsenal cannot serve everyone at once. In both Ukraine and across Western Europe, people are adjusting to what once seemed unthinkable: a slow but steady US withdrawal. These European leaders must now decide whether to carry the burden alone or accept a settlement on Moscow’s terms – conceding Ukraine from their sphere of influence. But neither Kiev nor its immediate sponsors is ready for serious negotiations. Why would they be? Ukraine believes it can hold without American backing. Russian oil revenues have dipped, the ruble is under pressure, and Moscow has taken hits in the Middle East and Caucasus. Perhaps, they reason, Putin will come begging in another year or two. Let’s fight, then.

Amid this political theater, the war itself has faded into the background. For many observers, the front lines seem frozen in time – village names flicker in and out of headlines, lines shift, but the broader picture holds. It’s a difficult situation for military analysts. They are forced to generate drama from attritional warfare. One day, headlines declare the Lugansk Peoples Republic fully liberated (a few villages remain contested). The next, we hear of Russian forces entering the Dnepropetrovsk region (true in a narrow sense – they crossed a small corner in a broader encirclement maneuver around Pokrovsk). None of this, however, alters the core dynamic. Both sides are largely following the same strategies as a year ago. For Russia, the aim remains clear: exhaust Ukrainian forces until they can no longer defend. The goal isn’t to seize a specific line, but to break the enemy’s army.

Russia has pursued this with steady, grinding pressure. Last winter, Moscow shifted from large mechanized thrusts to small, flexible assault groups. Instead of smashing through defenses, these units infiltrate after prolonged bombardment from artillery, drones, and air power. The results aren’t flashy, but the goal is cumulative. The summer campaign began in May; we’ll see its full effect by late summer or even winter. This mirrors the pattern of 2024, when Russian forces made their biggest gains in October and November, capturing several cities in Donetsk with minimal resistance – Novogrodovka, Ugledar, Selidovo, Kurakhovo. The key question now is scale: can Russia turn these tactical wins into a full collapse of Ukrainian lines?

The answer depends in part on the weakened state of Ukraine’s forces. By spring, Kiev had fewer armored vehicles, fewer Western shipments, and fewer elite units. The best troops were spent in the failed Kursk push and are now stuck holding Sumy. But the gravest issue is manpower. The supply of volunteers has dried up. Ukraine’s army now relies on forced conscription – the so-called “busified.” And the results are telling. In just the first half of this year, Ukraine recorded over 107,000 criminal cases for desertion – 20% more than in all of 2024, and nearly half of the total since the war began. That’s only the official count; the real number is undoubtedly higher. Desertion is now the Ukrainian army’s leading cause of losses. Draft officers are hated, and civilians fear being dragged into vans and thrown to the front. Power outages have lessened, and life behind the lines is almost normal. But the threat of forced mobilization looms. In a telling detail, real soldiers now mark their cars with “not TCR” to avoid attacks from angry civilians.

Read more …

“..the abundance of cases–desperate mothers, women committing suicide, daughters protesting–began to suggest that, deep down, the Ukrainian soul may still belong to a peaceful people who never wanted any of this..”

• The Emotional Alliance Between Ukrainians and the Russian Federation (Dionísio)

For a regime that presents itself to Western nations as “the shield of democracies,” it is ironic, if not tragic, that its own people do not feel aligned with such a “noble” mission. Indeed, there are signs that Ukrainians neither consider it noble nor desire such a mission, despite the enthusiasm of Western journalists and politicians. When we watch news about the war in Ukraine and encounter journalists who, forgetting their role as informants, immediately shift to “counterarguments“–which is not their function–to challenge any more independent commentator, we are far from understanding the levels of suffering, despair, and immorality to which the Ukrainian people have been subjected over these hellish three years. During this time, the US, EU, NATO, and G7 decided to assign them an impossible mission: “to defend Western democracies against Putin’s autocracy.”

One might expect Ukrainians to feel flattered, even praised, for being chosen for such a lofty mission, especially when the assigners were none other than the self-proclaimed champions of transparency, civility, democracy, and respect for human rights. Over the three years of war, there was no shortage of street interviews in which carefully selected passersby declared their readiness for anything; nor was there a shortage of so-called journalists who praised the courage, fervor, and antagonism toward Russia, and especially toward Putin. Everything was shown to make it seem as though everyone was happy and committed. Europeans and Americans funded the war, other people’s children fought it, and the children of those aspiring to join the Western garden were sent to the front under the auspices of von der Leyen’s victory, the infantile Trumpist Mark Rutte, Baerbock, now Kallas, and formerly Borrell.

Until the news of forced conscription could no longer be contained, even outlets like The New York Times or The Guardian could not suppress it. After all, some were not so enchanted with the mission of defending others’ freedom at the cost of their own tyranny. Images began to emerge of fathers, sons, brothers, young men, and adults resisting–heroically, madly, desperately–being sent to their deaths. The images could no longer lie: men running over recruitment officers–at the risk of arrest and worse–others screaming while clinging to trees, traffic signs, or anything they could hold onto, desperate workers running through the streets shouting… In the end, one of two things must be true: either the promise of eternal freedom is not so thrilling, or the promise of eternal tyranny in case of military defeat is not so credible.

The truth is that the abundance of cases–desperate mothers, women committing suicide, daughters protesting–began to suggest that, deep down, the Ukrainian soul may still belong to a peaceful people who never wanted any of this. For Western media, nothing had changed, except that they stopped contradicting those who openly declared that Ukrainian men were no longer masters of their own lives. Not a single word, report, or statement. After all, what is happening to the Ukrainian people is not so different from what is happening elsewhere in the world.

If in Gaza and the West Bank a people is martyred, eliminated, in the name of defending Israel at the hands of a Zionist minority; in Ukraine, a people is martyred, forced to fight those they considered their brothers, with whom they lived and prospered (Soviet Ukraine was once the 10th-largest economy in the world), tyrannized by a Nazi-fascist minority, used and nurtured to defend “the democratic West.” It all comes down to pure optics, to those who consider themselves superior and, by that superiority, believe they can instrumentalize the worst evils to achieve a supreme good that only a select few enjoy. Just as Zionists consider themselves superior to all other peoples, so too do Western globalists, imperialists, Atlanticists, and liberal-fascists consider themselves superior to the peoples of the Global South, Russians included.

The one who did not fail to identify this profound contradiction was the Russian Federation and its highest military ranks. And then the unexpected happened. After all that was said about the Russian Federation, after the charges brought against Vladimir Putin for genocide and crimes against humanity, after accusations of “imperialist” ambitions, the Ukrainian people began to look at the Russian Federation not as an invader, not as a destroyer, but as an ally–if not a savior, as in the case of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. The decision to bomb “recruitment” centers–read “detention” centers–thus became a form of soft power in itself. With each destroyed center, Ukrainian voices rose in jubilation, as if turning despair into courage to say to their ally, “Yes, it is in you that I must place my hope.” Social media was flooded with messages of gratitude to Russian forces, of sympathy for this unexpected “solidarity.” It was as if, with each destroyed center, Ukrainians gained days of life, extending the hope that the war would truly end, and with it would come peace and the condemnation of the real culprits.

Read more …

“The entire complexion of this war to retain America’s dollar primacy has been irreversibly altered.”

• US Hubris-Driven Blunders Transform The Wider War (Alastair Crooke)

The big issue emerging from the U.S.’ 22 June strike on Iran – second only to ‘wither Iran?’ – is whether in Trump’s calculus he can ‘rhetorically impose’ the having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme claim long enough to both restrain Israel from hitting Iran again, yet still allow Trump to pursue his show-stopper headline, ‘WE WON: I’m in charge now and everybody is going to do what I tell them’. These were the key conflicting issues that were to be hammered out with Netanyahu during his White House visit this week. Netanyahu’s interests essentially are for ‘more hot war’, and thus differ from the Trump ceasefire general stratagem.

Implicit in his ‘In-Boom-Out & Ceasefire’ Iran approach is that Trump may imagine he has created the space to resume his primary objective – that of instituting a broader Israeli-centric order across the Middle East, devolving upon trade deals, economic ties, investment and connectivity, to create a business-led West Asia, centred on Tel Aviv (with Trump as its de facto ‘President’). And, via this ‘Business Super Highway’, to strike further beyond – with the Gulf States penetrating into BRICS’ south Asian heartland to disrupt BRICS connectivity and corridors. The sine qua non for any jumpstart to a putative ‘Abraham Accords 2.0 of course – as Trump clearly understands – is an end to the Gaza War; the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the Strip’s re-construction (none of which seems to be in realistic reach).

What emerges rather, is that Trump continues to be seized by the delusional view that his Israeli-centred vision could all be accomplished merely by ending the genocide in Gaza, but with the world watching aghast as Israel continues on a hegemonic military rampage across the region. The most obvious flaw to the Trump premise is that a chastened Iran somehow has been achieved by Israeli and American strikes. It is the opposite. Iran has arisen more unified, resolute and defiant. Far from being relegated to watching passively from the sidelines, Iran now – in the wake of recent events – resumes its place as a leading regional power. One that is readying a possibly game-changing military riposte to any further strikes by either Israel or the U.S.

What is ignored in all these western claims of Israeli success, is that Israel chose to bet all on a surprise ‘shock and awe’ strike. One that would overturn the Islamic Republic at a stroke. It didn’t work: the strategic objective failed, and it produced the opposite outcome. But the more fundamental point is that the techniques used by Israel – that required months, if not years of preparation – cannot just be repeated again now that their stratagems have been fully exposed. This White House misreading of the Iran reality signals that the Trump Team allowed themselves to be deceived by Israeli hubris in insisting that Iran was a house-of-cards, primed to collapse completely into paralysis upon the first taste of the Israeli sneak decapitation ‘muscle’ on 13 June.

This was a fundamental error – in a pattern of similar errors: That China would capitulate to the threat of imposed tariffs; that Russia could be coerced into a ceasefire against its interests; and that Iran would be ready to sign an unconditional surrender document in the face of Trump’s threats post-22 June. What these U.S. blunders speak to – apart from a consistent divorce from geo-political realities – is western weakness masked behind hubris and bluster. The U.S. Establishment clings to its fading primacy; but in doing it so ineffectually, it has instead accelerated the formation of a potent geo-strategic alliance intent on defying the U.S.

The consequence has been the wake up call to other States occasioned by the western slide towards stratagems of outright lies and deceit: The ‘Spider Web’ operation against the Russian strategic bomber fleet on the eve of the Istanbul talks and the U.S.-Israeli sneak attack on Iran two days before the expected next round of U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks, have increased the will-to-resist by China, Russian and Iran particularly, but more generally it is felt across the Global South. The entire complexion of this war to retain America’s dollar primacy has been irreversibly altered.

Read more …

I -used to- like John Helmer. But he’s lost me now. If you want to claim that Trump is too demented to tie his shoe laces, you need more than a few quotes from a niece who hates his guts.

• Three Rational Calculations By Trump’s Men (Helmer)

About President Donald Trump, certifiable maniac isn’t an expletive – it’s a clinical diagnosis. In the neurological and psychiatric evidence that has been accumulating about Trump over many years, there is the medical history of Alzheimer’s Disease which runs in his family: his father was first diagnosed at age 86 and died at 93; his older sister died of it, aged 86; and at least one cousin died of the same, aged 84. Since the President has just turned 79, there is reason to anticipate similar onset of symptoms and cause of death for him. Trump thinks this himself, according to Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist and the President’s niece. She has published a case history of the President in 2020 which Trump’s lawyers failed to suppress in court.

Last week, she published a new symptom of what she calls the acceleration in Trump’s cognitive decline: he cannot tie his own shoe laces. This claim has already been pursued by online investigators who have been reporting Trump’s lace-ups which appear from the photographs to be tied permanently and a mysterious right shoe several sizes too large. The evidence of Trump’s incapacity to understand the Russian end-of-war terms, as he expressed himself in the July 14 press session with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, was reported here. [..] When Trump and Rutte accuse President Vladimir Putin of failing to negotiate seriously, the record reveals the opposite. Negotiating on the Ukraine war with Trump is proving to be impossible because Trump isn’t serious. That’s not his political decision; it’s his neuro-psychiatric handicap.

“You really gave him [Putin] a chance to be serious to get to the table to start negotiations,” Rutte said to Trump on Monday. “Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio, we all try to help you. But you’ve now come to a point where you say, well, hey, you know, you have to — you have to get serious.” Trump agreed, replying: “We actually thought we had probably four times [agreed] the deal.” Five times over, Rutte repeated that the Russians aren’t serious. Trump repeated himself: “We’re going to go for a period of time. Maybe he’ll start negotiating. I think we felt, I felt, I don’t know about you Mark, but I felt that we had a deal about four times and here we are still talking about making a deal.”

Trump’s recall was that the terms of his deal had been accepted by Putin; he didn’t recall what Putin’s terms were. He is revealing he cannot comprehend the difference between the US and Russian negotiating positions; he hasn’t so much rejected the “new idea, new concept” from the Kremlin as not to have understood it. This isn’t Trump’s negotiating tactic – it’s cognitive incapacity camouflaged by the threat of force to compel Putin’s capitulation. The first test of Trump’s rationality is the Mary Trump test – an Oval Office press conference in which Trump demonstrates how he ties his shoe laces. The second test requires Russian counter force. This is the Oreshnik decision-making point for Putin, when there is no longer any point to negotiating because the US side aims at escalating its arms supplies to the Ukraine battlefield and encouraging the Germans to join in long-range missile attacks on the Russian hinterland, including Moscow and St. Petersburg.

In the Russian decision-making now under way, there is an attempt to find the rational calculations in what Trump is meaning; that is to say, what Trump’s advisors, constituents, and officials are calculating when he himself is incapacitated. The first of these, Russian sources believe, is that the Trump escalation is a pitch to prevent Trump’s domestic voter base, the MAGA enthusiasts in the battleground states which won the presidency for Trump last November, from deserting him.

The second calculation is that Russia is militarily and economically vulnerable to a combination of escalation of attacks inside Russia and sanctions on the oil trade outside. This is the strategy of the “bigger bear”, announced on CNN this week by former Trump and Biden Administration warfighter, Brett McGurk: “the Russians approach diplomacy as a bear approaches a dance. The bear knows it will determine when and how the dance ends, unless the other dance partner proves itself to be a bigger bear. Sometimes, it helps to be the bigger bear. In the context of Ukraine, like Syria, while the United States is a far more powerful country than Russia, Putin believes that he has the upper hand in such localized conflicts due to Moscow’s determination and consistency contrasted with Washington’s perceived lack of focus, stamina and shifting politics through election cycles. Correcting that perception is a first principle for effective diplomacy with Moscow, and the approach outlined by Trump yesterday offers the chance to do exactly that.”

The third rational calculation, Russian sources believe — as do some US analysts — is that by supplying the Ukraine battlefield through Germany, the UK and Norway with a combination of Patriot anti-aircraft defence batteries and long-range offence missile systems like the Typhon, the Trump Administration will escape having to face a US taxpayer revolt in Congress over the multi-billion dollar cost of direct US arms supplies to Kiev regime. According to this scheme too, Trump would have an alibi if the Oreshnik decision is taken by Putin, and if the US weapons are defeated in the collapse of the Zelensky regime. Trump would blame the Germans, repeating his line: “don’t forget, I’ve just really been involved in this for not very long and it wasn’t initial focus. Again, this is a Biden war. This is a Democrat war, not a Republican or Trump war. This is a war that would have never happened.”

Read more …

“..the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, which began on July 17, 1945. The conference was the last wartime meeting between leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It laid the groundwork for postwar Europe..”

• ‘Obvious Similarity’ Between Ukraine and Nazi Germany – Medvedev (RT)

Ukraine bears similarities to the Nazi state at the end of World War II and should undergo “demilitarization,” “denazification,” and “democratization” in a manner similar to postwar Germany, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has told TASS. He spoke to the Russian news agency on Thursday, the 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference, which began on July 17, 1945. The conference was the last wartime meeting between leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It laid the groundwork for postwar Europe, including plans for Germany’s demilitarization and denazification. Medvedev, who currently serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, explained that the concept of the “three D’s” had originally been formulated for Nazi Germany, which he described as an aggressor state that had disrupted the international order, according to TASS.

“The 1945 Reich and modern Ukraine are, of course, very different – in scale, global role, and even (formally) in state ideology. But there is also obvious similarity.” Medvedev said Ukraine shares its “crisis of identity” with Hitler’s Germany and engages in the “open use of Nazi symbols,” while showing signs of dictatorship and economic degradation. “All this makes the idea of applying the three D’s relevant,” he stated. He added that demilitarization for Ukraine should not be seen as punishment, but rather as “a chance to stop being a pawn in someone else’s bloody geopolitical games.”

He described denazification or “debanderization” as a long-term effort involving public consciousness and historical memory. Democratization, he said, involved not only elections but also the restoration of legal institutions, free media, political competition, and the separation of powers. Many historic ultranationalist leaders, including Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) Stepan Bandera, a notorious Nazi collaborator, are widely revered by Ukrainians today. Russia has repeatedly condemned Kiev’s elevation of these collaborators to national hero status and has demanded the “denazification” of the country as part of a negotiated peace agreement. Russia has accused Western governments of deliberately ignoring continued neo-Nazi activity in Ukrainian ranks.

Read more …

“..placing toxic chemicals in the areas where Russian troops operate and their subsequent detonation.”

• Kiev Setting Stage For Chemical Disaster – Moscow (RT)

The Ukrainian military is trying to provoke a major ecological disaster close to the front line and blame it on Russia, the Defense Ministry in Moscow warned on Thursday. The accusation came from Maj. Gen. Aleksey Rtishchev, the commander of Russia’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Troops, who briefed the public about alleged Ukrainian violations of an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Rtishchev disclosed a document obtained by the Russian military, in which the deputy director of Ukrainian state-owned company Ukrkhimtransammiak informed a regional official appointed by Kiev that in late June Ukrainian troops had illegally accessed a site operated by the firm.

The Ukrkhimtransammiak executive stressed his concern that the location could be damaged due to the military’s involvement, potentially causing the release of up to 566 tons of highly toxic liquified ammonia. The site, an above-ground element of a Soviet-built underground ammonia pipeline operated by Ukrkhimtransammiak, is located roughly 2.5 km north of the village of Novotroitskoye, in the Kiev-controlled portion of Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic. Rtishchev claimed the Ukrainian military had placed communication equipment at the location as part of “barbaric tactics used by the Kiev regime” which involves “placing toxic chemicals in the areas where Russian troops operate and their subsequent detonation.”

“The intention is to accuse our nation of intentionally causing a technological disaster and damage its reputation,” the general stated. “The use of hazardous objects for military purposes violates the international humanitarian law.” Rtishchev also reiterated Russian accusations against the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Moscow says the international watchdog ignores Russian reports about Ukrainian violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) while taking Kiev’s allegations against Russia at face value.

Read more …

It won’t go away by itself. Might as well feed the frenzy.

• Trump Orders Release Of Epstein ‘Transcripts’ (RT)

US President Donald Trump has promised to release more information after criticism of his administration’s handling of the sex trafficking case involving the late financier Jeffrey Epstein reached a tipping point. After months of pledges to disclose the full case files, the Department of Justice said in a memo last week that no further documents would be made public – triggering a backlash even among some of Trump’s closest supporters. “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony, subject to court approval,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday.

Bondi confirmed that her office is “ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts,” though it remains unclear which documents would be released or when. Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with trafficking minors for sex. He allegedly hanged himself in his New York jail cell before he could stand trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of conspiring to sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year sentence. Although Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide, it has long fueled public skepticism. The DOJ’s controversial review concluded that no “client list” of Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring ever existed and found no evidence of blackmail. There were no grounds to investigate uncharged third parties, the memo stated.

These findings appeared to contradict Bondi’s earlier comments that the client list was “sitting on [her] desk,” and that the FBI had turned over a “truckload” of materials that would “make you sick.” Bondi appeared to walk back those remarks, clarifying on Tuesday that she was referring to case files on her desk in general. She also dismissed concerns about a one-minute gap in the 11-hour surveillance video recorded near Epstein’s jail cell. Earlier this week, Trump claimed only “stupid people” believe the sex offender’s alleged “client list” wasn’t yet another Democrat hoax. Trump ordered the release of additional documents after the Wall Street Journal accused him of sending a lewd birthday greeting to Epstein in 2003. The president has threatened to sue Rupert Murdoch and his “third-rate newspaper” for defamation.

Read more …

“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter… was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,..

• Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over ‘Bawdy Letter To Epstein’ (RT)

President Donald Trump has threatened legal action against the Wall Street Journal, its parent company News Corp., and media mogul Rupert Murdoch after the newspaper claimed that he authored a lewd letter to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. The alleged letter was reportedly part of a leather-bound album compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003 and included a crude drawing of a nude woman, according to the Journal’s exclusive report on Thursday. “A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist, mimicking pubic hair,” the report described, without explaining how the outlet obtained what it claimed was a previously unreleased Department of Justice file.

The paper acknowledged that Trump strongly denied the allegation, but went ahead with publication. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women… It’s not my language. It’s not my words,” the Journal quoted Trump as saying. Several hours after the story broke, Trump accused Murdoch and WSJ Editor Emma Tucker of deliberately spreading “defamatory lies.” “The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter… was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. He described the “once great” paper as a “disgusting and filthy rag” that was desperately trying to “stay relevant.” Trump vowed to sue the WSJ, News Corp., and Murdoch “shortly,” citing his history of successful lawsuits against major media outlets.

Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with trafficking minors for sex. He allegedly hanged himself in his New York jail cell before standing trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of conspiring to sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year sentence. Although Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide, it has long been the subject of public skepticism. Earlier this week, Trump responded to growing criticism over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case, claiming that only “stupid people” still demand access to the sex offender’s alleged “client list.”

Read more …

“Mexican coke” uses natural cane sugar as a sweetener while American coke has relied on high-fructose corn syrup since the 1980s.”

• Trump Convinces Coca-Cola To Return To Cane Sugar In The US (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced that he had convinced Coca-Cola to use authentic cane sugar in their American products, marking a subtle cultural victory over Mexico. “I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I’d like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You’ll see. It’s just better!” Trump announced on Truth Social.

“Mexican coke” uses natural cane sugar as a sweetener while American coke has relied on high-fructose corn syrup since the 1980s. The cane sugar coke often appears in stores contained within glass bottles. Trump did not speak to any planned changes in the American containers. The announcement came somewhat out of left field as Trump has spent much of the week fending off criticisms over his handling of the Epstein case and there was little coverage of any talks with the iconic soda company.

Read more …

Well, she does seem to have let the Diddy case slip through her fingers. And she and her hubby are Trump haters. Why keep them on?

• James Comey’s Daughter Fired From Top US Attorney’s Office Job (NYP)

Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, was fired Wednesday from the powerful Manhattan US Attorney’s Office — where she prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and, most recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs, sources told The Post. The reason for Comey’s firing, which law enforcement and Department of Justice sources confirmed, was not immediately clear. She was informed that she was being axed under Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president, the sources added. President Trump has a long history of conflicts with the elder Comey and fired him as FBI director in 2017 during Trump’s first term.

Maurene Comey, who served as an assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York since 2015, worked on the prosecutions of disgraced financier pedophile Epstein and Maxwell, who was found guilty of multiple sex crimes at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Comey most recently worked on the high-profile sex-trafficking case against Combs. The nearly month-long trial ended with the jury acquitting the disgraced hip-hop mogul of the most serious charges against him — racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking — that could have landed him life in prison. He was only found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

[..] “This firing is an effort by the DOJ to distract from its failures on Epstein, the J6 pipe bomb, Butler assassination plot and ongoing whistleblower retaliation,” former FBI agent-turned-whistleblower Steve Friend said. “Removing Maureen Comey six months into the administration is like a fire department hiring an arsonist and expecting applause when they fire him after he’s already burned down a city block. Too little, too late. “They are desperate for a win and distraction. The Comey-Brennan case is a distraction. They’ll never get charged. It’s a way for congressmen to have hearings,” Friend added, referring to the FBI investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan and James Comey for potential criminal conduct related to the 2016 Trump-Russia collusion probe.

The Epstein firestorm was revived last week after the Justice Department and FBI concluded in a memo that the convicted pedophile, 66, killed himself in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019 — and did not keep a list of wealthy and powerful “clients” to whom he trafficked underage teens. That conclusion sparked a storm of backlash from top MAGA personalities, who suspected that the Trump administration wasn’t being fully upfront about Epstein, despite the 47th president’s promise on the campaign trail to release the files on the convicted pedophile. Comey’s ouster also follows renewed attacks from Trump’s base, including conservative firebrand Laura Loomer, who publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to fire Comey and her husband, SDNY Assistant US Attorney Lucas Issacharoff, back in May.

“Today, the DOJ fired Maurene Comey from the United States Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York,” Loomer posted on X after the news broke. “This comes 2 months after my pressure campaign on Pam Bondi to fire Comey’s daughter and Comey’s son in law from the DOJ.” Loomer has claimed that Issacharoff, who has worked in the SDNY’s Civil Division since 2019, has “a long history of being a Trump hater.” “No word yet on whether or not he was also fired today, but he should be. +1 for Blondi today!” Loomer cheered. Trump has since spent days dismissing Epstein’s case as a “big hoax” concocted by the Democrats for political gain — and blasting suspicious GOP members for being “duped” by their colleagues on the other side of the political aisle. The prez has also lashed out, pressing the country and news reporters to stop focusing on the notorious predator.

“They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years,” Trump railed on Truth Social Wednesday. “I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.” The Trump administration is investigating James Comey for potential criminal conduct during the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion probe in 2016. The Secret Service also interviewed the ex-bureau director in May for a cryptic “86 47” Instagram post that led to accusations from Trump that Comey was calling for another assassination attempt against him.

Read more …

Focus on Trump’s words, memory-hole Biden’s.

That video is priceless. The first minute is Oscar material. Which director lets the head of the president disappear on his way to the podium?

• I Can’t Believe The NYTimes Thought It Would Get Away With This (Margolis)

The irony is thick enough to choke on. The New York Times, that bastion of so-called journalistic integrity, churned out yet another hit piece on President Donald Trump, painting him as some vengeful tyrant hell-bent on crushing his political foes. According to the paper, Trump supposedly views his opponents as downright evil, promising a campaign of retribution that sends shivers down the spines of the elite media class. Last week, he denounced a reporter as a “very evil person” for asking a question he did not like. This week, he declared that Democrats are “an evil group of people.”“Evil” is a word getting a lot of airtime in the second Trump term. It is not enough anymore to dislike a journalistic inquiry or disagree with an opposing philosophy.

Anyone viewed as critical of the president or insufficiently deferential is wicked. The Trump administration’s efforts to achieve its policy goals are not just an exercise in governance but a holy mission against forces of darkness. The characterization seeds the ground to justify all sorts of actions that would normally be considered extreme or out of bounds. If Mr. Trump’s adversaries are not just rivals but villains, then he can rationalize going further than any president has in modern times. This isn’t journalism; it’s selective outrage at its finest. The Times acts like Trump’s tough talk is some unprecedented assault on democracy, conveniently forgetting or willfully ignoring the years of venomous rhetoric that the left spewed against Trump and conservatives everywhere.

It has the gall to portray Trump as the villain while pretending that its side hasn’t been fanning the flames of division for nearly a decade. If the Times is so concerned about demonizing political enemies, maybe it should look in the mirror, or better yet, revisit one of the most egregious examples from its own camp: from Barack Obama’s spying on Trump to frame him for colluding with Russia to Joe Biden’s lawfare campaign that literally tried to put Trump in prison. Actions may speak louder than words, but Joe Biden spoke rather loudly during his infamous speech at Independence Hall back in 2022, where he didn’t even hide the fact that he saw his political allies as evil. Remember that spectacle? There was Biden, standing in front of the birthplace of American liberty, bathed in dramatic red lighting that appropriately gave off a fascistic vibe. He wasn’t there to unite the nation; he was there to declare war on half of it.

“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” he thundered, as if conservatives were some invading horde rather than fellow Americans exercising their right to disagree. He didn’t stop there. He literally called Trump and his supporters a “clear and present danger” to the country. Biden’s words weren’t just heated; they were incendiary. It was pure demagoguery, designed to otherize and vilify millions of Americans who simply wanted secure borders, economic strength, and a government that puts America first. And where was The New York Times during all this? Cheering it on, of course. The paper didn’t call out Biden for his divisive rant; it amplified it, framing it as a noble defense of democracy against the supposed fascist threat of Trump.

“Biden Warns That American Values Are Under Assault by Trump-Led Extremism,” read the headline of one article reacting to the speech. Another article detailing four takeaways from the speech lacked any outrage at all at Biden’s rhetoric. Fast-forward to today, and leftists are clutching their pearls over Trump’s promises to hold corrupt officials accountable, like the ones who weaponized the DOJ against him. Trump’s talk of retribution isn’t about personal vendettas; it’s about restoring justice after years of witch hunts, from the Mueller probe to the sham impeachments. Yet the Times ignores how the left’s rhetoric has real-world consequences. We’ve seen assassination attempts on Trump, violent protests egged on by Democrat leaders, and a media ecosystem that normalizes calling conservatives Nazis or threats to humanity.

And the Times is crying over Trump for saying mean things about his political adversaries? This double standard is the real threat to our republic. The Times’ piece reeks of desperation, a last gasp from a dying media empire that’s lost all credibility. Leftists whine about sources going silent, as if that’s proof of some authoritarian chill, but maybe those experts are just tired of being props in the left’s endless anti-Trump crusade. If the paper truly cared about toning down the rhetoric, it should start by acknowledging its own role in escalating it. Biden’s speech wasn’t a one-off; it was the blueprint for the left’s strategy — demonize, divide, and conquer.

Read more …

“..an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded..”

“Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system.”

• Von der Leyen’s Final Plan: A False Democracy For A False Europe (Pacini)

The perception of the European Union is changing in some sections of public opinion: from a project of cooperation between sovereign states, the EU is increasingly seen as a centralized bureaucratic machine, which is what it really represents, and this view is fueled by the growing control exercised over information spaces, political dynamics, and the very interpretation of democratic principles. If the failure of the euro as a common currency was already telling, even more so were the isolationist policies of sanctions against the Russian Federation, followed by those against China and, in general, against any political entity that was not in the good graces of the UK-US axis. In this context, the role of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is worrying.

While proclaiming herself a champion of democratic values, she is contributing to the construction of a system in which truth, dissent, and public debate are suppressed or marginalized. There is no doubt that no one has ever pursued policies as totally anti-democratic, liberticidal, and homicidal as hers (as in the cases of Ukraine and Palestine).These concerns have been fueled by discussions on a motion of no confidence against von der Leyen. In June 2025, Romanian MEP George Piperea proposed a vote to question her leadership. The necessary signatures were collected from various MEPs to put the issue to a vote in the plenary. The main reason given is the alleged violation of transparency rules during the management of contracts for COVID-19 vaccines in 2020-2021.

Following those agreements, the EU purchased huge quantities of doses, many of which proved to be surplus to requirements, with an estimated 215 million doses, worth close to €4 billion, subsequently being discarded. When citizens and the media asked for clarity on those contracts, the European Commission refused to make the communications public, a decision that the Court of Justice of the European Union later ruled contrary to the rules. According to the Court, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Commission is obliged to prove that such communications do not exist or are not in its possession. Despite this, the Commission has never provided a clear explanation as to why the messages between von der Leyen and Pfizer’s CEO were not disclosed.

It has not been clarified whether the messages were deleted voluntarily or whether they were lost, for example, due to a change of device by the president. Finally, on July 10, during a plenary session in Strasbourg, the European Parliament rejected the motion of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. To pass, it would have required a qualified majority of two-thirds, supported by an absolute majority of MEPs. The result was 360 votes against, 175 in favor, and 18 abstentions. The motion was supported by right-wing groups such as Patriots for Europe and Europe of Sovereign Nations, numerous members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, and some members of the radical left. Von der Leyen was not present at the time of the vote.

Despite the criticism, the main centrist groups – the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe and the Greens – rejected the motion, ensuring the political survival of the president. However, if the no-confidence motion had passed, the entire European Commission would have fallen, opening a complicated process for the appointment of 27 new commissioners. This decision is perhaps more strategic than tactical: keeping a president who has already lost confidence and is therefore politically manageable and has limited room for maneuver is more convenient than having a new president who may be worse than the previous one and has the full confidence of the European Parliament.

Elections in the European Union, as in many other democratic contexts, should express the will of the people. They should, I emphasize. In practice, however, they are increasingly seen as an institutional ritual with no real impact on fundamental political choices and, above all, they are not an expression of the real will of the people, as they lack representation. Many of the key decisions are no longer taken by elected governments or national parliaments, but by EU bodies often guided by a technocratic logic and by interests dominant within the EU system. The 2024 European elections represented a turning point: conservative, sovereignist, and nationalist parties significantly expanded their representation, establishing themselves in countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.

These parties have strongly opposed the EU’s migration policies, environmental measures deemed excessive, and its confrontational foreign policy towards Russia. However, instead of encouraging constructive debate and giving space to critical voices – as the European Parliament claims to want to do – these forces have been systematically branded as “anti-democratic” and publicly discredited. A central role in this strategy has been played by Ursula von der Leyen, in office since 2019, who has repeatedly portrayed right-wing parties as a “threat to European unity,” without ever providing concrete evidence to support this claim, but often referring to alleged Russian interference or generic “threats to sovereignty.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

1M+

Erodium

Uber
https://twitter.com/itsme_urstruly/status/1945560442031804761

Mamba

Orca

Sears
https://twitter.com/russcar10now/status/1945467986212700227

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 12 2025

Jul 122025
 
 July 12, 2025  Posted by at 9:12 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  71 Responses »


Salvador Dali Neo-Cubist Academy (Composition with Three Figures) 1926

 

• Bongino and Patel May Resign If Pam Bondi Stays As Attorney General (Margolis)
• Tensions Explode Between Bongino And Bondi Amid DOJ Epstein Memo Fallout (ZH)
• Is This What Happened to the Epstein Client List? (Margolis)
• Flux Rules (James Howard Kunstler)
• Trump Attempts to Slow the Inertia of War (CTH)
• Trump’s Renewal of America Has Gone Dramatically Wrong (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Sen. Kennedy Skewers Comey and Brennan (Margolis)
• Trump Threatens Canada With 35% Tariff If It Does Not Help With Fentanyl (JTN)
• Sen. Ron Johnson Prepares Subpoenas For DOJ, FBI in Butler Shooting Probe (JTN)
• Europe Is Losing – Jamie Dimon (RT)
• JPM CEO Jamie Dimon: Democrats “Idiots” Obsessed With Failed Wokeism (ZH)
• EU ‘Has No Money Except For War’ – Hungarian Official (RT)
• Western European Leaders Dragging Continent Toward War With Russia – Lavrov (RT)
• Relations With US Will Never Be The Same – von der Leyen (RT)
• Kiev Needs Ceasefire By The End of 2025 – Ukrainian Spy Chief (RT)
• Zelensky Claimed He ‘Never Heard Of’ Ukrainian Nazi Crimes – Duda (RT)
• The West Mocked BRICS For Years But Now It’s Paying Attention (Lukyanov)
• France Opens Criminal Case Against Musk’s X (RT)

 

 

Benz
https://twitter.com/jayplemons/status/1943353450101878963

Scott

Reagan
https://twitter.com/mcucolo57/status/1943379084051927438

 

 

 

 

“This isn’t just about how Epstein died; it’s about whether the deep state inside the Department of Justice can finally be exposed and held to account.”

• Bongino and Patel May Resign If Pam Bondi Stays As Attorney General (Margolis)

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is on the verge of walking away from the bureau over what insiders are calling a full-blown crisis of confidence. According to a source close to Bongino who spoke with The Daily Wire, he’s issued an ultimatum: either Attorney General Pam Bondi goes or he does. The standoff stems from Bongino’s growing frustration with Bondi’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which he sees as a betrayal of the public’s right to the truth. The source says Bongino is “furious” and feels that he can’t in good conscience continue working alongside Bondi. After taking the job in February, he had hoped to help restore trust in the FBI, but Bondi’s alleged stonewalling has made that mission impossible. “He’s done if she stays,” the source said bluntly. “He’s not backing down.”

As PJ Media previously reported, Bongino’s frustration with Bondi has reached a breaking point over her handling of the Epstein investigation. Once promising a bombshell about Epstein’s so-called “client list,” Bondi has since backpedaled, claiming she was misunderstood and that the “file” on her desk was just routine paperwork. The DOJ, under her leadership, now insists there’s no evidence of a client list, no sign of blackmail, and no indication Epstein was murdered. For those demanding answers, this reversal isn’t just disappointing; it’s infuriating. But the story has gotten even bigger. According to independent journalist Nick Sortor, FBI Director Kash Patel is also considering resigning if Bondi stays on and Bongino leaves.

Axios previously reported that both Bongino and FBI Director Kash Patel are “furious” with Bondi over the blowback her handling of the Epstein files has caused them. Bongino reportedly did not come into work on Friday. This isn’t some petty bureaucratic spat; it’s a crisis of trust. Bongino’s absence from the FBI after a heated exchange with Bondi signals how serious things have become. His once-busy social media has gone silent. One source close to him summed it up: “He ain’t coming back.” Officially, the administration claims he’s still on the job, but the writing is on the wall.

The DOJ’s memo concluding there was no client list was a slap in the face to anyone who’s paid attention. No client list? No blackmail? No reason to investigate further? That’s not a conclusion; it’s a cover-up. Epstein’s entire operation was built on compromising the elite. To suggest that he acted alone defies logic and insults the intelligence of the American people. What this country needs right now isn’t more spin or bureaucratic buck-passing — we need the truth. Real answers. Real accountability. Not some carefully worded memo designed to dodge the most damning questions. Bongino and Patel understand exactly what’s at stake. This isn’t just about how Epstein died; it’s about whether the deep state inside the Department of Justice can finally be exposed and held to account.

Read more …

It looks very bad on Trump if he loses Patel and Bongino, just like it looked good when he brought them in. Bondi has a much more chequered past. But he won’t want to let her go either.

• Tensions Explode Between Bongino And Bondi Amid DOJ Epstein Memo Fallout (ZH)

Speculation is mounting that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is furious over the Department of Justice’s explosive memo concerning Jeffrey Epstein, with anonymous sources claiming he has issued a stark ultimatum to the White House: dismiss Attorney General Pam Bondi or he will resign from his position. Axios, citing four sources familiar with the matter, reported Friday morning that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino was absent from work following a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Washington insider outlet noted that Bongino’s absence sparked speculation about whether he had resigned, though a White House source quickly clarified that he remains in his role at the FBI.

This week, federal law enforcement released a memo asserting that an “exhaustive review” of evidence from Jeffrey Epstein’s death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City conclusively ruled out murder. “Following a comprehensive investigation, FBI investigators determined that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in his cell on August 10, 2019,” the memo stated. The agencies also firmly denied the existence of a “client list” linked to Epstein, directly contradicting earlier statements by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi had previously claimed on Fox News that such a list was “sitting on my desk” for review, fueling speculation about Epstein’s alleged blackmail of global elites.

By Friday afternoon, reports indicated that tensions between FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Bondi were escalating, with the FBI official reportedly contemplating resignation if Bondi remains in her role. “Source close to Dan Bongino tells me it’s either him or Pam Bondi, and that he won’t stay at FBI if she stays at DOJ,” The Daily Wire’s White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan posted on X. Independent journalist Julie Kelly corroborated Olohan’s reporting, writing on X: “Sources confirm to me the blow up between Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi is very real. This has been brewing for four months and came to a head at the White House on Wednesday.”

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1943724569333788760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1943724569333788760%7Ctwgr%5E282c62e15638351eb281e156bb768b0bd8ae9c8e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftensions-explode-between-bongino-and-bondi-amid-doj-epstein-memo-fallout-reports

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1943726798488936588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1943726798488936588%7Ctwgr%5E282c62e15638351eb281e156bb768b0bd8ae9c8e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftensions-explode-between-bongino-and-bondi-amid-doj-epstein-memo-fallout-reports

“He has not been in the office since. Most of the frustration at [the] FBI relates to her handling of Epstein disclosures and disputes between [the] FBI and Bondi about how to proceed,” Kelly continued. “Bongino appears ready to resign imminently if Bondi remains in office,” she added.Fox News sought comment from the White House on whether President Donald Trump was satisfied with Bondi, to which Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that the president is “proud” of his attorney general. “The President is proud of the attorney general’s efforts to execute his Make America Safe Again agenda, restore the integrity of the DOJ, and bring justice to the victims of crime,” Leavitt said.

“The continued fixation on sowing division in President Trump’s cabinet is baseless and unfounded in reality.” On Tuesday, Trump dismissed questions about Epstein during a press exchange. “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years,” Trump said, while taking questions during a Cabinet meeting. “You’re asking – we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things, and are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable. I mean, I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration.”

Read more …

“..he believes that the Biden administration intentionally destroyed the Epstein client files to protect powerful individuals.”

• Is This What Happened to the Epstein Client List? (Margolis)

Every time the topic of Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous client list surfaces, the American public is treated to a familiar dance: officials dodge, the media obfuscate, and the powerful breathe a sigh of relief. After years of waiting for the Epstein client list to see the light of day, the Trump administration says the list doesn’t exist. On Thursday, Alan Dershowitz came out and said that’s not true and that he saw it when he had to defend himself from false accusations of being an Epstein client. If the list does exist, what happened to it? Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) has a theory. In a recent interview with NewsNation, Burchett told host Leland Vittert that he believes that the Biden administration intentionally destroyed the Epstein client files to protect powerful individuals.

“I think the files existed at one time,” Burchett said. “I think they were destroyed in the previous administration… and if they’d ever had anything on Trump, it would have been out day one under the Biden administration.” When Vittert agreed, Burchett continued, suggesting that the real reason the files remain hidden is because of who they might implicate. “I think there’s some very prominent people. There’s Hollywood people, but I think there’s world leaders too. And would it have caused economic disruption around the globe? Maybe. But I don’t really care.” Vittert asked if the hesitation to release names might be due to fear of unjustly tarnishing people who may have interacted with Epstein but did nothing wrong. Burchett rejected the idea and instead pointed to Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction:

“What’s Ms. Maxwell doing in jail? What did she do? Where is that… you know, who did she provide whatever she did? Why is she in jail? That’s gotta be a question that should be asked at some point.” He was blunt about the finality of the situation: “Dead men tell no tales. He’s dead.” Vittert pressed him to clarify: Was he saying that the Trump administration destroyed the files? “No, I think they destroyed everything,” Burchett replied, referring to the Biden administration. When Vittert asked former special prosecutor Pam Bondi wouldn’t say that directly, Burchett speculated, “Because she doesn’t have any proof of it. I’m just telling you what I think.” He went on to criticize Bondi’s handling of the situation. “I think she’s got over her skis pretty much, saying all this stuff — ‘The files are on my desk. I’m gonna release it.’ — and then she releases stuff that I knew.”

Burchett said he based his belief on his own instincts and experience in Washington. “I’ve been around this town enough. I just don’t think they exist. I think they did at one time.” He tied it back to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal: “You got an administration that lied and said Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t exist… You had 30 of the top so-called intelligence people in the country say that, and they didn’t get chastised by anybody but y’all and a couple of others.” Burchett doesn’t trust the official story and doesn’t believe that the truth about Epstein will ever come out.

Read more …

“We’re trapped in a structure. We named the Structure ‘Jeffrey Epstein’.” — Eric Weinstein

• Flux Rules (James Howard Kunstler)

No one in America — not even the most deranged, spike-faced, pink-haired transtifas — believes the latest Epstein story as played out by Mr. Trump and AG Bondi in this week’s cabinet parlay: nuthin to see, just a bunch of pointless child porn, fuggeddabowdit. . . But stay! Much is moving, flowing unseen. The world is yugely in flux, large events in human affairs are in motion, many things are breaking, rotating, dissolving and re-forming, while others wind into giant hairballs. . . so many players acting as though they live in one great hall of mirrors, and treachery abides at every turn. Nobody seems to be actually managing any of it, though there is plenty of pretense, jockeying, staging. The public’s anger and anxiety rise in tandem.

One thing about Epstein is likely certain: it was an intel operation. And one thing is probable: it was a joint operation between the CIA, Israel’s Mossad, and the UK’s MI6. The object: to get as many political poohbahs on-the-hook for disgraceful behavior of the lowest kind and blackmail-able. Under the thumb. Theories and suppositions abound. If Mr. Trump was in on the Epstein sex shenanigans, as Elon blurted this week, why did the Democratic Party not go after him for it in three election campaigns (and all the many months in between)? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, Elon appears to be losing his shit. His CEO at “X” bailed on him this week. His A-I app, Grok, started spouting Hitler gags, and his empire of world-beating genius is tottering on a broken business model.

You can write all that Elon stuff off as a sideshow for now — wildly grotesque as it may be. But what is actually going on in the three rings of this circus? Flux in the Middle East is one. Whatever else the “Twelve Day War” was about, it’s the end of Israel threatening to bomb Iran’s nuke program out of existence. We’ve done that favor for them, or pretended to, as some are saying, kabukied it out. So, Israel, shut up about that for now . . . is the policy. One story is that the actual Epstein material, whatever still exists, that is, which might reside in multiple locations, is so destructive to the architecture of global leadership that it must be squelched for the sake of majorly realigning forces, tensions, and polities across the Middle East, namely, the Abraham Accords. Getting all that lined up is more important to Mr. Trump for the moment than defenestrating the various perverts-in-office around Western Civ. It just is. . . so. . . gotta lump it.

Let’s surmise that the president has learned a lot about the intel hall of mirrors over the past decade, but especially lately, in his second term, from DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who has access to every document in the bottomless pit of the intel archives. The President knows he is not exactly in control of his intel “community.” And he aims to do something about it. You could make the case that the so-called “community” is just a giant criminal syndicate engaged in the most nefarious activities ongoing in this world of sin: human trafficking, drugs, money-laundering, weapons, every off-the-book turpitude you could imagine. Nor is John Ratcliffe exactly in control of his own agency, though he can utilize some of its services. . . but more about that later.

Forget about Bondi’s gaffe. She is just following orders, as are Messrs. Patel and Bongino, standing down, good soldiers, and only on the Epstein business. You can’t even rule out the possibility that Jeffrey Epstein is not dead. Was it suicide? Or an escape? Shall we say, a rendition to parts unknown? I would not assert that, just proffer it as a possibility, since the events of that night in the Manhattan federal lockup were so astoundingly sketchy — the sleepy guards, the broken CC cameras, the missing minute in the one camera recording that worked, the suicide-proofed jail cell. . . . But, then, the autopsy reports. . . performed upon. . . whom, exactly. . . ?

There is parallel matter of Ukraine to consider. Mr. Trump is yugely frustrated by his inability to put a quick end to it, to make that golden deal with Russia. The Ukraine War is the globalists desperate final project, its last stand. By saying which, let’s assume that the Globalists are “a thing,” a combo of the UK’s remaining potent assets (MI6 and the City of London financial octopus), the megalomaniacal EU bureaucratic leadership (von der Leyen & Co.), and the WEF-Davos gang. Ukraine was their instrument to break up Russia. The project has failed. Yet the war goes on. Mr. Trump says he was not even informed about Ukraine’s recent long-range drone attack deep into Russia, to take out its strategic bombers. Wasn’t informed? WTF???

Was it because the CIA has gone rogue over in Ukraine? Running the war their way — and not even Mr. Ratcliffe has a handle on all that? Consequently, Mr. Trump is yugely embarrassed in his many skull sessions with Mr. Putin. And thus, Mr. Putin seeks to bring about an end to this enormous pain-in-the-ass situation by simply winning the war. Which he is doing. His terms have been simple, plain, and straightforward from the get-go: a disarmed, neutralized Ukraine that must surrender the Donbas provinces, end-of-story, and don’t even mention Crimea because there’s nuthin to talk about there. And, of course, regime change in Kiev. . . eighty-six on Nazis, thank you.

Read more …

Excellent from Sundance.

“Now Sending Weapons to NATO Instead of Ukraine..”

• Trump Attempts to Slow the Inertia of War (CTH)

Everyone can see the play by President Trump. Essentially, the “coalition of the willing” (U.K, Germany, France) are not willing to go to war against Russia without the United States in front of them. Giving the coalition the weapons puts the consequences of their use on the heads of NATO allies. Despite the majority of Washington DC, specifically the Senate thirsting, pleading and demanding an expanded NATO war, President Trump does not want to go to war against Russia. However, simultaneously Trump has to try and steer the war machine controlled by DC, the Senate, USIC and NATO. The INERTIA for expanded war is evident. President Trump is now trying to split the baby regarding Russia, by sending patriot missiles and weapons to NATO as opposed to sending them directly to Ukraine.

In February Marco Rubio earnestly and honestly said, “The Ukraine conflict is a proxy war for the United States against Russia.” President Trump has concurred with that statement and through his prior comments he attempted to extricate the U.S. from this dynamic. The shipment of missiles to NATO instead of Ukraine is simply a way of trying to stop direct support, yet Trump is forced by the inertia toward war to maintain a footing of expanded conflict with Russia. To be very clear, Russian President Vladimir Putin is clear-eyed on this situation with NATO, and he has been all along. Putin has said repeatedly that NATO was/is in direct conflict against Russia despite Ukraine not being a NATO member. This conflict with NATO well precedes Putin’s decision to conduct a ‘special military operation’ within Ukraine.

Now, we see through Trump’s approach the dropping of pretenses. Putin was correct. With NATO directly providing the war weapons to Ukraine there is no pretense, no doubt. NATO countries are funding an offensive war against Russia using a non NATO proxy state, Ukraine. As I have said, this western triggering has always been the inertia for war, and that war is now likely to expand as a result of NATO and even, unfortunately, President Trump’s approach. The only thing that works in his/our favor is the cowardice of the U.K, France and Germany to fight Russia without the USA. President Trump may try and distance himself and by extension the USA from this consequence of expanded conflict. But the consequence exists regardless of the obfuscation. We are parsing terms.

The US is going to fund expansion of the conflict directly with arms to Ukraine or indirectly by sending arms to NATO to give to Ukraine. The destination and intent of the weapons is the same regardless of the procedural process. I came to Russia this time to understand the nature of how western inertia to war can exist, despite the people of the west demanding the opposite. I wanted to see for myself exactly what Russia was preparing for, and exactly how the people of Russia were reacting to that preparation. Russia is well prepared, both physically and psychologically to go to war against any adversary. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating is between 70 to 80%, and despite what you might have heard in western propaganda media, the economy inside Russia is doing very well.

In addition to the two-year service requirement (18-20 years old), all men aged 25 to 35 have been refresher trained in preparation. The psyche of the Russian military is ready to get rid of the Nazis. Also, the sentiment of Europeans dislike of Ukrainian Nazi’s is easy to spot, albeit not well known outside the region. Despite decades of Brussels and USA provocation and political manipulation (perhaps because of it), there’s not a lot of pro-NATO support for the west here. I am not a big fan of Russia; nor do I agree with the way the government constructs societal life within it. There are a lot of negatives to daily life in Russia. However, I do have a complete understanding of the govt positions and reasons for them.

Western media have pretended that Ukraine was not a U.S/NATO proxy war against Russia. Now, those pretenses are dropped. Conversely, Vladimir Putin never pretended. Putin always accepted that Ukraine was, and long has been, a NATO proxy state for conflict against Russia; which is exactly the reason he ‘invaded‘ Ukraine in the first place. President Trump may be trying to split the baby amid the retention of pretense, but it’s a pretense Russian President Vladimir Putin never held, he could not afford to. Thus, the inertia of war and people asking “how did this happen?” If I am accurate in his exit strategy, President Trump hopes to extricate himself from the Russia-Ukraine problem by putting the conflict directly into the lap of NATO, more specifically into the lap of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz; the so called “coalition of the willing.”

President Trump is giving the weapons to NATO, again Starmer, Macron and Merz, for transfer to their buddy in Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. President Trump then stands back and draws distance from the consequence of what they do with them. However, this is also a massive provocation because NATO is now essentially operating on behalf of a non-NATO state, Ukraine, against another non-NATO power, Russia. President Trump cannot remove the fact that the USA is the lead in all things NATO. As soon as France, Germany and the U.K start bombing Russia albeit from the geography of Ukraine, the conflict will expand.

NATO -thanks to President Trump- would then be baiting Vladimir Putin to attack France, Germany or the UK in retaliation, which would trigger Article 5; subsequently the USA is drawn into the conflict by agreement, and voilà a full expanded war between NATO and Russia commences. But why? If neither Russia or Ukraine are NATO members, why is NATO involved at all? Good question. Perhaps President Trump will answer that question on Monday. President Trump told NBC News, “I think I’ll have a major statement to make on Russia on Monday.” Live your very best life, but prepare for war. Like a fat kid playing dodgeball, I’m out of here tomorrow (hopefully), and will hold an AMA on the topic of all things Russia next week.

Love to all,
~ Sundance

Read more …

“Has it ever occurred to Trump and his government that they are seen as nothing but the two-bit punk puppets of Israel led around by Netanyahu with an Israeli ring in their nose?”

• Trump’s Renewal of America Has Gone Dramatically Wrong (Paul Craig Roberts)

Donald Trump attracted massive political support–the most we have seen any candidate attract in many years–because he said his aim was to restore America on its traditional values, the values that had made the United States a successful country. Instead of foreign wars, Trump promised restoration at home. But everywhere we look Trump is enmeshed in foreign, not domestic, affairs. Netanyahu is leading Trump into war with Iran. Trump sends Zelensky, not himself, to meet with Putin despite the fact that Zelensky cannot deliver the mutual security agreement that Putin wants from the West. And now Trump is interfering in Brazilian domestic politics threatening a 50 percent tariff on imports from Brazil unless the current government drops charges against former president Bolsonaro.

I have no knowledge whether the charges against Bolsonaro are legitimate, any more than I know if the former charges against the current President Lula da Silva that resulted in his imprisonment were legitimate. The question is: what business is it of Trump’s? Does it ever occur to Trump and his government that it is incongruous to protect Bolsonaro but not the Palestinians, whose oppressor Trump has hosted in the White House three times in six months and plied with money, weapons, and diplomatic cover for a genocide? One would think that it is Putin, Xi, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Trump would have at the white house, and Netanyahu the one under US sanctions and threats for Israel’s genocide of Palestine and war-mongering in the Middle East.

Has it ever occurred to Trump and his government that they are seen as nothing but the two-bit punk puppets of Israel led around by Netanyahu with an Israeli ring in their nose? How are we supposed to be proud Americans when we are ruled by Zionist Israel? Will ever again Americans have a president who represents America?

Read more …

“Well, I know Mr. Comey, and I know Mr. Brennan. Neither one of them, in my opinion, should attempt more than six of the Ten Commandments.”

• Sen. Kennedy Skewers Comey and Brennan (Margolis)

In a display of his trademark wit and candor, Sen. John Kennedy delivered a scathing rebuke of former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan, labeling both men as fundamentally unethical and unfit for public trust. Appearing on Fox News with Harris Faulkner, Kennedy wasted no time in making his feelings known, blending his signature biting humor with pointed criticism in a way only he can. Kennedy began by drawing on personal knowledge of both men. “Well, I know Mr. Comey, and I know Mr. Brennan. Neither one of them, in my opinion, should attempt more than six of the Ten Commandments. They’re, they’re, they’re not very nice people. They’re not ethical people.” He added, “I know people who have worked with them closely, and if you talk to people who’ve worked with them closely, those people will tell you that, um, they’re about as, as popular as male pattern baldness.”

The senator’s critique wasn’t just about personality. He questioned their competence, remarking, “What’s scary about both of them is that they think that they’re competent. They’re not.” Kennedy’s signature Southern charm came through as he continued, “I would hire the guy who salts the fries at McDonald’s before I would hire either one of them, but they think they’re competent. They think they’re smarter and more virtuous than the rest of us, and they have… they acted on their political beliefs.”Kennedy then turned his attention to Brennan’s role in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, saying, “Brennan, for example, Mr. Brennan was one of the ones who told the American people that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn’t real… that it was Russian disinformation. They’re, they’re just not honest people and if they broke the law, they should be held accountable.”

He didn’t let up on their arrogance. “They’re also just… they’re like so many in Washington, Harris. They’re so arrogant. Um, Lyndon Johnson used to have an expression. He’d say, ‘That guy’s so arrogant. He could, he could strut sitting down.’ Well, that’s the way Mr. Comey and Mr. Brennan are.” For Kennedy, the damage Comey and Brennan did went beyond personal failings: “Those two have done more to destroy the American people’s confidence in the FBI and national intelligence than any two people I can think of.”

Kennedy then really drove his point home: “No, they really haven’t. And, and I wouldn’t say that about all of the people in President Biden’s administration, but, but these two are—they’re just especially bad, and they were so political. They’re just political hacks who tried to pretend that they had the American people’s best interests at heart, and they, and they, and they, uh, and they don’t.” He closed with a final jab, “And I love McDonald’s french fries by the way, and the people who salt ’em.”

Salt the fries

Read more …

Tariffs as a general policy tool? Is that what they’re for? Like threatening Lula over Bolsonaro?

• Trump Threatens Canada With 35% Tariff If It Does Not Help With Fentanyl (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Thursday sent Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney a letter notifying him that he would impose a 35% tariff on Canadian goods next month if the country doesn’t step up in battling fentanyl. Trump has been sending tariff rate cards out to countries this week that have not reached a trade deal with the United States. The letters have largely been going out to seven countries at a time. The president argued that Canada has not done enough to help with the illegal flow of fentanyl that has been smuggled into the U.S. through the northern border. The U.S. is facing an opioid epidemic, and fentanyl is considered one of the most dangerous opioids in the country.

“If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” Trump wrote to Carney. “These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your Country.” The U.S. previously imposed a 25% tariff on Canada, but delayed the tariffs while trying to reach a trade agreement. However, the new tariffs will go into effect on Aug. 1. It is not clear if products covered under the 2020 trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico will be excluded from the tariffs or not.

Read more …

“..everybody else seems to have been moving on here and not particularly interested in an investigation. I am..”

• Sen. Ron Johnson Prepares Subpoenas For DOJ, FBI in Butler Shooting Probe (JTN)

Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson approved a subpoena to be sent to the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI regarding more information on the first assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania last year. The subpoenas will be sent near the anniversary of the shooting, which occurred on July 13. Johnson was part of the Senate’s Homeland Security investigation into the assassination attempt last year, but now leads a separate investigation as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Johnson told Fox News on Thursday that he approved a subpoena on Wednesday to get more information from the two agencies, but has described the investigative process overall as “maddening,” because of the red tape he’s experienced so far.

“I’d like our report to be bipartisan, but everybody else seems to have been moving on here and not particularly interested in an investigation. I am,” Johnson said. “Whether I have the other officers involved or not, I’m moving forward, which is why I approved a subpoena.” Johnson claimed his investigation is still getting “stonewalled” nearly a year after the incident, and that he needs more documentation and information to move his investigation forward. It is not clear when the subpoenas will go out. The accusation comes despite FBI Director Kash Patel’s promise to provide full transparency in the bureau’s investigation into the assassination attempt.

Republicans have largely criticized the federal government for not holding people accountable for the errors that led to the failed attempt. A 180-page House report last year found “preexisting issues in leadership and training created an environment” in which security failures could occur. The Secret Service also recently revealed that six agents were suspended without pay or benefits after the shooting, and were placed in restricted duties or given roles with less operational responsibility when they returned. No Secret Service agents were fired over the assassination attempt but former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle resigned after facing heavy backlash.

Read more …

“Europe has gone from 90% [of] US GDP to 65% over 10 or 15 years.”

“..GDP per person had dropped from around 70% of America’s to 50%..”

• Europe Is Losing – Jamie Dimon (RT)

Western Europe is “losing” the economic competition with its main rivals, China and the US, and is struggling with a shortage of globally competitive companies, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has said. Since 2022, when the EU imposed sweeping sanctions on Russian energy over the Ukraine conflict, growth across the bloc has stagnated. Germany, once its economic powerhouse, is now experiencing its third year of economic downturn. Moscow has argued that EU restrictions are self-defeating, causing surging energy prices and weakening the bloc’s economy. Dimon, CEO of one of the world’s largest banks, cautioned EU leaders at an event in Dublin hosted by the Irish Foreign Ministry on Thursday that Europe has lost its competitive edge compared to the US and is facing a growing crisis in economic competitiveness.

“You’re losing,” he said. “Europe has gone from 90% [of] US GDP to 65% over 10 or 15 years.” “We’ve got this huge strong market and our companies are big and successful, have huge kinds of scale that are global. You have that, but less and less.” The JP Morgan boss has repeatedly expressed concerns about the state of Europe’s economy. Earlier this year, Dimon told Financial Times that Europe needed to “do more” to remain competitive, noting that GDP per person had dropped from around 70% of America’s to 50%, which he deemed “not sustainable.”

Dimon’s warning comes as European NATO members say they need to ramp up their military budgets to deter an alleged threat from Russia. NATO countries have recently pledged to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade, more than double the longstanding target of 2%. Moscow denies posing any danger to these nations, accusing Western officials of exploiting fear to rationalize budget increases and cover a decline in living standards.

Read more …

Jamie Dimon ‘taking the knee’ looks incredibly stupid.

“I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re idiots..”

• JPM CEO Jamie Dimon: Democrats “Idiots” Obsessed With Failed Wokeism (ZH)

The inconvenient truth for Democrats is that there is still no bottom in sight, as the party of leftist radicals doubles, triples, and quadruples down on diversity, equity, inclusion, all things woke, and most alarmingly, a rapid descent into embracing Marxist ideas. That’s why rational people have been jumping ship from the imploding party. Just look at the tech bros who voted for President Trump and how the right side of the political spectrum reformatted itself with a relatable message: ‘America First’… On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon spoke at a foreign ministry event in Dublin, blasting the Democratic Party for going off the deep end with DEI, gender politics, and a series of failed policies that he said have harmed the country. “I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re idiots,” Dimon said at the event.

“I always say they have big hearts and little brains. They do not understand how the real world works. Almost every single policy rolled out failed.” Dimon continued, “They overdid DEI …. We all were devoted to reaching out to the Black community, Hispanic, the LGBT community, the disabled — we do all of that. But to the extent, they gotta stop it. And they gotta go back to being more practical. They’re very ideological.” He described himself as “barely a Democrat” since the party of woke has fallen into the abyss. His criticism of the Democratic Party also extended to politics in New York City — particularly Manhattan, where the bank is headquartered — which now faces the possibility of a Marxist becoming mayor later this year. “Barely a Democrat”? Please. Dimon was a full-blown kneeler not long ago…

“This guy [Zohran Mamdani] just got elected — he’s more of a Marxist than a socialist, and now you see these Democrats falling all over themselves saying, ‘Well, he’s pointing out some real problems, affordable housing and grocery prices.’ OK, maybe,” Dimon said. “There’s the same ideological mush that means nothing in the real world.” Dimon’s criticism of the Democratic Party is nothing new. In late May, the CEO blasted Democrats for the border invasion they facilitated over the Biden-Harris regime’s first term. “If you do not control the borders, you are going to destroy our country … Now that they are sending migrants into New York … all my super liberal friends realize what the problem is,” Dimon told CNBC last year. Dimon’s criticism signals that the party of leftist radicals is nowhere near a reset. In fact, it has gone further off course — doubling, even tripling down on failed policies that are driving more of its own supporters to jump ship and align with the America First movement.

Jason Curtis Anderson from One City Rising highlights just how far off course Zohran and the Democratic Party have gone (and spoiler alert: it’s bad): “Zohran’s worldview is shaped by his father, who has dedicated his life to promoting anti-Western values and decolonization—a field in which he is regarded as a thought leader. Marxism has become the philosophy of the “death to America” class, spanning from the permanent-protest and NGO movements to activist-teachers and into the Democratic Party through the Democratic Socialists of America—the political organization Mamdani calls home. Unfortunately, many Democrats remain slow to recognize that this philosophy breeds only misery and is incapable of improving society. In the 1960s, Frances Fox Piven outlined the revolutionary “Cloward-Piven strategy” to deliberately overload social service and welfare systems until they collapse, creating an opening for the far-left to demand a new system and “prove” that capitalism doesn’t work. It should come as no surprise that she is now an honorary chair of the DSA.”

From hating America to preaching Marxism and fueling chaos in city streets with dark money-funded NGOs, people are fed up with the radical left. And so is Dimon. It’ll be a long time before Dimon takes a knee again — of that, we’e certain.

Read more …

“While Europe cannot climb out of its own economic, social and security crisis, Brussels would continue to finance the war – weapons instead of peace, new debt instead of a competitive Europe..”

• EU ‘Has No Money Except For War’ – Hungarian Official (RT)

The EU is placing Ukraine’s military needs above the priorities of the bloc’s member states, Hungarian government adviser Balazs Orban has said. He accused EU leaders of always finding money for “war” but not other causes. Leaders of EU nations are considering the creation of a new €100 billion ($117 billion) fund under the bloc’s upcoming seven-year budget to cover expenses for the Ukrainian government, Bloomberg reported this week, citing people familiar with the discussions. Budapest, however, has been a vocal critic of the bloc’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict since its onset. “Europe has run out of money – except when it comes to war. There is always 100 billion euros for that,” Orban wrote on Wednesday on social media. He warned that such an allocation of funds would likely lead to further proposals to spend EU taxpayers’ money on Ukraine.

Orban pointed to Kiev’s estimate that it would require $1 trillion over 14 years for reconstruction and modernization, a figure shared by Prime Minister Denis Shmigal during a donors conference in Rome this week. “While Europe cannot climb out of its own economic, social and security crisis, Brussels would continue to finance the war – weapons instead of peace, new debt instead of a competitive Europe,” Orban said. Last week, Bloomberg reported that US investment firm BlackRock had abandoned efforts to attract private investors for a Ukraine reconstruction program. The fund was expected to be launched at the Rome conference, but potential participants reportedly expressed “a lack of interest amid increased uncertainty” over the country’s future.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said at the event that “only friends are invited” to help rebuild the country. He reiterated his call to confiscate Russian state assets frozen by Western nations and transfer them to Kiev. Moscow has warned that such actions would constitute international theft. EU members have voiced concern that expropriating Russian assets could significantly erode global confidence in their financial systems. As an alternative, Ukraine’s backers have been imposing a “windfall tax” on profits from the immobilized Russian funds and channeling the money to Kiev – an approach Moscow has described as another form of criminality. Hungary has accused the EU leadership of inflicting major economic harm on member states through sanctions on Russia, and of wasting resources on a war effort that it argues cannot deliver a military victory over Moscow.

Read more …

“..German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Germany must once again become Europe’s leading military power. “He didn’t even choke on the word ‘again,’” Lavrov noted..”

• Western European Leaders Dragging Continent Toward War With Russia – Lavrov (RT)

Western European leaders have forgotten the lessons of history and are once again steering the continent toward direct military confrontation with Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned. During a press conference following ASEAN events on Friday, he pointed to recent actions and rhetoric coming from Berlin, Paris, and London as evidence that European leaders are taking an increasingly aggressive stance toward Moscow. Lavrov pointed to a public exchange in which French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot was asked why Paris continues to support the Nazi regime in Kiev. The Russian diplomat questioned the sincerity of Barrot’s “hysterical” response, in which he insisted France was defending “the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

“They have forgotten the conclusions that all of humanity once drew from those lessons. And, essentially, they are once again trying to prepare Europe for war – not some hybrid war, but a real war against Russia,” Lavrov stated. Kiev’s push for territorial control serves only to “suppress the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population and to physically eliminate those who oppose” the post-coup regime, according to Russia’s top diplomat. Claims that territorial integrity is the sole motive amount to “self-incrimination,” he added. Moscow has sounded the alarm over the resurgence of Nazi ideology and suppression of Russian culture in Ukraine for years, listing ‘denazification’ as one of the key goals in the conflict.

Lavrov also addressed remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Germany must once again become Europe’s leading military power. “He didn’t even choke on the word ‘again,’” Lavrov noted. If Merz now believes peaceful solutions are exhausted, he has effectively dedicated himself to the militarization of Germany at the expense of its own people, Lavrov argued, calling such a stance “complete nonsense.” Moscow has warned that Berlin’s stance could lead to a new armed conflict with Moscow decades after the end of World War II. The Kremlin maintains that Russia prefers a peaceful solution to the conflict but warned that conditions on the ground are rapidly evolving while Kiev balks at a third round of direct negotiations.

Moscow has condemned the EU’s growing militarization, which has stirred divisions within the bloc, while describing its weapons deliveries to Kiev as part of a NATO-led proxy war. Lavrov said Moscow will take Europe’s militarization “into account in all areas of our strategic planning.”

Read more …

“The EU’s priority is to stabilize the situation with the US, von der Leyen said. “We are working tirelessly to find an initial understanding..”

• Relations With US Will Never Be The Same – von der Leyen (RT)

Relations with the US may never return to what they used to be, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said, citing tensions with Washington over increased tariffs on European goods. US President Donald Trump introduced 20% tariffs on European imports in February. The EU responded with its own set of trade penalties. Trump later lowered duties to 10%, pending negotiations. That pause has now been extended until early August. ”We believe that tariffs are a loss for everyone. But we are not naive either: we know that the relationship with the US may never go back to what it used to be,” the EU chief stated at an economic-industrial forum in Rome on Thursday. The EU’s priority is to stabilize the situation with the US, von der Leyen said. “We are working tirelessly to find an initial understanding,” she added.

The EU chief called Washington “the most important trading and investment partner” of Brussels. In 2024, the US was the largest exporter of goods to the EU and the second-ranking destination for EU imports after China, according to Eurostat. Trump’s global tariff campaign has grown to include 211 countries. The American leader says his objective is to reduce the US trade deficit and stimulate domestic production. Since his first term, Trump has been pushing European NATO members to spend more on their own defense. While the bloc’s members agreed to a 2% threshold in February, the US president suggested that NATO countries consider spending as much as 5% of GDP, warning: “if they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them.” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said Trump was right to demand that European members step up military spending.

The bloc subsequently agreed to a 5% minimum in June. NATO leaders insisted that the hike in expenditure was aimed at deterring Russia amid the Ukraine conflict. Some officials suggested that Moscow could launch a full-scale attack on the US-led bloc within a few years. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, however, called the NATO spending increase “unreasonable and counterproductive,” which Trump responded to by saying he would “make them pay twice” through trade measures. Russian officials have repeatedly emphasized that Moscow has never had any plans to attack NATO. Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected the allegations as “nonsense” and “utter rubbish,” stating that Western politicians make such claims to deceive their constituents and justify increased spending on defense and aid to Kiev. “In Ukraine, we are just protecting ourselves,” Putin insisted.

Read more …

Well, you know the conditions.

• Kiev Needs Ceasefire By The End of 2025 – Ukrainian Spy Chief (RT)

A ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine must be reached by the end of the year, the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, Kirill Budanov, said in an interview with Bloomberg published on Friday. He made his remarks as Ukrainian troops have been steadily losing ground along different sections of the front line, and after the 2024 incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region ended in costly failure. The Ukrainian army has also been struggling to bring in new conscripts. According to Bloomberg, Budanov argued that “a ceasefire must be reached as soon as possible and well before the end of this year.” “Is it realistic to do so? Yes. Is it difficult? No,” he told Bloomberg. “It takes at least three sides – Ukraine, Russia, and the US. And we will get to this position.”

Moscow has rejected the proposal for an immediate and unconditional truce, insisting that Kiev and its Western backers must first agree to several demands, including the withdrawal of troops from Russian territory claimed by Ukraine, an end to Ukraine’s mobilization campaign, and a halt to foreign military aid. Russian President Vladimir Putin also accused Ukraine of wanting to use any pause in fighting to rearm and regroup its forces. Moscow has further warned that it will not accept the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine, even if they are deployed under the guise of peacekeepers. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this week that the sides are working to arrange a third round of direct talks in Türkiye. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, however, said during a summit in Rome on Thursday that the countries must first complete the prisoner swaps agreed during negotiations in Istanbul on June 2.

Read more …

“Militants from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) slaughtered up to 100,000 Poles between 1943 and 1945..”

• Zelensky Claimed He ‘Never Heard Of’ Ukrainian Nazi Crimes – Duda (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky claimed he had no idea about the atrocities committed by Ukrainian Nazi collaborators during World War II until confronted about the issue by Polish President Andrzej Duda, the latter has told the media outlet RMF24. According to the president, Zelensky’s claim underscores that Ukrainians are kept in the dark about their nation’s troubled past. “He said to me: ‘Andrzej, I’ve never heard of the murders, the killing of Poles in western Ukraine, in Volhynia. They didn’t teach us about it in school’,” Duda said, recounting one of his meetings with the Ukrainian leader. The president was referring to the infamous Volyn massacre, which has long been a flashpoint in bilateral relations between the two countries.

Militants from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) slaughtered up to 100,000 Poles between 1943 and 1945 in the regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, which were later incorporated into Ukraine. Both the UPA and the OUN collaborated with Nazi Germany during WWII. Many historic ultranationalist leaders, including OUN leader Stepan Bandera, a notorious Nazi collaborator, are widely revered by Ukrainians today. According to Duda, they are ignorant about the crimes of the past. The widespread belief that they are aware of their own “difficult history” is wrong, according to the Polish president. It is not the first time Duda has expressed his concerns about Ukraine’s approach to its past. In September 2024, he told Polsat News that “Ukrainians have many problems with their history,” including “the Volyn massacre … service in SS units, collaboration with the authorities of the Third Reich, and participation in the Holocaust.”

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry released a statement on Thursday, saying that historical events should be studied and discussed “without politicization.” “On the eve of the day when the Republic of Poland commemorates the victims of the Volyn tragedy, Ukraine shares the pain and grief of the Polish people. At the same time, we do not forget about the numerous Ukrainians who became innocent victims of interethnic violence, political repression and deportation on the territory of Poland,” the statement continued. Warsaw has been one of Kiev’s strongest supporters since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022. Poland also provided a key logistics hub which was used to transport between 80-90% of NATO-supplied military equipment and ammunition to Ukraine.

Ukrainian authorities continue to glorify Nazi collaborators despite concerns expressed by Kiev’s Western backers. In February, the city of Rovno celebrated the 120th birthday of Nazi collaborator and prominent anti-Semitic propagandist Ulas Samchuk, who called for the mass killing of Jews and Poles during WWII. Less than a month later, Ukrainian nationalists commemorated the 75th anniversary of the death of UPA leader Roman Shukhevich with a torchlit march, and unveiled a museum dedicated to him. Shukhevich is considered by many historians to have been one of the architects and commanders responsible for the massacre of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia.

Read more …

“There is no clear international balance, and no blueprint for restoring one. This transitional era will last, perhaps for decades.”

• The West Mocked BRICS For Years But Now It’s Paying Attention (Lukyanov)

The idea of a multipolar world has long been used in two distinct contexts. One is when global hegemony is solid and unchallenged, as it was for the decade and a half following the Cold War. In that case, ‘multipolarity’ serves as little more than a slogan – a symbolic protest against US dominance, with no practical strategy behind it. The other is when that hegemony has fully collapsed, and international relations revert to their historical norm: a fluid, unpredictable interplay of states with differing levels of power. Then, multipolarity becomes a fact, and actions are guided by immediate context. Today’s world fits neither condition. The old unipolar order is fading, but its structures and reflexes remain. That is why the current moment is so peculiar – and why BRICS has become such an important indicator of the transition underway.

This group of nations, for all its diversity and contradictions, reflects the emerging outlines of a world less shaped by Western control. The latest BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro prompted disappointment in some quarters. Several key leaders were absent, and the headlines lacked drama. Compared to last year’s bold meeting in Kazan, it seemed muted. But this calmer tone is not a setback – it reflects the changing environment BRICS now operates in. Three trends help explain the summit’s tone. First, global tensions are rising. The recent clashes between India and Pakistan, and between Israel and Iran, directly involve BRICS members. While not full-blown conflicts within the group, they underscore a lack of unity. As BRICS expands, internal diversity increases, making it harder to maintain a single voice. The natural result is cautious language and vague formulations. That may frustrate observers, but it reflects realism.

Second, the United States under Donald Trump has adopted a more explicitly anti-BRICS stance. Washington has issued direct threats and imposed new duties on countries perceived to be aligned with the bloc. These efforts have a clear goal: to deter deeper cooperation between BRICS members. So far, they have not provoked open defiance. Most BRICS countries remain wary of direct confrontation with the West. Yet US pressure is steadily fueling resentment, and a firmer response may come if that pressure intensifies.

Third, the rotation of the BRICS presidency from Russia to Brazil altered the rhythm of the group’s activities. For Russia, BRICS is both a practical tool for economic coordination and a political platform that bypasses Western gatekeeping. Moscow invests heavily in its BRICS role. Brazil’s focus is different. Tied more closely to the West, it has other strategic priorities. That doesn’t mean Brasilia is uninterested in BRICS – only that it doesn’t treat it with the same urgency. Still, something important has happened. The 2023 and 2024 summits in South Africa and Russia changed BRICS. The group has matured, acquiring a new identity. That development will take time to digest. India’s upcoming presidency may continue the current more restrained phase, but that should not be mistaken for stagnation. It is a necessary period of consolidation.

This is why the Rio meeting should be seen as a success. The early phases of BRICS expansion, when the group was seen as vague and aspirational, were relatively easy. No one expected much. Now, the stakes are higher. America and its allies, once dismissive, are paying close attention. They are actively probing for weaknesses. This alone shows that BRICS is starting to matter. The group’s appeal lies in its alignment with real global trends. Today’s international environment demands flexibility, minimal obligations, and openness to difference. BRICS embodies these features. It avoids binding structures, embraces diversity, and operates on the basis of shared (though loosely defined) interests. We are living in a time of disorder.

There is no clear international balance, and no blueprint for restoring one. This transitional era will last, perhaps for decades. In the meantime, the world will increasingly look for platforms that reflect the new reality. BRICS is one of them. The perception of the group is shifting. It is no longer treated as a rhetorical device or a curiosity. It is becoming part of the emerging architecture of a multipolar world. That evolution will be slow and uneven, but it is underway. Following the summits in Johannesburg, Kazan, and now Rio, BRICS has entered a new phase. The challenge now is to recognize that change – and to adapt to it.

Read more …

The unpopular European “leaders” see a chance for revenge. The Trump/Musk rift gives them hope.

• France Opens Criminal Case Against Musk’s X (RT)

France has opened a criminal investigation into whether algorithms on Elon Musk’s X platform were used to interfere in domestic politics. The probe stems from two complaints filed in January, Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau said on Friday. Without naming Musk directly, she stated that investigators will examine the company and its executives for allegedly manipulating algorithms “for purposes of foreign interference.” The first complaint came from Eric Bothorel, a legislator from President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Ensemble party. He alleged that a “reduction in the diversity of voices and options” on X has created a dangerous environment.

Bothorel also criticized the platform’s moderation model as lacking clarity and accused Musk of personally intervening in its management, according to France 24. The complaint described X’s activities as posing a “real danger and a threat to our democracies.” The second complaint reportedly originated from a government cybersecurity official who claimed that changes to the algorithm promote racist and homophobic content, aiming to “skew democratic debate in France.” On Thursday, Socialist Party politicians Thierry Sother and Pierre Jouvet filed a separate complaint against Musk’s chatbot Grok, which recently generated antisemitic and otherwise offensive comments on X, including praise of Adolf Hitler.

The Grok team said on Wednesday that they had updated the model to remove hate speech. Musk commented that the chatbot was “too compliant to user prompts” and “too eager to please and be manipulated” into producing hateful rhetoric. European politicians have increasingly called for greater oversight of X and similar platforms, warning of potential abuse by bad actors. Musk caused controversy in Berlin when he openly endorsed the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party during the parliamentary elections in February. AfD significantly increased its vote share, becoming the second-largest faction in the Bundestag.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Bhakdi

Birth rate

Wine
https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/1943355762924724718

Men
https://twitter.com/CRIXUSwasHERE/status/1943287953100292104

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 11 2025

Jul 112025
 
 July 11, 2025  Posted by at 9:17 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,  38 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Female bust 1943

 

• Trump To Send $300 Million Worth Of Weapons To Ukraine – Reuters (RT)
• NATO Will Pay for US Weapons Designed to Be Supplied to Ukraine – Trump (Sp.)
• US Lacks Interest in Boosting Aid to Ukraine – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)
• Ukraine and EU ‘Already Lost’ [to Russia] – Orban (RT)
• Alan Dershowitz Says He Knows Who’s On The Epstein List (ZH)
• Will Pam Bondi Get Axed After the Epstein Debacle? (Margolis)
• Trump and Musk Allies Fight For Control of DOGE – WSJ (RT)
• Kiriakou: How Intelligence Agencies Gather Blackmail on Politicians (ZH)
• Von der Leyen Survives No-Confidence Vote, Dissent Surprises Brussels (TASS)
• EU Will Soon Collapse Without Russian Resources – MEP (RT)
• Everybody Loves Marco (PJM)
• America’s Cops Are Finally Safer. Can You Guess the Reason Why? (Margolis)
• Globalism Destroyed American Jobs (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Most US Law Enforcement Funds Are Going To Immigration & Border (ZH)
• Did Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Confirm a Cover-Up of His Health? (Margolis)
• Greece Suspends Asylum Applications For Arrivals From North Africa (RT)
• What Just Happened In Rio Should Terrify The West (Ibragimov)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1942986868989055479

bannon
https://twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1942959341415575610

Glenn

Bird flu

 

 

 

 

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a longtime skeptic of expanded aid to Kiev, reportedly ordered the pause without consulting Trump..”

• Trump To Send $300 Million Worth Of Weapons To Ukraine – Reuters (RT)

US President Donald Trump will for the first time use his authority to send weapons drawn from Pentagon stockpiles directly to Ukraine, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing two people familiar with the decision. While the Trump administration has so far only delivered weapons approved under his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) allows Trump to supply arms to Ukraine in an emergency. The new shipment could reportedly be worth around $300 million and may include Patriot surface-to-air missiles as well as medium-range rockets. The move would mark a reversal of the Pentagon’s recent decision to halt some deliveries over concerns about depleting domestic stockpiles.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a longtime skeptic of expanded aid to Kiev, reportedly ordered the pause without consulting Trump. The president confirmed earlier this week that he would send additional arms to Ukraine, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio later told reporters that the pause “unfortunately was mischaracterized.” During his election campaign, Trump criticized Biden’s unconditional aid to Kiev and called Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky “the greatest salesman on Earth” for persuading Democrats to keep weapons flowing.

Weapons supplies remain critical, as Ukrainian forces continue to lose ground to Russia and face increasing difficulties replenishing their ranks with new conscripts. Moscow has maintained that foreign arms will not prevent it from achieving its objectives. Last month, President Vladimir Putin reiterated that Russia considers Western countries supplying weapons to Ukraine as “de facto direct participants in the conflict.”

Read more …

It’s nothing personal, it’s strictly buiness.

• NATO Will Pay for US Weapons Designed to Be Supplied to Ukraine – Trump (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump said NATO, whose member Washington is, will pay for American weapons that the alliance will subsequently supply to Ukraine. “We’re sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, 100%. So what we’re doing is the weapons that are going out are going to NATO, and then NATO is going to be giving those weapons [to Ukraine], and NATO is paying for those weapons,” Trump told NBC News. He said the agreement was reached at a NATO summit in June. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz previously announced his readiness to purchase Patriot missile systems from the United States for their transfer to Ukraine. He discussed it with Trump, but there is no final decision yet.

Read more …

“The American people, including Trump’s voter base, have no interest in this war. This was, and remains, a Deep State project..”

• US Lacks Interest in Boosting Aid to Ukraine – Jeffrey Sachs (Sp.)

The US will not significantly increase arms supplies or financing to Ukraine, because American society, including voters of US President Donald Trump, are not interested in this war, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, told Sputnik. “Still I do not believe that the US will significantly expand its role in supplying arms or financing Ukraine. The American people, including Trump’s voter base, have no interest in this war. This was, and remains, a Deep State project,” a well-known American economist said.

Trump announced his intention to supply the Kiev regime with “some more weapons” on Monday, but did not clarify the specific types of military aid his administration plans to send or whether Patriot missiles demanded by Ukraine would be included. Axios reported earlier on Tuesday that Trump had promised to immediately send 10 Patriot interceptor missiles to Kiev and provide assistance in finding other means of military supplies.

Read more …

“..there will come a bitter moment when European leaders – apart from us and the Slovaks – will have to admit that they followed a mistaken strategy and were therefore defeated in this war.”

• Ukraine and EU ‘Already Lost’ [to Russia] – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said both Ukraine and the EU have already lost the conflict with Russia in an interview with the YouTube channel Patriota, which was posted on Wednesday. He argued that the war cannot be won on the battlefield and should be resolved through diplomacy. The Hungarian leader suggested that “there will come a bitter moment when European leaders – apart from us and the Slovaks – will have to admit that they followed a mistaken strategy and were therefore defeated in this war.” “I believe the EU has already lost the war. Ukraine is holding on – although it’s retreating – but I think Ukraine has also lost,” Orban said. The Hungarian leader did not specify what specific strategy he was referring to, but his government has consistently opposed EU sanctions targeting Russia and refused to send weapons to Kiev.

Budapest has instead called for negotiations to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Orban stressed that resolving the Ukraine conflict on the battlefield is “impossible” and insisted that it can only be ended through diplomacy, which would also help reduce, or completely prevent, further casualties. He added that the EU should never have entered this path and that it is now crucial to “slow down, stop, thank the generals for their service, bring back the diplomats and foreign ministers, and begin working toward peace.” Orban’s comments come as key EU powers have continued to advocate continued military support for Ukraine. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz suggested on Wednesday that diplomacy has been “exhausted” and vowed to keep sending arms to Kiev.

France’s defense minister has also called the demilitarization of Ukraine – one of Russia’s key demands – a “red line,” arguing that Kiev must retain a standing army if it ends up being denied NATO membership. However, other leaders have voiced skepticism. Czech President Petr Pavel, a pro-Russia hardliner, recently said the EU must reconsider its Russia strategy, warning that fighting Moscow “endlessly” would lead to massive casualties and economic damage to both Ukraine and the EU. Russia has repeatedly denounced Western military backing for Ukraine, saying it only prolongs the war. President Vladimir Putin have also described Europe’s sanctions and attempts to phase out Russian energy as “economic suicide.”

Read more …

“..I’m bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can’t disclose what I know..”

• Alan Dershowitz Says He Knows Who’s On The Epstein List (ZH)

Two days after the FBI leaked a memo to Axios revealing that the Epstein case is effectively ‘closed’ (he killed himself and there’s no ‘list’ of clients) – former Epstein attorney and associate Alan Dershowitz says he knows exactly who’s on the ‘Epstein list,’ and why it’s being suppressed from the public. “I have seen – remember I was accused falsely,” Dershowitz said on the Sean Spicer show. “Let me tell you, I know for a fact documents are being suppressed. And they’re being suppressed to protect the individuals. I know the names of the individuals. I know why they’re being suppressed. I know who’s suppressing them. But I’m bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can’t disclose what I know. But I – hand to God, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that’s wrong.”

SPICER: Just out of curiosity without names, are these poiticians, business leaders, both?
DERSHOWITZ: They’re everything, and look – let me tell you… a lot of them are – at least one of them is somebody who was accused. Others are accusers, and the judges have said – if somebody calls themselves a victim, we’re not going to give any information about them – but they may not be victims, they may be perpetrators. So we don’t have information about false accusers. We know there have been many false accusers who have accused innocent people for money, and those records are being deliberately, willfully suppressed – and they shouldn’t be suppressed. If the accusation is allowed out, so should the material that diminishes the credibility of the accuser. We want total transparency on this. Every single document. No redactions. That’s what I’ve said from day one… I waive any of my rights to privacy, anything there is about me, I’m happy because it will be exculpatory.”

On Wednesday, President Trump and AG Pam Bondi completely botched a reporter’s question over Epstein – with Trump lashing out, saying “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?” Then Bondi jumped in – saying “First, to back up on that. In February, I did an interview on Fox and it’s been getting a lot of attention because I was asked a question about the client list. And my response was ‘it’s sitting on my desk to be reviewed,’ meaning the file – along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That’s what I meant by that. Also to the tens of thousands of video – they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were. Never gonna be released. Never gonna see the light of day. To him being an agent; I have no knowledge of that. We can get back to you on that.”

Read more …

“Bondi, she argues, either “willingly humiliated some of the president’s most loyal supporters” or is simply “lazy and incompetent.”

• Will Pam Bondi Get Axed After the Epstein Debacle? (Margolis)

Is Pam Bondi’s tenure as President Trump’s attorney general hanging by a thread? Megyn Kelly thinks so. According to her, the Epstein debacle has exposed a level of incompetence and political tone-deafness that even the most loyal Trump supporters can’t ignore. In her recent analysis, Kelly didn’t pull any punches about Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files. She called out Bondi’s performance as not just a misstep, but a full-blown embarrassment — one that may have sealed her fate in the Trump administration. Bondi, she argues, either “willingly humiliated some of the president’s most loyal supporters” or is simply “lazy and incompetent.” There’s no sugarcoating here. Kelly points to Bondi’s much-hyped promise to deliver the Epstein “client list,” only for Bondi to produce a pile of nothing: recycled, publicly available documents masquerading as bombshells.

For a base hungry for accountability and truth, this was a slap in the face. Kelly’s words cut to the heart of the matter: “If you’re going to make a spectacle out of finally revealing the Epstein files, you’d better have the goods. Pam Bondi didn’t.” Instead, Bondi delivered nothing new, just a parade of letdowns that left Trump supporters feeling duped and insulted. Kelly’s assessment is that Bondi’s actions were not just a failure; they were a betrayal of trust. And when Bondi tried to shift the blame, Kelly wasn’t buying it. Bondi’s excuse that the FBI gave her the wrong documents only made things worse. Kelly zeroed in on the lack of follow-through: promises of further revelations that never materialized and wild, unsubstantiated claims about “tens of thousands of kiddy porn or child pornography material” that only muddied the waters.

Kelly harshly criticized Bondi for briefing pro-Trump influencers with a binder full of what turned out to be old, recycled information. She accused Bondi of either being too lazy to vet the material or deliberately setting up the president’s allies — like Kash Patel and the vice president — for embarrassment. Either way, she argued, it reflects badly on Bondi. “So she’s either lazy and incompetent, or she willingly humiliated some of the president’s most loyal supporters. Neither one of those is good,” Kelly said. “And that’s why, I’m sorry, but I’m going to predict her days are numbered as a member of the Trump administration. You know, Trump, he’s not dumb. But I just don’t think, I don’t think Trump created this.”

Perhaps even more telling was the way that Trump, always quick to reward loyalty and results, conspicuously left Bondi out of his praise in a recent post on Truth Social: The FBI, under the direction of Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, is back to the basics: Locking up criminals, and cleaning up America’s streets. We have the Greatest Law Enforcement professionals in the World, but “Politics” and Corrupt Leadership often prevented them from doing their job. That is no longer the case, and now, they have been unleashed to do their jobs, and they are doing just that. Keep it up — MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN! In Trump’s world, omission is often the loudest condemnation. As Kelly sees it, unless Bondi can pull off a miracle, she’s finished. And she may have a point.

Read more …

“DOGE staffers are being questioned in closed-door meetings about whether they support President Donald Trump or Musk..”

• Trump and Musk Allies Fight For Control of DOGE – WSJ (RT)

A power struggle is underway at the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), The Wall Street Journal has claimed. Allies of Elon Musk are reportedly trying to retain influence as the White House moves to scale back the agency’s power. Current and former officials told the outlet that DOGE staffers are being questioned in closed-door meetings about whether they support President Donald Trump or Musk, the tech billionaire who led the department until last month. Musk quit as the head of DOGE amid disagreements with Trump over a sweeping tax and spending package called the Big Beautiful Bill, which included a $5 trillion debt ceiling hike. He criticized the legislation as undercutting DOGE’s mission to reduce federal spending.

Tension and paranoia have reportedly taken hold inside DOGE’s shrinking ranks. White House officials are now said to be working to limit the department’s influence. Despite resigning, Musk’s influence reportedly persists through Steve Davis, a longtime aide who left his government post in May. Davis has continued to interact with DOGE staff, and according to some insiders, still issues guidance. In private conversations, he has supposedly even claimed his departure was “fake news.” A DOGE official close to Musk, however, said Davis’ contact with staff is informal. Some in DOGE say Musk loyalists are pushing for a reboot under as DOGE 2.0, with a focus on modernizing government websites and IT systems rather than downsizing staff.

Others, including White House officials, suspect Musk and Davis are leveraging government ties for private business interests. WSJ noted that the struggle poses political risks for Musk, whose companies Tesla and SpaceX rely on federal contracts and are currently facing financial pressure. Last week, Trump escalated the feud, telling reporters: “We might have to put DOGE on Elon… DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.” On July 5, Musk announced the launch of the America Party, which he says will break the two-party system and win enough Congressional seats to gain leverage.

Read more …

“That, he says, is EXACTLY what Epstein was to intelligence agencies: someone with access (like the copy machine repairman) who quietly delivered leverage on the world’s elite.”

• Kiriakou: How Intelligence Agencies Gather Blackmail on Politicians (ZH)

You’ll see how this connects to Epstein. John Kiriakou reveals his superior got a promotion and a medal when he recruited a copy machine repairman. At first, Kiriakou laughed, but then he realized the brilliance of the plan when he learned that the repairman secretly sent every document from a prime minister’s office straight to the CIA. How did he do it? By planting a tiny device on the copy machine. “He [my trainer] said, all of us want to recruit the prime minister. We’re not going to recruit the prime minister. We’re not even going to have access to the prime minister. But the prime minister’s got a copy machine in his office. “And every once in a while, that machine is going to need to be cleaned and serviced.

So you recruit the copy machine repairman. And when he goes in there to make his repair or to clean the drums or whatever, he installs a little device that we give him so that every time somebody makes a copy, it transmits a copy back to the CIA.” What happened next? He said, “I got a promotion. I got a medal. I got a photo op with the director. It made my career…” Because this flow of information was pure leverage for the CIA:

“You know what they’re thinking. You know their next move. You know who their enemies are and who their allies are. Maybe it’s their position on trade negotiations. Maybe the prime minister has a health problem you need to plan for. You never know what might come through,” Kiriakou explained.“That ONE critical nugget is all it takes.” That, he says, is EXACTLY what Epstein was to intelligence agencies: someone with access (like the copy machine repairman) who quietly delivered leverage on the world’s elite.

https://twitter.com/JohnMcCloy/status/1942990582466437625

Read more …

30% dissent is a lot.

• Von der Leyen Survives No-Confidence Vote, Dissent Surprises Brussels (TASS)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen suspects certain “external forces” are trying to divide the EU, but her narrow escape in today’s no confidence vote shows that the problems may be internal. “As external forces seek to destabilize and divide us, it is our duty to respond in line with our values. Thank you, and long live Europe,” von der Leyen wrote on X. The European Union “needs strength, vision, and the capacity to act,” she argued. Earlier, a diplomat in Brussels told TASS that the results of the no-confidence vote on the EU chief “sent shockwaves through Brussels.” Even supporters of the motion expected some 15% to 20% of members to support the move, and “the share of those dissatisfied with the work of the European Commission exceeded these expectations,” he said.

The diplomat also opined that the vote “will not affect the political course being pursued by the European Commission.” According to him, next, the EC “will probably launch a large-scale media campaign for damage control, one that is likely to attribute the discontent with how the European Commission runs things to external forces,” he explained. Von der Leyen survived a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament at a plenary session in Strasbourg on Thursday. The vote followed allegations of corruption and misconduct in the EU’s procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. Out of 553 MEPs who showed up to cast a ballot, 360 voted to reject the motion, with 175 in favor and 18 abstaining.

Read more …

”[Von der Leyen], you will destroy the EU, and I am convinced that the EU will soon collapse because you are doing everything to make it happen..”

• EU Will Soon Collapse Without Russian Resources – MEP (RT)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is leading the EU down a path of self-destruction by attempting to sever energy ties with Russia, Slovak MEP Milan Uhrik has said. In May, von der Leyen unveiled a plan to phase out all Russian oil and gas imports by the end of 2027, as part of the EU’s REPowerEU roadmap, which aims to eliminate the bloc’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels and shift to renewable sources. ”[Von der Leyen], you will destroy the EU, and I am convinced that the EU will soon collapse because you are doing everything to make it happen,” Uhrik said in a speech in the European Parliament on Wednesday. Moscow has argued that EU restrictions are self-defeating, causing surging energy prices and weakening the bloc’s economy. Since 2022, Germany has fallen into recession, while growth across the EU has stagnated.

Brussels is also discussing an 18th sanctions package targeting Russia’s energy and financial sectors. The proposal stalled after Slovakia vetoed it last week. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico argued that Slovakia was “fighting for our households and businesses” against “harmful ideological decisions” from Brussels. Neighboring Hungary also blocked the measure, warning it would cripple its energy security and spike prices. Uhrik stressed that Russian hydrocarbons remain vital for Slovakia’s industrial base. “Without them, our industry would either not function or would not be competitive,” he said. He urged fellow Slovak politician Maros Sefcovic, currently the EU’s commissioner for trade and economic security, to “stand up for Slovakia” on the issue.

Uhrik also took aim at NATO’s proposal to raise member states’ defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. “No, thank you – that’s enough. We just don’t want this,” he said, adding that Slovaks did not envision such a future when they joined the EU.Von der Leyen survived a no-confidence vote in the European Parliament on Thursday over her handling of COVID-19 vaccine procurement. The politician previously dismissed her critics as “conspiracy theorists” acting in the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Read more …

“In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that “I never was very, let’s say, approving of Marco because he was kind of a neocon war hawk and now he’s had this incredible transformation.”

• Everybody Loves Marco (PJM)

Marco Rubio may just be the most popular guy in Donald Trump’s Cabinet right now. It’s not just me saying that; the rest of the administration seems to think so, too. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles appeared on the “Pod Force Once” podcast with Miranda Devine on Wednesday, and she had what the New York Post called a “glowing endorsement” for the Secretary of State. Wiles said she often sits in Cabinet meetings and marvels at the “energetic” team Trump has put together: “But I was sitting in a Cabinet meeting one day, and they do tend to go on a while , and so I was jotting down in my notebook the, you know, how I saw the Cabinet — and these numbers are wrong, but order of magnitude correct — five published authors, seven billionaires, 11 lawyers, a couple of minorities, a Democrat or two. It is an amazing group of people that he put together.”

She singled out several people, but she seemed especially proud of Rubio. “Marco Rubio was born for this,” she said, adding that he had “quickly assimilated… in his NSC position.” She’s not the only person I’ve noticed praising the man who, once upon a time, wasn’t all that beloved by Trump and his MAGA base. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that “I never was very, let’s say, approving of Marco because he was kind of a neocon war hawk and now he’s had this incredible transformation.” Today, the Health and Human Services secretary says he and Rubio are aligned on most things. He also pointed out that Rubio may be the funniest man in the Cabinet. “He says things that make people belly laugh every cabinet meeting,” he told Carlson.

Vice President JD Vance told Fox News last month that Rubio was probably his “best friend in the administration” and said they hang out all the time (to be a fly on the wall for those conversations). The president himself has even said he sees Rubio as the next potential leader of the MAGA movement. Back in May, when Trump appeared on “Meet the Press,” host Kristen Welker asked him, “When you look to the future, Mr. President, do you think the MAGA movement can survive without you as its leader?” “I think we have a tremendous group of people,” the president responded. “We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco, you look at JD Vance, who’s fantastic.”

I always thought it was interesting that he mentioned Rubio first in that interview. But, as the Post points out, numerous polls show that Vance has a strong lead over Rubio, and, in some cases, even Ron DeSantis beats him when people are asked who they’d like to have as president in 2028. Trump also gave the Secretary a nice compliment during the NATO Summit a couple of weeks ago. After Rubio fired off at the media, setting the record straight on whether or not Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been set back significantly, the president said, “You know what Marco reminded me — he did such a nice job there — it was nine years ago I had to debate this guy. It was not easy. I think he even got better. But when you were into your little thing, I said this is what I had to debate this guy.”

I’d also like to mention that anytime I write about Rubio — and I do often — I get a pretty big stream of feedback from y’all suggesting that he would make a great contender for 2028 for president or vice president for Vance. I see it on X, too. For what it’s worth, earlier today, I was going through my own X/Twitter archives looking for something completely unrelated and realized I was pushing for a Rubio for president long before it was cool. I have receipts that go as far back as 2010.

Of course, a lot can change between now and then, and I hate when we get too ahead of ourselves in politics — it’s like putting out Christmas decorations in stores in August — but there is no denying that Rubio is Trump and the GOP’s star at the moment. He’s won over the hearts and minds of much of Trump’s base, and he knows how to work the swamp. He’s great on domestic policy, and he’s even better on foreign policy. With few exceptions, leaders around the world respect him and consider him a friend. They want to work with him. And assuming nothing changes, he’ll have Trump’s backing.

Read more …

“A new report from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund reveals a staggering 53% drop in officer fatalities..”

• America’s Cops Are Finally Safer. Can You Guess the Reason Why? (Margolis)

There’s a new reality unfolding across America, and it should give every law-abiding citizen a reason to breathe a little easier: police officers are safer on the job today than they were in recent years, and the Donald Trump presidency deserves the credit. Under Joe Biden (and Barack Obama), the men and women who wear the badge have been under siege—not just by criminals, but by a relentless anti-police movement fueled by the radical Left and amplified by their allies in the media and the Democratic Party. The “Defund the Police” crowd, with progressive politicians and activists cheering it on, did everything in its power to demonize law enforcement and turn public sentiment against those who risk their lives to keep our communities safe.

The deaths of Michael Brown and George Floyd were weaponized to push a narrative that painted every cop as a racist villain and every police department as a threat. But Americans had had enough. They saw the chaos, the rising crime, the lawlessness that swept through cities where leftist policies were given free rein. They understood that a society without respect for law enforcement is a society teetering on the brink. That’s why, when the time came, voters sent a message: they wanted law and order restored, and they wanted a president who would stand with the police, not against them.

Since President Trump’s return to the White House, the numbers speak for themselves. A new report from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund reveals a staggering 53% drop in officer fatalities compared to the previous year. Traffic-related deaths have been cut in half. Deaths from assaults, stabbings, and other causes have plummeted. For the first time in more than half a century, the nation is on pace for fewer than 100 line-of-duty deaths by year’s end.

This isn’t a coincidence. It’s the direct result of a cultural shift away from the anti-police hysteria that defined the Left’s agenda. Under Trump, the message from the top is that our police are heroes, not villains. They deserve respect, support, and the resources they need to do their jobs. The days of the White House turning its back on law enforcement are over. The days of criminals being emboldened by soft-on-crime policies are ending. “We as an organization never like to use the words ’good news’ when we’re talking about or reporting on even a single police officer’s death, but I would call this a very welcome and encouraging trend line,” Bill Alexander, the CEO of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, told The Washington Times.

Mr. Alexander said the nation is on pace to see fewer than 100 line-of-duty deaths by the end of this year, which would be a first for the country in the more than 50 years officer deaths have been tracked.The executive credited better law enforcement training for giving officers the tools to defuse tense situations both gracefully and safely. Mr. Alexander also said Mr. Trump’s election last fall marked a culture shift away from the anti-police fervor that was so prominent in the previous five years. “The profession writ large was targeted and demonized to, I might argue, an unfair degree,” the CEO said.

“Across almost every line of communication, whether that was popular media, social media, mainstream media, maybe even to a worrying degree from too many of our elected officials, again, targeting the profession,” Mr. Alexander said. “I think that that was having a really detrimental impact on a number of interactions between the public and law enforcement.” The radical Left won’t admit it, but its anti-cop crusade was a disaster. It endangered officers, emboldened criminals, and left communities less safe. Now, with Trump at the helm, that dangerous experiment is being reversed. The numbers prove it. The streets prove it. And the families of America’s law enforcement officers know it better than anyone. The Trump presidency is saving the lives of law enforcement. That’s a fact the Left can’t spin, and it’s a victory every American should celebrate.

Read more …

“Now, you tell me how is America a superpower instead of an emperor without any clothes? Why should anyone be afraid of a country that pays its bills by printing debt instruments?”

• Globalism Destroyed American Jobs (Paul Craig Roberts)

For many years I reported monthly on the jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the years the new jobs were consistently in health and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government employment. Manufacturing jobs making things that could be exported to pay for imports simply were not present. I emphasized that the jobs offshoring policy associated with globalism was de-industrializing the United States and destroying the middle class and the ladders of upward mobility that had made America an opportunity society. I held accountable the economic professors at Harvard and Dartmouth who promised that the lost of US manufacturing jobs, which they derided as “dirty fingernail jobs,” would be replaced by higher paid clean fingernail tech jobs. No such jobs ever appeared for the displaced manufacturing work force which has ceased to exist.

Fortunately, the US dollar being the world reserve currency allows the US to pay its bills by printing Treasury bonds. As Treasury bonds are the reserves of most foreign central banks, there has been a constant demand for more reserves. Thus, financing the US debt has been no problem. When US debt grows, so do the reserves of the world’s central banks. No problem. David Stockman in 45 years has been unable to learn this. The problem is internal. Manufacturing jobs are high productivity, high value added. Therefore the wage is high. The replacement jobs–stocking big box store shelves are low productivity. Consequently, the growth of income from wages stagnated and declined. Today American living standards are based more on credit than on productivity. Engineering and design follow manufacturing. When manufacturing leaves, so do engineering and design.

America was the loser. China was the winner. Wall Street forced American manufacturers to offshore their production to China in order to raise profits from lower labor and compliance costs. Wall Street ordered US manufacturers to “meet the Chinese price” or Wall Street would finance takeovers of the companies and move their production offshore. Clearly, Wall Street is an anti-American entity. I remember when Washington’s strategic thinkers said it would be 50 years before China would be a problem for American hegemony. The offshoring of US manufacturing, technology, and business knowhow reduced the time to 5 years. Today on a purchasing parity comparison, the Chinese economy exceeds that of the US. This is what globalism did for America. It made the American economy subordinate to China.

American economists were too well paid by globalists for me to draw them into a debate. Instead, they stayed with their propaganda, and America lost the ladders of upward mobility. To worsen the situation, the Democrats and Republican business interests left the borders open to millions of immigrant invaders who have overwhelmed educational, health, and housing services and driven down wages in the low productivity jobs. Today the profits of fruit and vegetable growers and meat slaughter houses depend on cheap immigrant-invader wages. But this is only the beginning. According to Bloomberg News, Artificial Intelligence will soon eliminate 20-40% of the jobs in America’s largest cities. Robotics are eliminating other low skilled wage jobs. What will America do with a population displaced by the digital revolution and AI?

Civilizational collapse stares us in the face, and not a single media source mentions the fact. Let’s look at June’s jobs report. It is the same as those I reported over many years. Where are the 147,000 jobs? Health care and social assistance provide 58,600 jobs. Leisure and hospitality provide 20,000 jobs. State and local education provide 63,500 jobs. That accounts for June’s new jobs.Clearly this is not a robust economy. Except for the 20,000 leisure and hospitality jobs, most of the rest are financed by government budget. Now, you tell me how is America a superpower instead of an emperor without any clothes? Why should anyone be afraid of a country that pays its bills by printing debt instruments? The reason is that the US has nuclear weapons and is under Israel’s direction. That is sufficient to terrify the world.

Read more …

Look at the money you can save if you just leave the border open…

• Most US Law Enforcement Funds Are Going To Immigration & Border (ZH)

Two thirds of all federal law enforcement funding in the United States for fiscal year 2025 is going to immigration and border enforcement, according to a CATO Institute analysis of data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Together, immigration and border enforcement will receive more than $33 billion. This includes funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at $19 billion, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at $10 billion, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at $281 million, the Department of Homeland Security’s general offices at $3.2 billion and 20 percent of the Coast Guard’s budget – approximately $2.2 billion. However, as Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, CATO notes that the actual value is even higher, as the Trump administration is “diverting thousands of agents from other federal law enforcement agencies and much of the military to enforcing immigration and border law.”

According to CATO analysts, the amount spent on immigration and border enforcement agencies is 36 times higher than spending on tax and financial crimes enforcement (IRS-Treasury), 21 times higher than funding for firearms enforcement (ATF), 13 times higher than on drug enforcement (DEA), 10 times higher than spending on the Secret Service and 8 times higher than the FBI budget. These figures are based on current calculations and do not yet reflect the additional increases expected under H.R. 1 – the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The CBP projects that this will direct an extra $168 billion over the coming years to immigration and border enforcement agencies, along with more funding for agencies that indirectly support immigration law enforcement. Unlike normal fiscal year appropriations, H.R. 1 makes these funds available over five years, though they can be accessed for up to 10 years, so long as they are committed by 2029.

Read more …

HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, is a US federal law that establishes national standards for protecting sensitive patient health information.

• Did Joe Biden’s Doctor Just Confirm a Cover-Up of His Health? (Margolis)

In a move that should obliterate whatever remains of the myth of transparency in Washington, Joe Biden’s longtime physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, finally showed up for a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee—and proceeded to not answer a single question.n But while O’Connor may have refused to talk, his silence said plenty. According to Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), O’Connor was asked two simple but devastating questions: “Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?” and “Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duties?” O’Connor didn’t say “No,” he pleaded the Fifth both times—choosing constitutional protection over basic accountability.

“This is unprecedented,” Comer said. “And I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.” He’s right. When a sitting president’s personal doctor refuses to answer whether he was told to lie to the American people, it’s not just troubling—it’s damning. This isn’t some minor bureaucratic hiccup or a routine legal maneuver—this is the doctor who, for years, stood between the American people and the truth about Joe Biden’s fitness for office. Now, when given the chance to clear the air, he chooses silence. Although O’Connor had previously refused to cooperate, somehow, pleading the Fifth now instead of answering those two questions looks worse. Let’s not pretend this is normal. O’Connor’s refusal to answer even basic questions about Biden’s condition raises the obvious question: What, exactly, is he trying to hide?

Of course, we all know the answer. For years, the Biden White House dismissed legitimate concerns about the president’s health as partisan attacks, hiding behind carefully worded reports from O’Connor. Those glowing annual assessments were the backbone of the cover-up, reassuring the public while Biden visibly declined. Let’s be clear: O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions isn’t about medical ethics—it’s about political damage control. This is the same doctor who repeatedly vouched for Biden’s fitness while the public watched a very different reality unfold. If there’s nothing to hide, why not answer questions? Why invoke your right not to incriminate yourself? Comer said it is “clear there was a conspiracy to cover up” Biden’s cognitive decline.

New York Post: “The only question O’Connor did answer before the deposition concluded was confirming his name, according to an Oversight spokesperson, who pointed out that doctor-patient privilege would have allowed the witness to answer at least some questions. Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as physician to the president during Barack Obama’s first term, agreed with that interpretation. “In my opinion, [the first question] doesn’t involve HIPAA,” Kuhlman told The Post. As for the second question, Kuhlman advised, “I don’t think that’s covered by HIPAA,” because it “doesn’t sound like that’s specific health information that they’re seeking.”

When asked whether he would answer questions under oath that don’t directly relate to a patient’s health, Kuhlman said: “In my role as a physician caring for a patient, I probably would.” Dr. O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions about Biden’s health isn’t just a legal tactic—it’s an admission that there’s something worth hiding. The American people have every right to demand answers. The time for stonewalling is over.

Read more …

Is it starting again? Western Crete Coast Guard: 9,000 arrivals so far this year. “..963 arrivals were recorded last Sunday alone, marking a 380% increase in migrant flows compared to the same period last year.”

• Greece Suspends Asylum Applications For Arrivals From North Africa (RT)

Greece has suspended the processing of asylum applications from people coming to the country from North Africa for three months, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has announced, warning that those arriving illegally by boat will be arrested and detained. The temporary measure will allow the government to effectively address the surge in migrant arrivals, the Greek official said in a post on X on Wednesday. “The Greek Government sends a message of determination that the passage from North Africa to Greece is closing… [and] to all traffickers and all their potential customers that the money they spend may be completely wasted, because it will be difficult to reach Greece by sea,” he declared.

The move comes just a day after Libya’s eastern-based government in Benghazi blocked the entry of an EU delegation, including Greek Minister for Migration and Asylum Thanos Plevris, who had visited the country for talks on curbing illegal migration. Libya became a key transit point for human trafficking and migration to Europe via the Mediterranean following a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 that led to the overthrow and assassination of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi.

Greek officials have reported a sharp rise in migrant arrivals on the southern islands of Crete and Gavdos in recent months, with more than 9,000 people landing there since the beginning of 2025. According to the Greek City Times, Vasilis Katsikandarakis, president of the Western Crete Coast Guard Personnel Union, has stated that 963 arrivals were recorded last Sunday alone, marking a 380% increase in migrant flows compared to the same period last year. “The migration issue is suffocating us,” Katsikandarakis said, claiming that “thousands more are waiting in North Africa.” On Tuesday, EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration Magnus Brunner, Greek Migration Minister Thanos Plevris, Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, and Maltese Minister for Home Affairs Byron Camilleri met with Libya’s UN-recognized government in Tripoli to discuss efforts to combat illegal migration along the Central Mediterranean route.

Following the meeting, the Tripoli-based administration’s prime minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, said he had tasked the Interior Ministry with drafting a national migration plan rooted in practical cooperation and a commitment to lasting solutions. The EU officials had been scheduled to hold talks with the rival administration in Benghazi but were declared unwelcome for allegedly violating Libyan laws. The EU has struggled to manage the migration crisis since 2015, with Greece, Italy, and Spain receiving the highest number of arrivals across the Mediterranean. The bloc plans to tie its development aid and trade relations with African nations to their cooperation in curbing small boat departures to Europe, Politico reported Wednesday, citing an internal draft document.

Read more …

BRICS.

“..the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.”

• What Just Happened In Rio Should Terrify The West (Ibragimov)

A few days ago, the city of Rio de Janeiro hosted the 17th BRICS summit, marking a significant step forward for the organization amid the accelerating transformation of the global political and economic landscape. Represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia played an active role in the summit’s proceedings, while President Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session via video link. In his remarks, the Russian leader offered a comprehensive analysis of current global trends, emphasizing that the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.

The Rio summit reaffirmed BRICS’ growing political weight and its ambition to become a key force in shaping the emerging multipolar order. High-level meetings drew global attention not only because of their scale but also due to the substantive outcomes they produced. A total of 126 joint commitments were adopted, spanning critical areas such as global governance reform, the restructuring of international financial institutions, healthcare, climate initiatives, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.

The declaration adopted at the summit, titled ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’, underscored BRICS’ commitment to multilateralism, respect for international law, and the promotion of a fair and equitable world order. But beyond the formal language, the summit revealed a deeper shift: BRICS is no longer limiting itself to cautious technocratic dialogue. The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as a cohesive international actor – capable of proposing new frameworks for economic integration, political solidarity, and global coordination.

Crucially, this political reorientation did not begin in Rio. It builds directly on the strategic groundwork laid during the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia – the largest BRICS gathering to date – which brought together not only member states but also dozens of partners under the BRICS+ umbrella. The Kazan summit established a new level of cooperation and ambition, and Rio served as a continuation of that trajectory. It became the arena where aspirations evolved into policy, and where the Global South began to more clearly articulate its place in the world.

Among the most consequential developments at the Rio summit was the firm commitment to advancing financial sovereignty among member states. Particular emphasis was placed on transitioning to transactions in national currencies – a long-standing initiative championed by Russia and several other BRICS countries. The leaders endorsed this direction, recognizing the need to reduce dependence on dominant reserve currencies. President Putin underscored that this was not merely an economic measure, but a geopolitical move aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of participating nations and insulating them from external pressure.

In support of this goal, the summit produced agreements to boost mutual investment volumes and accelerate the development of independent payment and settlement mechanisms. These initiatives are designed to lay the groundwork for a more resilient financial architecture – one that bypasses traditional Western-controlled institutions and empowers countries to determine the terms of their own economic cooperation. Increasingly, BRICS views economic autonomy as a precondition for long-term political independence in a world marked by volatility and polarization.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1943302172034166796


https://twitter.com/hvgoenka/status/1942953159682670617

A small court in Holland hosts (the first?) vaccine damage court case.
https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1943353968026923029

math
https://twitter.com/vegastarr/status/1942932500168183925

https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1943458617291870441

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
https://twitter.com/DiogenisSinopis/status/1943161343647084670

 

 

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/GenFlynn/status/1942533757543616569

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)

 

 

https://twitter.com/volcaholic1/status/1920423950691061934

Leo

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


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

Casey Means


https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1920293145537098043

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries