Mar 032026
 


Pablo Picasso The first communion 1896 (he was 14/15 when he painted this!)


Trump Claims ‘We Will Easily Prevail’ In Iran War (ZH)
On The Brink Of Israeli Nuclear Attack On Iran — Trump Just Said So (Helmer)
Fight or Flight: How Trump Boxed in Congress on War Powers (Turley)
Ayatollah So (James Howard Kunstler)
Trump Bit Off More Than He Can Chew With Iran – Ex-Pentagon Analyst (RT)
Trump Responds to American Casualties in Iran, Predicts More (DS)
U.S. Hits Iran With Iran’s Own Drone Design (Stephen Green)
The Left’s Iran Meltdown: Outrage on Cue, Memory on Vacation (David Manney)
Golden Dome for America (Joe Dodd)
The UK’s New Grooming Gang Scandal (Fraser Myers)
Tim Walz Is Stonewalling Congress to Protect Fraudsters, His Legacy (Margolis)
Poland Plans Social Media Ban For Under-15s (ZH)
Major League Pitcher Turns Down Padres $40 Million Due to State Taxes (Turley)

 


 

Prediction: US will lose

 


 


I don’t believe “easily”. And other than that, there are just so many -contradictory- accounts and opinions. Meet you halfway!

“.. delivering quick regime change and falling oil prices that cement Trumpism as a historic win, OR sparking Middle East chaos and global blowback..”

Trump Claims ‘We Will Easily Prevail’ In Iran War (ZH)

President Trump opened Monday’s Medal of Honor ceremony in the White House East Wing with a carefully prepared, somewhat brief statement on Operation Epic Fury. Speaking deliberatively – but not quite with the level of his typically confident and energetic tone and demeanor – he spoke initially and broadly on the rationale for ordering the attack on Iran, which is now in day three and has taken at least four American troop lives at this point. Trump vowed to “crush” the “Iranian threat posed to the US,” claiming that “we will easily prevail”. He declared that already US forces have knocked out ten ships, and that the plan is to also ensure the Iranians “can’t fund armies beyond borders”.


But high on the minds of Congressional leaders and the American public is: what’s next? Trump gave a timeline of a “projected four to five weeks” for war with Iran, “but we can go longer” and this will involve “whatever it takes.” He vowed to continue the mission with “unyielding resolve” – even amid reports that US Gulf allies UAE and Qatar are now lobbying allies to persuade Trump to end the Iran war soon (as the Gulf continues to feel the impact of Iran’s retaliatory strikes). The President just committed the nation to another potentially open-ended war in the Middle East. * * *

Update(1015ET): The Pentagon has announced it has gained complete ‘local air superiority’ over Iran, and also that Israel continues working with the US to eliminate ‘common threats’. This came soon on the heels of the shocking news of three US F-15s downed over Kuwait. Iran is claiming to have shot down at least one US jet, while the US and Kuwait counter-claim that it was actually Kuwaiti ‘friendly fire’. Some six total US airmen parachuted down safely into Kuwaiti territory.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has meanwhile stated that at this point approximately 600 Iranian infrastructure sites have been dismantled in Iran using 2,500 munitions. These sites included “over 20 targets belonging to Iranian military leaders,” the IDF said. But as the conflict expands into Lebanon, and as many Gulf countries continue witnessing inbound Iranian missiles and drones, NATO command has distanced itself from the conflict, with Secretary General Mark Rutte stating Monday that the alliance “will not participate” in the joint US-Israeli mission. The Joint Chiefs say that more American service members are being added to the operation.

THE BIG WAR GAMBLE… or, Rabobank’s take paraphrased down to a single key sentence: The US strike on Iran is Trump’s high-risk gamble to choke China’s energy lifeline, flip Tehran to allied control, open the India-Middle East-Europe corridor, weaken Russia, and lock in 21st-century US hegemony—delivering quick regime change and falling oil prices that cement Trumpism as a historic win, OR sparking Middle East chaos and global blowback that hands Beijing the advantage in a new age of empires.

In the meantime, War Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared on the defensive in a Pentagon briefing early Monday. He confirmed there are as yet no US boots on the ground, while also seeking to assure the American public this is not an “endless war”. And yet, reporters were still left frustrated by lack of a clear timeline, or laying out of specific objectives which must be accomplished before Operation Epic Fury is declared over. There was a moment where Hegseth erupted at a reporter’s question, revealing that tensions are high at the Pentagon:But worrisomely for the prospect of escalation, NBC observes that Hegseth did not rule out boots on the ground:

Asked whether U.S. boots are on the ground, Hegseth said no, but said he would not lay out what the U.S. could do as the operation continueHegseth said that Trump ensures that the country’s enemies know that the U.S. will go as far as it needs to in order to advance the U.S.’ interests. Time will tell if this firm pledge becomes a reality or not: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Monday that military operations against Iran would not lead to an “endless war” and that the aim was to destroy Tehran’s missiles, Navy and other security infrastructure. “We’re hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly and unapologetically,” Hegseth said during a press conference at the Pentagon.

Read more …

Russia and China knew the attack was coming-before it happened. Putin and Xi both decided to stay silent. “The Russians and Chinese have known all of this. They have concluded that if they tried to deter militarily the US-Israeli attack, it would go ahead anyway, and with nuclear weapons.”

On The Brink Of Israeli Nuclear Attack On Iran — Trump Just Said So (Helmer)

In investigating war and peace, life and death, truth and lies, innocence and guilt, there is hindsight bias and there is confirmation bias. Hindsight bias occurs when, with the evidence of what has just happened, the investigator is sure he anticipated the outcome from the beginning and is convinced he knew it all along. Confirmation bias operates forward in time, and also retrospectively, as new evidence is searched for in an investigation, interpreted when found, even fabricated, to prove what the investigator already suspected or believed to be the truth. These are the biases you the reader, and I the investigator, must beware of, especially now, if to believe the following reconstruction of the war which has just begun.
• Iran had agreed in the negotiations to the nuclear warhead and enrichment conditions, and probably also the agreement to stop backing Hezbollah, the Iraqis and the Houthis. Evidence: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17Bepid5iL/?sfnsn=mo


• The sticking point was the Iranian missile programme — and plainly that was non-negotiable for the Iranians.

• Israel sees the missile threat from Iran as existential — it certainly is, according to the maps by Theodore Postol of a 500-missile Iranian raid on Israel (lead image).

• Therefore, it doesn’t take Chabadniki like Benjamin Netanyahu and Jared Kushner reading their holy books to conclude that Iran must be destroyed before they destroy Israel, no matter what international law, the articles of the United Nations Charter, or the rest of the world thinks.

• General Daniel Caine and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) told President Donald Trump that there was no certainty that a conventional attack on Iran would either achieve decapitation and regime change, or destroy the Iranian underground missile stocks and systems for overground retaliation against Israel. He advised a “balancing act”.

• The Israelis have been emphatic in Netanyahu’s meetings with Trump in Miami and Washington that they have no choice but to attack and will go nuclear if they judge it necessary — with or without Trump’s say-so.

• The Americans replied that they would agree to attack and try to head off nuclear attack.

• The Russians and Chinese have known all of this. They have concluded that if they tried to deter militarily the US-Israeli attack, it would go ahead anyway, and with nuclear weapons. Whether that was a Netanyahu bluff or not, President Putin believed there was reason not to issue an advance warning. We don’t know what President Xi Jinping thought of the nuclear war risk and what he thought of the reason for not issuing an advance warning. We know he didn’t.

• We also know that the Russians and Chinese have been at loggerheads over something so strategic and important that they have been repeatedly hinting at it without disclosing the details since last December.

So here we are on the evidence, on the brink, and Trump has said so. The US and Israel will press their attack until they are confident that the Iranian missile defences are totally destroyed – “until all of our objectives are achieved”, Trump has said. Military sources say that the Iranians have been hitting targets in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and will be aiming at refineries and electricity power generating power plants. If the Iranians can, they will launch the attack on Israel which Postol has mapped as near-total destruction of the Israeli cities. If they do, or if they are about to do, Israel will launch preemptive nuclear attack.
Read more …

“.. under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, only Congress may declare wars. The result has been over two centuries of conflicts between presidents and Congress.”

Fight or Flight: How Trump Boxed in Congress on War Powers (Turley)

Below is my column in Fox.com on the move this coming week to introduce a war powers resolution to end the attacks in Iran. The task, however, will be far more challenging in light of the escalation of hostilities. With the loss of American personnel, the choice is even more stark politically for these members. President Donald Trump has left Congress with only fight or flight options.


Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) promised to force a vote on a war powers resolution to bar further prosecution of the war against Iran. Republicans such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have joined in the call to bar further hostilities. These members are certainly within their rights to call for such resolutions and the Framers wanted such debates to occur in Congress. However, it is too late to make this cat walk backwards. While there are good-faith reasons to oppose the commencement of the attacks, the United States is now in close combat with Iran. Drafting a war powers resolution at this stage would be nearly impossible without putting U.S. personnel and allies at risk.

The Constitution divides war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution declares that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.” However, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, only Congress may declare wars. The result has been over two centuries of conflicts between presidents and Congress. Presidents are clearly authorized to respond to threats to national security by commencing military operations. Past presidents, including Democratic presidents such as President Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have asserted the unilateral power to attack other nations when they believe that combat is warranted by national security.

The War Powers Act was the response of Congress to try to curtail such unilateral authority. Overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon, Congress mandated that presidents must consult with them and cease all combat operations within 60 days if Congress has not approved the use of force. Presidents, and some academics, have long argued that the WPA is unconstitutional in part or in whole. Now to the current conflict. The sixty-day period is likely ample for what President Donald Trump is planning for Iran since he has ruled out putting American boots on the ground in the conflict. That is why Kaine, Massie, and others are moving to cut off authorization immediately.

The problem is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are now launching a full-fledged attack with thousands of missiles against the United States, its assets, and its allies around the world. It has also declared that the key Strait of Hormuz is now closed — potentially choking off twenty percent of the world’s oil reserves. So how are these members going to draft a War Powers Resolution? The WPA requires that“The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.”

Kaine and others insist that hostilities were not imminent when we attacked. Even if that were true, they are now. We are in a full engagement with Iran with mounting injuries and destruction. All threats are now imminent and all attacks are arguably preemptive. WPR specifically allows for the use of force in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” Those attacks are now occurring. In these circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to limit the war powers of the President without putting American personnel or allies at risk. After decapitating the leadership in Iran, Iranian assets are clearly operating under prior orders in a decentralized structure. That means that the United States must neutralize any and all assets that they can find in preemptive attacks while trying to further degrade the command structure of the Iranian government. Is Congress going to require the United States to only act responsively, rather than preemptively, to attacks? That would be absurd from an operational standpoint. The most a resolution could demand is the cessation of hostilities once imminent threats are removed. That would be practically meaningless given the fact that hostilities will continue so long as the current Iranian government remains in power. Both the IRG and de facto Iranian leader Ali Larijani pledged that they are now unleashing every asset against the United States and its allies. Larijani declared “They stabbed heart of the nation, their heart will be stabbed too.”

Read more …

“Some of the supposed character “flaws” of @realDonaldTrump are precisely those that are needed to be a courageous and bold global leader.” Gad Saad

Ayatollah So (James Howard Kunstler)

You’ve got to think: if the US military can pinpoint one room in Teheran with a Grand Ayatollah and 39 other high officials in it, then the US military can figure out where Iran’s missiles are being launched from and put a stop to that, too. With no high command left, Iran’s missile batteries have been on their own since Saturday, desperately trying a kind of last-ditch “Samson option” to light up the whole region and bring the House of the Middle East down with Iran.


Firing on the Emirates, and Saudi Arabia especially, was maybe not such a hot idea. Saudi Arabia’ air defenses intercepted almost all the drones aimed at their giant Ras Tanura oil refinery. Falling debris started a small fire that was contained while the refinery shut down safely. Iran has reawakened the centuries-old rift between Shi’a and Sunni Islam and Saudi Arabia has been stockpiling war planes from the USA for fifty years without getting to use them much. I doubt they’ll pass up the chance.

Who does speak for Iran now? Just naming a successor to the Ayatollah Khamenei would put a target on his turban. Iran’s Intel Service building was blown up on Sunday, so that network must be dark. How is Iran’s government and its remaining military command communicating? And how would US and Israeli intel not be listening in on whatever chatter is out there? The world fretfully expects Iran to try to close the Strait of Hormuz, but how does that happen with tanker traffic halted and most of Iran’s navy blown up and its naval command headquarters destroyed? Without the ships to do it, it’s unlikely that Iran will be laying out minefields in the Strait. Or that any tankers will be around to sink in the channel.

President Trump has declared a four-week window for Operation Epic Fury. Sounds a little too generous. With no command structure left and no viable communication, you might give the Islamic Republic one more week, maybe. It’s a tossup whether they run out of missiles and drones before all their launch-sites and stockpiles get bombed. Meanwhile, a US / Israeli info operation that hacked Iran’s state-run TV seeks to persuade Iranian army personnel and government bureaucrats to turn on what remains of the theocracy and think about forming a secular government. Why would they stick with the loser regime?

Of course, the Trump-deranged political opposition in America is ululating over this effort to put the world’s leading fomenter of terrorism out of business. The New York Times is especially glum, claiming, “The American public’s appetite for an attack on Iran was low before Trump and Israel took action.” Maybe the Jacobin-Democrats they cater to feel that way, since the party has been increasingly synchronizing with the forces of Jihad since the Oct 7, 2023, Hamas raid. After forty-seven years of ayatollahs, what part of “Death to America” don’t they understand?

Not a few prominent figures on the Right also deplored Operation Epic Fury. The increasingly rogue Trump-hater and Israel vilifier, Tucker Carlson, called the action “disgusting and evil.” MTG called it “unnecessary and is unacceptable.” Blackwater founder Erik Prince colored it as “not serving America’s interests and inconsistent with President Trump’s MAGA agenda.” Rep. Thomas Masie (R-KY) framed his objection in Congress’s prerogative to declare war — though the War Powers Act of 1973 permits the president to conduct military operations for 60 days after notifying Congress of his intentions.

You can understand why people are nervous about this, with so many commentators predicting World War Three and Biblical Armageddon. The Fourth Turning narrative asserts that a major war is inevitable at this moment in history. Maybe so. But Ukraine has already happened and is on a glide path to its conclusion. And Operation Epic Fury does not have to turn out badly for all concerned, including Iran. Other more sanguine observers see a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East emerging from the smoke, a fulfillment of the Abraham Protocols, and the termination of Iran-sponsored proxy wars, terror programs, and medieval social despotism.

Epic Fury looks like a turning point for Western Civ more generally as regards tolerating Jihadi insolence — its declared intent to destroy all its “infidel” enemies, meaning you and me and the remaining indigenous population of Europe. The strife Iran managed to stir up all around the Middle East and beyond for decades was largely responsible for the mass migration into Europe and the dispersion of millions into the USA during “Joe Biden’s” open border years. Citizens are now rising to oppose Islam’s aggressive promotion of Sharia Law and demographic replacement in Texas and other states. Expect bolder resistance to all that now, here and in Europe, too.

However this thing goes, Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal, and this was, after all, the main issue. Anyway, the Iranians must be sick of the rule of the mullahs. Mr. Trump told them some weeks ago that “help is on the way.” He meant what he said, he didn’t chicken out, and now it’s up to the people of Iran to sort out how they enter the future, starting now.

Read more …

Iran is important for Russia and China. That is not less so with Khameini gone. BRICS.

Trump Bit Off More Than He Can Chew With Iran – Ex-Pentagon Analyst (RT)

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran are unlikely to trigger regime change and risk escalating into a wider geopolitical confrontation, former Pentagon security policy analyst Michael Maloof has told RT.Washington and West Jerusalem launched what they described as a “preemptive” attack on the Islamic Republic after nuclear talks failed to produce a breakthrough, prompting retaliation from Iran. Tehran responded with missile and drone strikes targeting Israel and US military bases across the region.


In an interview with RT on Saturday, Maloof said the timing of the attack had likely been finalized during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Mar-a-Lago on February 12, despite President Donald Trump publicly insisting that negotiations with Tehran were ongoing. “The United States has always done Israel’s bidding. Netanyahu basically controls Trump,” Maloof claimed, adding that the US president has effectively pursued the Israeli PM’s vision of “a greater Israel to encompass all the Arab countries.” Trump openly declared his goal to force regime change in Tehran, but efforts to topple Iran’s government would face major obstacles, according to Maloof.

“Regime change is something that is going to be difficult, especially in Iran, where they’re very, very set. They have a government in place,” he said. Even with the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would likely keep the country functioning as a “cohesive nation-state.”At the same time, he described the strikes as part of a broader strategic confrontation extending beyond Iran’s nuclear or missile programs, noting how the US president has been openly critical of BRICS and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

“And Iran just happened to be a very critical component to that, with Russia and with China,” Maloof said. “I think Trump bit off more than he could chew on this one.”“These attacks are gonna affect the whole economic world order, literally overnight. So we’re in for a long, hard slug here,” Maloof said, adding that “it’s easy to start a war, but [it’s harder to know how to stop one.”

Read more …

“Last night, all over Iran, the voices of the Iranian people could be heard cheering and celebrating in the streets when his death was announced.”

Trump Responds to American Casualties in Iran, Predicts More (DS)

President Donald Trump is promising to avenge the deaths of those lost in Operation Epic Fury. U.S. Central Command reported three fatalities in the first 24 hours after the strike on Iran. The United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran in what Trump characterized as the beginning of “major combat operations” early Saturday morning.“As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation,” Trump said in a video address Sunday night. “Even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives, we pray for the full recovery of the wounded and send our immense love and eternal gratitude to the families of the fallen.”


Trump said “sadly” there will “likely” be more deaths before the operation in Iran end“It is likely be more, but we’ll do everything possible where that won’t be the case, but America will avenge their deaths and deliver the most punishing blow to the terrorists who have waged war against basically, civilization,” he said. “They have waged war against civilization itself.” Trump said the resolve of the United States and Israel has never been stronger.“America is now again the richest, most powerful nation in the world by far,” he said. “But the only reason we enjoy the quality of life that we do and the freedom and security is we have done things that others are unable to do, but it’s because of warriors who are willing to lay down their lives to do battle with our enemies, and they do battle better than anybody.”

Trump again called the Iranian military and police to relinquish their weapons to “receive full immunity or face certain death.” He also encouraged protesters “to seize this moment to be brave, be bold, be heroic and take back your country.”“America is with you,” he said. “I made a promise to you, and I fulfilled that promise.” Trump said the voices of celebrating Iranians could be heard across the world last night after the ayatollah was killed.“This wretched and vile man had the blood of hundreds and even thousands of Americans on his hands and was responsible for the slaughter of countless thousand of innocent people all across many countries,” he said. “Last night, all over Iran, the voices of the Iranian people could be heard cheering and celebrating in the streets when his death was announced.”

Read more …

Good story.

U.S. Hits Iran With Iran’s Own Drone Design (Stephen Green)

In light of recent news out of the Middle East, we have to rewrite the old dictum — provenance disputed — that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness. Because you know those Iranian-made Shahed drones Russia keeps smacking Ukraine with? Yeah, we hit Iran last weekend with a copycat version of the very same drone. In July of 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth headed up a Pentagon event showing off 18 American-made drone prototypes, that had gone from drawing board to development in just an average of 18 months. By comparison, the Navy’s F/A-XX to replace the aging F/A-18 multirole jets with a modern platform started in 2012, and they haven’t even chosen a design.


One of the prototypes shown off by Hegseth looked more than a little familiar to anyone following the Russo-Ukraine War drone campaign, because it was a virtual copy of Iran’s infamous Shahed drone, now made in Russia, too, and manufactured in the thousands. Only this one is made in Arizona by a startup called SpektreWorks.They cost roughly $35,000 apiece and have an attack range of roughly 450 miles. Iran calls it Shahed, or Witness. The Russians call their domestically produced version Geran-2, or Geranium. We call ours the Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System, or LUCAS, because of course we do. Anyway.

At the time, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael told reporters, “It’s an extraordinary achievement. This kind of thing was going to take five, six years.” This was all in response to an executive order by President Donald Trump, directing the Pentagon to “procure, integrate, and train using low-cost, high-performing drones manufactured in the United States.”Trump called it “unleashing American drone dominance,” and not even a year later, here we are. On Saturday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that LUCAS flew in combat for the first time during Operation Epic Fury, not much longer than two years after SpektreWorks began developing them:

“Task Force Scorpion Strike, for the first time in history, is using one-way attack drones in combat during Operation Epic Fury. These low-cost drones, modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones, are now delivering American-made retribution.””For the price of a single Tomahawk, you can launch 57 LUCAS drones,” analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera posted over the weekend. What’s even more remarkable is the cost savings — even over the Russian model. “A Shahed-136 in Russian production costs approximately $80,000 per unit at the Alabuga facility. The American reverse-engineered version costs less than half the Russian licensed copy of the Iranian original.

“SpektreWorks received a $30 million initial production contract. That buys 857 kamikaze drones for what the Navy spends maintaining a handful of Tomahawks.”LUCAS also has some nifty electronics under the hood. The Shahed/Geran is a fairly simple creature, capable of flying to a pre-programmed location and blowing up. Each LUCAS is integrated into the Pentagon’s MUSIC mesh network — some even with built-in SpaceX Starshield terminals! — allowing operators to reprogram it in real-time, and making it into a communications node, expanding every local commander’s view of the battlespace.

All for the price of a nicely appointed Chevrolet Equinox.Granted, with its short range and comparatively tiny warhead, even in large numbers, there are jobs LUCAS simply can’t do that Tomahawk can. The Tomahawk can also carry some… interesting… payloads that LUCAS can’t. But having large numbers of cheap drones broadens the range of decisions available to any commander lucky enough to have LUCAS — and their low price means they’ll eventually be integrated anywhere we can make them fit.

It’s been maybe three years since the Russo-Ukraine War had even doubters admitting that drone warfare changes everything — and, frankly, we’ve been behind. While Western air forces (particularly the American and Israeli) dominate the skies above 3,000 feet, drone operators own, or at least can contest the lower altitudes. I wish I could remember who to credit that observation, but it dates back to probably 2023. So perhaps instead of some closed-minded insistence about imitation being the sincerest form of flatter that mediocrity can pay to greatness, how about we just ask, “How about a taste of your own medicine?”

Delivered on the cheap.

Read more …

“.. the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion to Iran as part of a settlement tied to the nuclear agreement. The payment included $400 millon in cash delivered the same day American prisoners were released, along with $1.3 billion in interest.”

The Left’s Iran Meltdown: Outrage on Cue, Memory on Vacation (David Manney)

Explosives our military shared with regime targets in Iran during Operation Epic Fury did more than blow up targets; it exposed a political reflex that snaps into place whenever President Donald Trump takes decisive action overseas.


Within hours of the strikes, prominent Democrats declared the operation illegal, reckless, and unconstitutional. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), she of the small ankle-biting dogs who never stop barking and constantly make a nuisance of themselves, called the action an unlawful war and demanded that Congress rein in the White House. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), calling on her comic-book collection for foreign-policy lessons from such esteemed fictional characters as Joe Biden, labeled the strikes catastrophic and unnecessary. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the Temu Obama, insisted the administration owed Congress immediate answers and suggested limits on war powers.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), six-time champion of the Gollom look-a-like contest, said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s removal was a positive development but warned the white House lacked a clear plan. Their language differed in tone and scripts, but the outrage moved in one direction. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez labeled the strikes catastrophic and unnecessary. U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries insisted the administration owed Congress immediate answers and suggested limits on war powers. Sen. Mark Kelly said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s removal was a positive development but warned the White House lacked a clear plan. Their language differed in tone, but the outrage moved in one direction.

Resolutions over the War Powers Act surfaced almost immediately; democratic lawmakers pushed for votes to restrict presidential authority and framed the strikes as a dangerous escalation. The urgency was unmistakable, the message unified, and the volume turned up to 11. Yet maybe because the left uses so much oxygen in a room, Democrats suffered from oxygen deprivation? I’m only asking because their memories surrounding historical Iranian policy appear selective. It was good to be an Iranian terrorist group in January 2016, when the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion to Iran as part of a settlement tied to the nuclear agreement. The payment included $400 millon in cash delivered the same day American prisoners were released, along with $1.3 billion in interest.

Money was flown to Tehran in foreign currency, as the administration defended the transaction as a lawful settlement of a decades-old dispute. Democratic leaders broadly supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its financial framework. That action didn’t trigger debates over emergency powers, didn’t produce accusations of unilateral recklessness, and didn’t prompt televised warnings about catastrophic instability. Instead, many Democratic lawmakers praised the diplomatic breakthrough and, in glorious terms, described the deal as a stabilizing force in the region. Seriously, what harm would a few billion dollars given to the world’s largest terrorist government create?

Good times. Seriously. Pfft! Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security Advisor under President Barack Obama, strongly supported the nuclear deal at the time and has since repeatedly criticized President Trump’s withdrawal from it. Following successful reports from Operation Epic Fury, Rhodes warned of escalation and humanitarian fallout. X users curtly told Rhodes to sit this one out. His critique reflects a sharp shift in posture compared to the confidence expressed during the 2015-16 negotiations. Surprisingly, compared to the single-message strategy commanded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the Democrats were, well, in disarray. For her part, when the “emeritus” speaker talks about reckless behavior, irony quietly refills the glass.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke from most of his colleagues and defended the strike, arguing that decisive action against Iran’s leadership could create an opening for long-term stability. Rep Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, expressed support for confronting Iranian aggression while still seeking clarity on objectives. Their positions stand in visible contrast to the louder condemnations. What’s tough to ignore is the pattern: When President Joe “where’s my nose” Biden authorized strikes against Iran-backed militias during his administration, opposition within his party remained muted. When President Barack “Cash and Carry” Obama reduced sanctions relief and a $1.7 billion cash settlement, Democratic leaders framed the move as responsible statecraft.

But when President Trump orders coordinated strikes that eliminate hostile members of leadership, the response shifts from legal panic and televised alarm.Operation Epic Fury will succeed or fail on strategic grounds, but early on, it’s hard to argue that the attack’s planning was well coordinated. Serious debate about long-term consequences is fair and necessary. What undermines credibility is selective outrage that appears tied more to the occupant of the Oval Office than to the underlying threat posed by the Iranian regime.

For decades, Iran’s leadership funded proxy militias, backed regional terror networks, and suppressed (re: killed) its own people. Presidents from Jimmy Carter onward faced the decision of how to handle that regime. Some chose engagement, while others chose pressure: Each decision carried risk. What’s changed isn’t the region’s volatility, but the consistency of partisan reaction. If killing a tyrannical leader is illegal under one president, it must be illegal for all. If financial transfers are wise diplomacy under one administration, then decisive military action can’t automatically become reckless under another, simply because of party affiliation. The actors, displaying their versions of meltdowns, tell their own story.

Read more …

But does it protect against hypersonic?

Golden Dome for America (Joe Dodd)

The Golden Dome for America (GDA) initiative has drawn criticism for not publicly releasing a detailed architecture, cost breakdown, or long-range budget projections. Think tanks, major media outlets, and some lawmakers argue that without public transparency the program risks becoming an expensive, open-ended undertaking. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. But they often treat public disclosure as an unquestioned virtue. Revealing how the system works would give our adversaries the information they need to blunt it. We don’t disclose budget information or performance characteristics for nuclear submarines, the F-35 and other sensitive air vehicles, or spy satellites developed by [the National Reconnaissance Office]. Demanding public disclosure of GDA is akin to asking the United States to publish a playbook for defeating it.


This reality is not theoretical. China and Russia have already criticized Golden Dome as destabilizing and driving an arms race. In this environment, withholding key details is not only prudent—it is imperative. A homeland defense system that is predictable is easier to defeat and doesn’t deter aggression against the US. A system that retains secrecy forces adversaries to spend more to plan around it. The lack of public disclosure does not mean the program lacks oversight. General Michael A. Guetlein—the Director for GDA—has briefed members of Congress and industry leaders in classified settings. That is the appropriate model: informed insight without giving adversaries a free intelligence windfall on the design and capabilities of the systems and architecture.

Regarding cost, much of the debate has been distorted. Some estimates suggest GDA will cost trillions over decades, often assuming a perfect system with extremely large numbers of space-based interceptors, satellites, and radars. The CBO estimates that Golden Dome will cost up to $540B over the first 20 years or about 2% of [Department of Defense] spending in that period—that’s not budget breaking … and the Golden Dome office suggest that their estimates are even lower. This is more comparable to a large [Department of War] modernization program than a Manhattan Project-scale shock.

Critics also sometimes misapply affordability comparisons to the 1980s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SDI relied on immature technologies and unproven physics at scale. Golden Dome is largely a systems architecture challenge—linking sensors, command and control, and layered intercept capabilities across domains. General Guetlein even goes as far as saying the technology already exists for GDA, the challenge is integrating it.Golden Dome should face rigorous oversight, cost discipline, and clear milestones. Congress is right to demand accountability. Government and Industry must protect classified information. But the most common criticism—that secrecy is inherently illegitimate—misunderstands the domain. In homeland defense, transparency is not neutral. It is information that can be weaponized.

A classified architecture shared with Congress and industry, paired with public accountability on budgets, schedules, and outcomes, is the right balance. If Golden Dome can be delivered near the budget numbers cited above, it is not only affordable—it may be one of the most strategically beneficial investments the United States has ever made. For deterrence to work, the nation needs credible, demonstrated defensive capabilities to defend against credible threats. Golden Dome for America is about building that deterrence to protect Americans in their Homeland.

Read more …

“Britain desperately needs a reckoning with the Afghan crime wave—and with the political leaders who have allowed and enabled it ..”

The UK’s New Grooming Gang Scandal (Fraser Myers)

In borderless Britain, it seems as if barely a day goes by without some monstrosity being committed by a migrant who should never have been in the country in the first place. The world is now familiar with the ongoing scandal of Britain’s predominantly Pakistani rape gangs. Yet what is also unfolding right now is a wave of brutal sexual violence committed by illegal arrivals, often asylum seekers from Afghanistan.Take the case of Afghan national Ahmad Mulakhil, convicted last month for raping a 12-year-old girl in a park in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Alongside one count of rape, 23-year-old Mulakhil was also found guilty of child abduction, two counts of sexual assault, and taking indecent photos of a child. He had already confessed to a charge of oral rape.


Mulakhil arrived in the UK illegally, crossing the English Channel from France in a small boat in July 2025. This being post-borders Britain, he was not detained or punished for this incursion. He was instead offered free accommodation and financial support, initially in Kent on England’s south coast, before he was relocated to Nuneaton, a quiet market town, where he was placed in social housing, at the taxpayers’ expense. Six weeks later, he approached his 12-year-old victim as she was playing on the swings in a park. His identity was confirmed when, after the attack, he went to purchase some cans of Red Bull in a nearby shop, using the preloaded debit card issued to him by the UK Home Office.

A few weeks later, just a few miles down the road in Leamington Spa, two Afghan 17-year-olds abducted a 15-year-old from a park, took her to a secluded area, and then raped her. Another Afghan illegal migrant raped a 15-year-old in broad daylight in Falkirk town center in Scotland in 2023. Sadeq Nikzad sought to defend himself by citing language barriers and “cultural differences.” These cases are barely the tip of the iceberg. You can open a newspaper on any day in Britain and expect to read about a gruesome crime committed by a small-boats migrant, more often than not from Afghanistan.

In a twisted way, the Falkirk rapist, Sadeq Nikzad, sort of had a point, even if the courts rightly rejected the notion that “cultural differences” were a reasonable defence. It is surely not for nothing that so many high-profile sex attacks in Britain are being committed by Afghans. Although data on the ethnicity and nationality of criminals are notoriously difficult to compile (made deliberately so by authorities beholden to political correctness), research by the Telegraph suggests that Afghan nationals are 20 times more likely to be convicted of a sexual offense than the average person in England and Wales. Afghans have the highest rate of sexual offending of all nationalities in the UK.

Should this really be a surprise? Of course, it would be wrong to tar every Afghan with the worst crimes imaginable. Yet it would be equally absurd to assume that Afghans shed their upbringings and cultural assumptions as soon as they arrive in Europe or on Britain’s shores.

According to the Georgetown Institute’s Women, Peace and Security Index, Afghanistan ranks last out of 181 countries on almost every measure of women’s wellbeing, from the threat of partner violence to gender-based political persecution and women’s safety in general. Since the Taliban retook power in 2021, women have been relegated to below second-class status. The Islamic Republic of Iran looks like a feminist utopia by comparison. Women are forbidden from leaving the house without a male relative, and must be fully veiled when they do so. All girls are banned from attending school and one in three is forced into a child marriage. Rape is rampant. and, while men go unpunished, female victims can be prosecuted and punished for “adultery,” including by being stoned to death. To call this misogyny “medieval” is an insult to the actual medievals.

Britons who grew up in the 1990s, 2000s or 2010s will remember the “feminist” campaigns to ban the sale of soft pornography on in supermarkets and newsagents. The Sun, once Britain’s bestselling tabloid newspaper, used to feature a bare-breasted woman on “Page Three” every day. “Lads mags”—bawdy magazines for men—would feature topless models, sex tips, and lewd anecdotes. These relatively harmless, anodyne fixtures of British public life were regularly denounced by the great and the good as “proof” that the UK had a “rape culture.”

Yet now a very real “rape culture” has been imported from Afghanistan and is tearing through Britain. It is doing so with the connivance of the state, thanks to its porous borders combined with an overly generous interpretation of who should be deemed a refugee. Meanwhile, establishment feminists are either silent at best or at worst, happily complicit in the erosion of Britain’s borders and indifferent to the now-constant abuse of women and girls this has entailed. Any suggestion that thousands of young, unattached men from the most misogynistic nation on the planet might pose a non-negligible risk to women and girls is dismissed as “divisive,” “racist” and even “fascist.”

This is not to malign everyone who arrives from Afghanistan. Not only are there many genuinely deserving of asylum from their tyrannical government (women, for instance, though they are notable for their absence among small-boats arrivals); there are also many Afghans whom the British government specifically has a duty to protect. Following the U.S.-UK withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, many interpreters and others who supported the British war effort were left stranded as the Taliban retook Kabul. Worse, a UK Ministry of Defence data breach led to more than 250 of their names being made public, effectively handing the Taliban a kill list of traitors. Here the case for asylum seems inarguable. Such people were placed in immediate danger of death by the rank incompetence of the British state. And so the British state has a responsibility to protect them.

But what also seems inarguable is that the British state’s primary responsibility ought to be to protect its own citizens. Instead, our “compassionate,” “open-hearted” elites are rolling out the red carpet for tens of thousands of mostly male, young, totally unvetted illegal migrants arriving at random on the southern coast. As far as the establishment is concerned, those men are the real victims deserving of the state’s charity. The women and girls that are being on a horrifyingly regular basis are treated as mere collateral damage. Britain desperately needs a reckoning with the Afghan crime wave—and with the political leaders who have allowed and enabled it.

Read more …

“… a Minnesota-based nonprofit stole roughly $300 million in COVID-19 relief funds meant to feed needy children..|| “Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison are set to testify before the House Oversight Committee on March 4 “

Tim Walz Is Stonewalling Congress to Protect Fraudsters, His Legacy (Margolis)

Tim Walz’s political career is finished. He has abandoned his reelection bid, and his hopes of running for president are shot. Yet he’s still trying to protect his legacy by stonewalling a federal investigation into one of the biggest fraud scandals in American history. The U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, sent Walz a letter in February, calling him out for failing to fully comply with a congressional subpoena that has been sitting on his desk since September 2024.


The U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce (Committee) continues an investigation it began in the 118th Congress into how the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) administers two federal nutrition programs (i.e., Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)) and into the massive fraud perpetrated by the nonprofit Feeding Our Future (FOF), its principals, and other individuals.3 Federal prosecutors have described the scheme as “not just criminal, but depraved and brazen.” The Committee writes to reiterate key requests made in its earlier correspondence to which you have as yet failed to provide full or complete responses.

That subpoena — issued by then-Chairwoman Virginia Foxx — contained 14 specific document requests tied to the Feeding Our Future scandal, a breathtaking scheme in which a Minnesota-based nonprofit stole roughly $300 million in COVID-19 relief funds meant to feed needy children. For what it’s worth, Walz’s office responded to the subpoena — eventually. But what lawmakers got back was a carefully curated pile of nothing. Curiously, the information the committee really needed was missing. Text messages between Walz and his staff? Missing. Communications showing how his team handled congressional information requests related to the fraud probe? Also missing. Walberg wasn’t impressed. His February letter stated flatly that Walz’s “responses to the subpoena lack clarity and appear designed to evade the requests.”

In short, Walz may be headed out the door, but he’s not exactly going quietly. He has a legacy to protect, and he’s going to spend as much time and energy as he can to protect it. “Reporting over the last five to 10 years and the criminal trials of FOF personnel and others continue to raise grave concerns about whether the [nutrition] programs have adequate safeguards in place against fraud, waste, and abuse,” the committee’s letter noted. “Related questions exist of whether Minnesota and MDE have exercised sufficient oversight of food service sponsors and providers.”

Whistleblowers have claimed that Walz knew fraud was occurring and allowed it to continue. In January, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) argued that the scheme wasn’t an oversight failure but “active assistance” from the top of Minnesota’s government. All three Republican Minnesota state lawmakers who testified at a January House Oversight hearing agreed that the Walz administration didn’t just miss the fraud — it had political reasons to let it keep going.

Nearly 80 defendants have been charged in connection with the Feeding Our Future scheme, and more than 50 convictions have already been secured. But make no mistake about it, the investigation is far from over. Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison are set to testify before the House Oversight Committee on March 4.

Read more …

“age-gating”

Poland Plans Social Media Ban For Under-15s (ZH)

Three months after Australia banned minors under the age of 16 from accessing social media, Poland is preparing to do the same thing. A bill is currently being prepared by the largest party in Poland’s ruling Civic Coalition Party that would prohibit children under the age of 15 from using social media platforms, and would require tech companies to verify users’ ages. Education Minister Barbara Nowacka laid out the plan on Friday, which include fines of up to 6% of the worldwide (global) revenue of social media companies if their services remain accessible to under-15s. “We need to limit access to social media for children under 15. At the same time, we need to work on mental health and raise awareness among children, parents, and the entire Polish society about the dangers of social media,” Nowacka said.


If sped through legislation, Poland’s bill could take effect as early as 2027, however the coalition hasn’t fully signed off yet, and it will undoubtedly face legal pushback from US tech giants. As the Epoch Times notes further, on Dec. 10, Australia became the first country to impose nationwide restrictions on minors accessing social media, banning those under 16 from a dozen platforms.The restrictions were brought in amid concerns over mental health, online harms, and screen addiction affecting Australian children.Poland is the latest country in the European Union to say it was planning to introduce a ban or some other form of restriction, with other member states similarly citing concerns over children’s mental health.

In France, legislation is moving through parliament to ban children younger than age 15 from accessing social media platforms. Denmark and Slovenia are likewise looking at bans for under-15s. Spain will follow Australia in banning social media for minors under age 16. Portugal is taking a different approach. Rather than introducing an outright ban on children under a certain age from accessing social media, it aims to require explicit parental consent for children aged 13 to 16 to access the platforms. Other countries around the world are making similar plans, including Malaysia, which says it will ban social media accounts for children younger than age 16 this year.

‘Age-Gating’ Social Media
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a series of new proposals earlier this month aimed at protecting young people from social media addiction, including a proposed ban for under-16s, subject to a public consultation. Some measures by the UK and the EU to curb online harms have led to tensions with the United States, home of many big tech companies, around issues of free speech and regulatory overreach. Privacy and free speech advocates, such as UK-based Open Rights Group, say that a social media ban for under-16s would be an ineffective response to online harms.

The Open Rights Group says it would lead to “age-gating” across all social media platforms, requiring users to prove their age. “Protecting children online should not mean building a surveillance infrastructure for everyone,” Open Rights Group spokesman James Baker said. “We need regulation that puts users back in control, not policies that force people to trade their privacy and voice for access to modern life.”

Read more …

“What the team giveth, the state taketh away.”

Major League Pitcher Turns Down Padres $40 Million Due to State Taxes (Turley)

This week, “there is no joy in Mudville” – the mighty Padres have struck out. The California Padres thought that they had secured Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Merrill Kelly with an offer of $40 million for just two years. The Diamondbacks were offering that payout over three years, but Kelly took the Diamondbacks. The reason? California’s ruinous tax burden is fueling an exodus of wealthy taxpayers and businesses from the state. It is the latest example of how Democrats have reversed the Gold Rush with a long line of U-Hauls heading to more responsible states.


Explaining his decision, the pitcher told the media that “I don’t think it’s any secret on how much money you get taken out of your pocket when you go to California.”With the calls for billionaire taxes and attacks on the wealthy as “not paying their fair share,” Democrats and unions have doubled down on their “eat the rich” rhetoric. The problem is that wealth, like the wealthy, is mobile. Both are leaving, and the current estimate stands at a possible $2 trillion fleeing the state over the last year. California continues to lead the nation in the loss of citizens to other states. In the meantime, Democrats are continuing their high-spending pattern under Gov. Gavin Newsom from boondoggle projects to reparations to bloated union pension agreements.

With California’s 13% tax rate on income above $1 million, players view California as illusory in terms of elite contracts. What the team giveth, the state taketh away. That does not include the higher collateral taxes and costs, including gasoline costs (which are also the highest in the nation). It appears that the high-spending, high-taxing policies are not just benefiting red states but also their baseball teams. As a Cubs fan, I would be delighted except for the fact that Chicago and Illinois are also in the hands of Democrats pursuing the same disastrous policies. The irony is that Texas and Florida could end up not only with more jobs but better baseball players.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/thecurioustales/status/2028192575212163555?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2028326933961015587?s=20 https://twitter.com/ShiningScience/status/2028208402632184267?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jan 102020
 
 January 10, 2020  Posted by at 10:23 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  15 Responses »


Jack Delano Main street intersection, Norwich, Connecticut 1940

 

Iran Invites US To Join Probe Of Ukrainian Jet Disaster (R.)
Missile System Suspected Of Bringing Down Airliner – Short Range, Fast And Deadly (R.)
Trump’s Iran De-Escalation Succeeds (Flores)
Tulsi Gabbard: ‘Iran Is Closer Now To A Nuclear Weapon Than Ever Before’ (NW)
Iran Could Have Nuclear Weapon Within One To Two Years: French Minister (R.)
Matt Gaetz Voted With Democrats On War Powers Resolution (SAC)
Democrats To Press For Impeachment Witnesses Throughout Trial (R.)
The Justice Department Is Devoid of Justice (PCR)
Internal Boeing Messages Raise Serious Questions About 737 MAX (R.)
Boeing Emails Show Workers Mocking FAA, Ridiculing 737 MAX Safety (MW)
White House Unveils Plan To Speed Big Projects Permits (R.)
China To Become First To Realize UN Goal Of ‘No Poverty’ (CD)

 

 

There are still far too many people out there with opinions derived from confirmation bias. Please stop it, open your minds. Whether it’s Soleimani or this downed jet, it’s fine if you need some time to figure things out. WWIII? Attacking Iran? These things would cost Trump the presidency. And he knows it.

Meanwhile, why are the US and Canada falling over themselves to declare the shooting down of the 737-800NG (if that’s even what happened) “unintentional” and “accidental”? That brings back memories of MH17. Where the opposite happened.

And why did Iran go from refusing to hand over black boxes, to inviting the US and others in, within 24 hours? Detente?

 

Iran Invites US To Join Probe Of Ukrainian Jet Disaster (R.)

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has accepted an invitation from Iran to take part in its investigation into the crash of a Ukrainian airplane in Tehran, the agency confirmed late on Thursday. The NTSB said in a statement its Response Operations Center had received formal notification from Iran of Wednesday’s crash of the Boeing 737-800 that killed all 176 on board. “The NTSB has designated an accredited representative to the investigation of the crash,” the agency said. The NTSB confirmed it would take part in the probe after an Iranian official told Reuters of the agreement. “The NTSB has replied to our chief investigator and has announced an accredited representative,” Farhad Parvaresh, Iran’s representative at the International Civil Aviation Organization, part of the United Nations, told Reuters.

A person briefed on the matter said it was unclear what if anything its representative would be able to do under U.S. sanctions. NTSB said in its statement it “continues to monitor the situation surrounding the crash and evaluate its level of participation in the investigation.” The United States is allowed to take part under global rules since the Boeing 737-800NG jet was designed and built there. Canada, which had dozens of passengers onboard, has also assigned an expert, while a team from Ukraine held discussions in Tehran on Thursday, Parvaresh said in a telephone interview. Iran is ready to provide consular facilities and visas for accredited investigators, he added.

Sweden and Afghanistan, which had some passengers on board, have also been notified. France may also be involved as it was one of the countries where the engines were made, Parvaresh said. He denied U.S. and Canadian claims that the jet had been shot down accidentally and said Iran was committed to a full and transparent investigation for the accident, adding it was too early to speculate on the cause. “As Iranians we feel this tragedy and disaster for us and for the families,” Parvaresh said, expressing condolences to the relatives of the people who died. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said earlier the jet was probably brought down by an accidental Iranian missile strike, citing intelligence from Canadian and other sources.

The U.S. government believes Iran shot down the plane by mistake, three U.S. officials told Reuters. The Ukraine International Airlines flight to Kiev from Tehran crashed hours after Iran fired ballistic missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq. Parvaresh said expert testimony indicated that the aircraft could not have been hit by a missile and that it was important to keep the crash investigation non-political. “I think we should keep this purely technical and not confuse it with political tensions in the region. We should leave it to experts to investigate and make their report.”

Read more …

And Russian.

Missile System Suspected Of Bringing Down Airliner – Short Range, Fast And Deadly (R.)

Canada said on Thursday that a surface-to-air missile brought down a Ukrainian airliner in Tehran, while the Ukrainian government said it was investigating reports of debris from a Russian-made Tor-M1 missile. The Tor, also called the SA-15 Gauntlet by NATO, is a short-range “point defense” system that integrates the missile launcher and radar into a single tracked vehicle. It is designed to be mobile and lethal against targets at altitudes up to 6,000 meters (20,000 feet) and at ranges of 12 km (7.5 miles), according to the Federation of American Scientists, which researches and analyses “catastrophic threats to national and international security”.

Military aircraft and cruise missiles – which the Tor system is designed to destroy – typically plot their courses to avoid being spotted on radar. They are equipped with systems such as chaff, which confuses radar, and flares, which act as decoys for heat-seeking missiles. The jet that crashed on Wednesday, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, a Boeing 737-800, would have filed a flight plan and had no defensive features. It was unlikely the flight crew had time to react to any missile, said Michael Duitsman, a research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. “They probably wouldn’t have even seen it coming,” Duitsman said. “Right after takeoff, the pilots were probably preoccupied with other things.”

To attack a target, the Tor operator must identify it on the radar screen and direct the missile to launch. There were several other civilian aircraft nearby when Flight 752 crashed just a few kilometers from the airport. All of those aircraft would have been visible on the radar screen of the Tor battery as well as civilian radar at the airport. [..] Tor missiles are guided by radar and fly at almost three times the speed of sound. That means that if launched at a target 5 km (3 miles) away, they will arrive within about five seconds. They have a small warhead – about 15 kg (33 lb) of high explosive – but are designed to spray fragments of shredded metal, like bullets, into a target upon detonation.

Read more …

Most intriguing piece of the day. Do read it from A to Z. Was Trump tricked into killing Soleimani? Just so anti-war voters would move away from him?

Trump’s Iran De-Escalation Succeeds (Flores)

Impeachment against Trump has now been used several times to push him to act aggressively in the middle-east, contrary to his policy and self-interest. On all the ‘impeachment threat – then strike’ occasions, Trump ordered strikes on predictable targets – targets so predictable and oddly executed, that Syrian and Iranian forces barely felt them. There appears to be at the very least an ‘unspoken communication’ at play, where strikes are made to assuage political needs but not to inflict serious damage. If Trump really wanted an excuse to strike Iran, he’s had it before.

There was precisely such an opportunity when subversives in government hatched a plan to push Trump into a war with Iran, when two planes were sent to violate Iranian airspace – one manned, the other unmanned – flying in close proximity. This created the chance that Iran’s downing of either plane could be used as a pretext for a major war-creating strike on Iran.

Despite Trump’s acting reasonably, government actors and media attempted to create a sensation where Trump was ridiculed for ‘calling off’ a planned retaliation in the aftermath of the downed drone. The same liberal media and Democratic Party establishment that attacked Trump’s de-escalation then from a hawkish perspective, today manifest as doves who suddenly oppose Trump’s reckless hawkishness. Here, in the aftermath of the drone incident, a Trump policy was formulated – and it’s a policy that figures prominently in de-escalation in the aftermath of the assassination of Soleimani and Iran’s measured response. The policy is this – if Iran kills Americans, then the U.S escalates. If the U.S does something provocative, then Iran is actually allowed to respond militarily, so long as American personnel are not killed.

[..] A war with Iran would push the anti-war sentiments of independent voters away from Trump, and towards a more revitalized and mobilized Democrat Party anti-war base. Trump needs an anti-war base to be re-elected, and war with Iran pushes that base towards nearly any Democrat candidate. At the same time, Trump also needs the continued support from America’s Christian Zionist evangelical ‘Israel Firsters’, as well as the infamous AIPAC, not only to be re-elected, but to maintain the support in the senate against impeachment. That conflict between Trump’s two greatest populist strengths – between Trump’s anti-war base and his Christian Zionist base – largely defines his weakest political spot. That’s why it’s the best place to attack him.

Read more …

Easy, Tulsi!

Scott Ritter on Twitter: “I’m a huge @TulsiGabbard fan, but she is treading on dangerous ground. The implication here is that Iran has nuclear weapons ambition. If you buy into this fallacy, you empower those who will use this as a justification for war.”

Tulsi Gabbard: ‘Iran Is Closer Now To A Nuclear Weapon Than Ever Before’ (NW)

Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard blasted President Donald Trump’s actions toward Iran, claiming that his decisions has brought the Persian Gulf nation closer “than ever before” to obtaining a nuclear weapon. “Trump’s war with Iran is undermining our national security and putting all Americans in greater danger,” Gabbard, a Hawaii congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, warned in a Thursday tweet, sharing a clip of herself discussing recent tensions with Iran on CNN. “Iran is closer now to a nuclear weapon than ever before. And it’s opening the door to resurgence of ISIS/Al-Qaeda,” she claimed.

Iran is believed to be closer today to possessing a nuclear weapon than it has been under the restrictions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump withdrew from in May 2018. Still, it appears to be an exaggeration to say the country is closer than “ever before” to obtaining such a weapon. The JCPOA successfully reduced Iran’s uranium enrichment program, with U.S. intelligence leaders saying last year it would take the Islamic Republic at “about one year” to create a nuclear weapon. Before that agreement, Iran was believed to be within two to three months of creating highly enriched uranium that could be used in a weapon, according to a July 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service.

[..] Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based security think tank, told CBS News that Iran could now develop a nuclear weapon within six months. She noted, however, that Iran has still expressed support for the JCPOA but plans to no longer abide by its obligations under the deal. Iran “is still allowing the verification by [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors,” she told CBS.

Read more …

Sometimes you might just get the idea that NATO wants nothing more than for Iran to develop nukes.

Iran Could Have Nuclear Weapon Within One To Two Years: French Minister (R.)

Iran could have nuclear weapons in one to two years if the country carries on violating the 2015 nuclear accord, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Friday. “If they continue with unravelling the Vienna agreement, then yes, within a fairly short period of time, between one and two years, they could have access to a nuclear weapon, which is not an option”, Le Drian said on RTL radio. EU foreign ministers will hold an emergency meeting on Friday to seek ways to guide the United States and Iran away from confrontation, knowing that a miscalculation on either side could leave the bloc facing a war and a serious nuclear proliferation crisis on its doorstep.

Read more …

It’s toothless anyway.

Matt Gaetz Voted With Democrats On War Powers Resolution (SAC)

“I spoke to the president today,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, (R-FL) said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “The president told me he is more antiwar than I am, and I love the president for that. The thing is, I think a few of the advisers of the president are trying to slow-walk the administration into war. When the president relies on his instincts and we have the Trump doctrine, we kill the terrorist and we come home.” “I think this War Powers Resolution was worthy of support because it did not criticize the president,” Gaetz said. “It did not say he was wrong in killing [Quds Force Gen.] Soleimani. But…it did say that if any president wants to drag our nation into another forever Middle East war that they require the approval of the United States Congress.”


“That’s something I deeply believe. And I think it’s something the president deeply believes,” Gaetz explained. Tucker Carlson questioned Gaetz’s claim that his vote had Trump’s support. “Just to be totally clear,” Tucker Carlson asked, “you are one of three Republicans who voted, in effect, against the president’s stated position but you just talked to the president and he said that he is on your side?” “Well, the president probably would have preferred that I vote with the other Republicans,” Gaetz responded. “He [Trump] certainly said that. I think on these broader questions of war and peace, Donald Trump understands that the pro-war candidate loses presidential elections … it’s typically the anti-war candidates that win.”

Read more …

Inviting Biden and Schiff onto the stage.

Democrats To Press For Impeachment Witnesses Throughout Trial (R.)

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he will press Republicans to accept four witnesses, including John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, even if the Senate rejects testimony at the start of the trial to determine whether Trump should be convicted of abusing his power and obstructing Congress over Ukraine. “Those votes at the beginning of the trial will not be the last votes on witnesses and documents. Make no mistake, we will continue to revisit the issue,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. Schumer, who needs only four of the 100-seat Senate’s 53 Republicans to join Democrats on the witness question, could succeed by pressuring vulnerable Republicans such as Senator Susan Collins and Senator Cory Gardner, who face re-election challenges in swing states in November.


Without witnesses, Democrats fear Senate Republicans could move quickly to dismiss the charges against Trump. But securing witnesses could also open a Pandora’s box for Democrats. Trump has said he would like to hear from former Vice President Joe Biden, his businessman son Hunter Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the anonymous whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry. Trump also has said he might try to block Bolton from testifying. “When we start allowing national security advisers to just go up and say whatever they want to say… We can’t do that,” he told reporters at the White House.

Read more …

“This is how corrupt American law has become. A man is being put in prison for 6 months for not cooperating with an investigation of an event that did not happen!”

The Justice Department Is Devoid of Justice (PCR)

In the United States the criminal justice (sic) system is itself not subject to law. We see immunity to law continually as police commit felonies against citizens and even murder children and walk away free. We see it all the time when prosecutors conduct political prosecutions and when they prosecute the innocent in order to build their conviction record. We see it when judges fail to prevent prosecutors from withholding exculpatory evidence and bribing witnesses and when judges accept coerced plea deals that deprive the defendant of a jury trial.

We just saw it again when federal prosecutors recommended a six month prison sentence for Lt. Gen. Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency accused of lying to the FBI about nothing of any importance, for being uncooperative in the Justice (sic) Department’s effort to frame President Trump with false “Russiagate” charges. The Justice (sic) Department prosecutor said: “The sentence should adequately deter the defendant from violating the law, and to promote respect for the law. It is clear that the defendant has not learned his lesson. He has behaved as though the law does not apply to him, and as if there are no consequences for his actions.”

That is precisely what the Justice (sic) Department itself did for years in their orchestration of the fake Russiagate charges against Trump. The prosecutor’s hypocrisy is overwhelming. The Justice (sic) Department is a criminal organization. It has no sense of justice. Convicting the innocent builds the conviction rate of the prosecutor as effectively as convicting the guilty. The Horowitz report of the Justice (sic) Department’s lies to the FISA court did not recommend a six-month prision sentence for those Justice (sic) Deplartment officials who lied to the government. Horowitz covered up the crimes by converting them into “mistakes.” Yes, they are embarrassing “mistakes,” but mistakes don’t bring prison sentences.

Now that we know the only Russiagate scandal was its orchestration by the CIA, Justice (sic) Department, and Democrats, failing to cooperate with the special counsel investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election is nonsensical as we know for a definite fact that there was no such interference. [..] This is how corrupt American law has become. A man is being put in prison for 6 months for not cooperating with an investigation of an event that did not happen! If Trump doesn’t pardon Flynn (and Manafort and Stone), and fire the corrupt prosecutors who falsely prosecuted Flynn, Trump deserves no one’s support. A president who will not defend his own people from unwarranted prosecution is not worthy of support.

Read more …

Clowns and monkeys. Are these people still working at Boeing?

Internal Boeing Messages Raise Serious Questions About 737 MAX (R.)

Boeing on Thursday released hundreds of internal messages that raise serious questions about its development of simulators and the 737 Max that was grounded in March after two fatal crashes, prompting outrage from US lawmakers. In an April 2017 exchange of instant messages, two employees expressed complaints about the Max following references to issues with the plane’s flight management computer. “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” one unnamed employee wrote. In one message, dated November 2015, which appears to shed light on lobbying methods used when facing demands from regulators, a Boeing employee notes regulators were likely to want simulator training for a particular type of cockpit alert.

“We are going to push back very hard on this and will likely need support at the highest levels when it comes time for the final negotiation,” the employee writes. The planemaker said some communications “raise questions” about Boeing’s interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in connection with the simulator qualification process. In releasing redacted versions of what it called “completely unacceptable” communications, Boeing said it was committed to transparency with the regulator. Unredacted versions of the messages were turned over to the FAA and Congress in December.

Peter DeFazio, the House transportation committee chairman, who has been investigating the Max, said the messages “paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go to in order to evade scrutiny from regulators, flight crews, and the flying public, even as its own employees were sounding alarms internally”. He added: “they show a coordinated effort dating back to the earliest days of the 737 Max program to conceal critical information from regulators and the public”.

Read more …

“Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.”

Boeing Emails Show Workers Mocking FAA, Ridiculing 737 MAX Safety (MW)

Newly released internal emails from Boeing Co. paint a disturbing picture of its 737 Max program, with employees bragging about fooling FAA regulators and ridiculing its safety. The emails were part of more than 100 pages of documents sent Thursday by Boeing to House and Senate committees that have been investigating the aircraft maker in the wake of two crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed a combined 346 people. The 737 Max family has been grounded for nearly a year, with no return date yet. “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys,” read one email.


Some messages detail problems with the development of Boeing’s 737 Max simulator and suggest the planes got FAA approval under false pretences. “I still haven’t been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year,” one of the employees says in a 2018 email, apparently referring to interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration. “Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t,” one employee emailed a colleague. “No,” the co-worker responded. “These newly-released emails are incredibly damning,” Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said in a statement Thursday night. “They paint a deeply disturbing picture of the lengths Boeing was apparently willing to go to in order to evade scrutiny from regulators, flight crews, and the flying public.”

Read more …

They’ll be buried in ever more lawsuits, and many courts will choose the other side. It’s simply too late, and opinion on fossil fuels etc. is against deregulation.

White House Unveils Plan To Speed Big Projects Permits (R.)

The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled a plan to speed permitting for major infrastructure projects like oil pipelines, road expansions and bridges, one of the biggest deregulatory actions of the president’s tenure. The plan, released by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), would help the administration advance big energy and infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline or roads, bridges and federal buildings that President Donald Trump and industry groups complained have been hampered by red tape. “For the first time in over 40 years today we are issuing a new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created these massive obstructions,” Trump said at the White House on Thursday.

The proposal to update the how NEPA, the 50-year bedrock federal environmental law, is implemented is part of Trump’s broader effort to cut regulations and oversight to boost industry. “This proposal affects virtually every significant decision made by the federal government that affects the environment,” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said, adding that the NEPA reform would be the “most significant deregulatory proposal” of the Trump administration. The proposed rule says federal agencies would not need to factor in the “cumulative impacts” of a project, which could include its impact on climate change, making it easier for major fossil fuel projects to sail through the approval process and avoid legal challenges.

[..] Trump’s efforts to cut regulatory red tape have been praised by industry. But they have so far largely backfired by triggering waves of lawsuits that the administration has lost in court, according to a running tally here by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity. Over the last few years, federal courts have ruled that NEPA requires the federal government to consider a project’s carbon footprint in decisions related to leasing public lands for drilling or building pipelines.

Read more …

The author is a senior fellow at the think tank Center for China and Globalization. That explains a lot. But yes, China achieved a lot re: poverty. Question is: at what price?

China To Become First To Realize UN Goal Of ‘No Poverty’ (CD)

China is poised to realize a dream that a few decades ago most experts would have dismissed as wishful thinking. For centuries, China dreamed of building a “moderately prosperous society” in all respects. And this year, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, China will realize that dream despite having a population of more than 1.3 billion. Late leader Deng Xiaoping resurrected this ancient but never-realized goal when reform and opening-up were launched. Chinese leaders who followed adopted it, adding additional details. President Xi Jinping included it in his seminal “four-pronged comprehensive strategy” in 2014. Xi explained the notion in great detail at the 19th National Congress of the CPC in October 2017 in a speech titled, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects”, mentioning the concept 18 times.

He said that building a moderately prosperous society in all respects meant promoting social fairness and justice, as well as ensuring steady access to childcare, education, employment, medical service, elderly care, housing and social assistance. He pledged to “intensify poverty alleviation, see that all our people have a greater sense of fulfillment as they contribute to and gain from development, and continue to promote well-rounded human development and common prosperity for everyone.” Now, a little more than two years later, the results are in, and China is about to eradicate absolute poverty. In 1979, China’s per capita GDP was $200. It is now estimated to be $10,000, a 50-fold increase – with GDP growth averaging just shy of 10 percent a year.

Over the past four decades, China has lifted about 800 million people out of poverty, which is 70 percent of the global total. Little wonder China is set to become the first developing country to achieve the first of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals: No poverty. China’s rural population living under the currently defined poverty line of $1.90 per person per day fell from 770 million in 1978 to 16.6 million in 2018, and the rural poverty level declined from 97.5 percent to 1.7 percent, a decrease of 95.8 percent. In 2019 alone, about 340 impoverished counties and 10 million people were lifted out of poverty. And Xi has pledged that after the eradication of absolutely poverty in 2020, China will launch a campaign to eliminate relative poverty.

Read more …

 

In the same way that you ARE the climate. Or the war.

 

 

 

Include the Automatic Earth in your 2020 charity list. Support us on Paypal and Patreon.

 

Jan 092020
 
 January 9, 2020  Posted by at 9:50 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  8 Responses »


John Vachon Five o’clock crowds, Chicago 1941

 

Pelosi Seeks To Limit Trump’s War Powers (USAT)
Pelosi Loses Senate Democrats On Trump Impeachment Delay (BBC)
McConnell Won’t Haggle With House Over Impeachment Trial Plan (R.)
Can You Locate Iran On A Map? Few Americans Can. (MC)
World Bank Trims 2020 Growth Forecast (R.)
Ghosn: Seeds of Renault-Nissan Crisis Were Sown By Macron (R.)
Carlos Ghosn And The Dark Corners Of Japanese Justice (G.)
Come Home, America: Stop Policing the Globe (Whitehead)
Juan Guaidó’s Surreal Regime Change Reality Show (GZ)
Hunter Biden ‘Biological And Legal Father’ Of Stripper’s Child – Judge (Fox)

 

 

“…citing ‘urgent’ concerns on Iran strategy…”

This of course cannot be about Trump alone. It has to concern an assessment of all past and future presidents too. Plus, you may be forced to change the Constitution. So future potential Democrat presidents will see their hands tied by Pelosi in 2020, and we’ll need an in-depth discussion about Obama and Hillary’s actions in Syria, Libya etc., because, again, it can’t be just about Trump. Is taking out Soleimani so much worse than raping Ghadaffi to death with a bayonet?

This is going to take a lot of time. More than the 10 months until the next election. In which Pelosi should ostensibly run if she wants to usurp the president’s powers.

 

Pelosi Seeks To Limit Trump’s War Powers (USAT)

The House will vote Thursday on a measure that would limit President Donald Trump’s ability to wage war with Iran, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced. The Democratic House speaker said Trump’s action last week – authorizing a drone strike that killed top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – was “provocative and disproportionate” and done without consulting Congress. Thursday’s debate will shine a spotlight on the Soleimani killing and the possibility of further escalation between the U.S. and Iran. It will also air constitutional questions about the president’s ability to order military action without congressional authorization.

“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” Pelosi said. “To honor our duty to keep the American people safe, the House will move forward with a War Powers Resolution to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran.” But even if the measure passes the House, which is controlled by Democrats, it will face hurdles in the GOP-controlled Senate. And Trump can veto the measure, as he did last year when Congress tried to end the American military role in Yemen.

Pelosi’s decision to move forward with the war powers measure came after Iran retaliated on Tuesday for Soleiman’s killing by launching ballistic missiles at two Iraqi airbases that house U.S. and coalition forces. Trump said that incident did not cause any American casualties and resulted in only minimal damage, as he sought to lower tensions with Iran in an address to the nation Wednesday. But Pelosi and other Democrats said they remained alarmed at the possibility of further military confrontation. “The consequences of this strike already … have been cataclysmic,” said Sen. Christopher Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He and others said the situation could still easily spiral out of control.

Read more …

They get worried over their seats.

Pelosi Loses Senate Democrats On Trump Impeachment Delay (BBC)

The US Congress’ most powerful Democrat is losing support among Senate allies as she holds up President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has delayed sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate in a tussle over rules with Republicans. Senator Dianne Feinstein called on Mrs Pelosi, her fellow California Democrat and ex-neighbour, to “send it over”. The Senate’s Republican leader vowed there would be “no haggling”. Mitch McConnell said he can muster the majority of 51 votes needed among his fellow Republicans in the Senate to codify the proceedings without Democratic support. Senate Democrats said prolonging the standoff would be pointless.


“The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes,” Senator Feinstein said on Wednesday, Bloomberg News reported. “So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.” The political trial of Mr Trump cannot begin until the Democratic-controlled House sends its articles of impeachment, the charges against the president, to the Senate. Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, told Politico: “I respect the fact that [Pelosi] is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial, but I do think it is time to get on with it.” Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said: “I don’t know what leverage we have. It looks like the cake is already baked.” Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, also said he believed it was time to start the Senate trial.

Read more …

“If Pelosi sought leverage over the Senate, McConnell said, “no such leverage exists … it will never exist.”

McConnell Won’t Haggle With House Over Impeachment Trial Plan (R.)

U.S. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday the Senate would not haggle with the House of Representatives over procedures for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, adding that the Senate would make a decision on calling witnesses for the trial at the appropriate time. Speaking on the Senate floor, the Republican senator expressed exasperation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to her fellow Democrats on Tuesday night, had indicated she would continue holding back the House-passed articles of impeachment from the Senate until she knows more about Senate plans for the impeachment trial.

McConnell did not specifically answer Pelosi’s demand, but lambasted her actions as “game-playing” and said she could not dictate the Senate’s trial proceedings. “There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment,” McConnell said. If Pelosi sought leverage over the Senate, McConnell said, “no such leverage exists … it will never exist.” He accused Pelosi of wanting to keep Trump “in limbo” over the trial indefinitely. The House in December charged Trump with abusing his power for personal gain by asking Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in November’s presidential election.

It also charged the president with obstructing Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. Under the U.S. Constitution, the House brings impeachment charges, while impeachment trials are held by the Senate. But McConnell has said that Senate rules prevent the Senate from starting the trial until the House sends it the articles of impeachment, and the House has not done so.

Read more …

I like the ones who locate Iran inside the USA.

Can You Locate Iran On A Map? Few Americans Can. (MC)

As tensions between the United States and Iran rise in the aftermath of the American drone strike that killed the country’s most powerful commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finds fewer than 3 in 10 registered voters can identify the Islamic republic on an unlabeled map.

Twenty-eight percent of registered voters were able to accurately label Iran on a map of the Middle East region, according to new Morning Consult/Politico polling conducted Jan. 4-5, before the Iranian military fired missiles at two bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops. Twenty-three percent could identify the country on a larger, also unlabeled, global map. Eight percent of voters thought Iran was Iraq on the smaller map.


The polling experiment sheds light on voters’ geographical unfamiliarity with foreign countries, even those with which the United States has been engaged in sustained conflict. Some respondents fared better than others, however.

Read more …

When will the first people stand up and say we can’t afford to grow any longer?

World Bank Trims 2020 Growth Forecast (R.)

The World Bank on Wednesday trimmed its global growth forecasts slightly for 2019 and 2020 due to a slower-than-expected recovery in trade and investment despite cooler trade tensions between the United States and China. The multilateral development bank said 2019 marked the weakest economic expansion since the global financial crisis a decade ago, and 2020, while a slight improvement, remained vulnerable to uncertainties over trade and geopolitical tensions. In its latest Global Economic Prospects report, the World Bank shaved 0.2 percentage point off of growth for both years, with the 2019 global economic growth forecast at 2.4% and 2020 at 2.5%.

“This modest increase in global growth marks the end of the slowdown that started in 2018 and took a heavy toll on global activity, trade and investment, especially last year,” said Ayhan Kose, the World Bank’s lead economic forecaster. “We do expect an improvement, but overall, we also see a weaker growth outlook.”

The latest World Bank forecasts take into account the so-called Phase 1 trade deal announced by the United States and China, which suspended new U.S. tariffs on Chinese consumer goods scheduled for Dec. 15 and reduced the tariff rate on some other goods. While the tariff rate reduction will have a “rather small” effect on trade, the deal is expected to boost business confidence and investment prospects, contributing to a pickup in trade growth, Kose said. Global trade growth is expected to improve modestly in 2020 to 1.9% from 1.4% in 2019, which was the lowest since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the World Bank said. This remains well below the 5% average annual trade growth rate since 2010, according to World Bank data.

Read more …

Ghosn also has a French passport.

Ghosn: Seeds of Renault-Nissan Crisis Were Sown By Macron (R.)

Ex-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn said on Wednesday that a surprise corporate move, orchestrated five years ago by French President Emmanuel Macron who was then economy minister, soured relations between Renault and Nissan and contributed to his ouster. Ghosn, the former head of the car alliance, said Nissan executives and Japanese officials were shocked by a 2015 decision by the French government to increase its voting rights at Renault. “This left a big bitterness. Not only with the management of Nissan, but also the government of Japan,” Ghosn told reporters, although he did not name Macron. “And this is where the problem started.”


In April 2015, as a 37-year-old minister with then-unknown presidential ambitions, Macron ordered a rise in the state’s stake in Renault here designed to secure double voting rights. The overnight move gave the French state a blocking minority in Renault, which in turn controlled Nissan via its 43.4 percent stake in the Japanese firm. According to French and Japanese sources, that rattled the Japanese side of the Renault-Nissan alliance, which feared a national champion was falling under the control of the French government.

Read more …

Ghosn was citing a 99.4% conviction rate in Japanese cases. Why have a lawyer?

Carlos Ghosn And The Dark Corners Of Japanese Justice (G.)

Given his brash demeanour and immense wealth, Ghosn is not a sympathetic character. Indeed, he may well be guilty of financial misconduct. But he is right to shine a light into the dark corners of Japan’s justice system. Anyone familiar with the Japanese justice system would know that Ghosn’s allegations are not far-fetched. In Japan, laws are used as weapons against targeted people and not applied equally. One example of this is the “hostage justice” (hitojichi-shiho) system. Hostage justice boils down to the accused remaining in custody until they incriminate themselves by signing a confession. Often this is drawn up by prosecutors who browbeat the accused without defence counsel.

Knowing that the playing field is tilted in favour of the prosecutors and that they could spend a very long time in jail even before going to court, many innocent defendants confess. Ghosn spent more than 120 days in detention. In the late 1980s, a once high-flying company president called Hiromasa Ezoe was accused of bribery. Despite extreme pressure to confess, Ezoe defied prosecuting authorities by pleading not guilty. Over a decade of judicial purgatory later, he was effectively exonerated by receiving a suspended three-year sentence in 2003. In 2010 he published a book, Where is the Justice?, a savage indictment of a system in which the presumption of innocence is abandoned and defendants are railroaded. Ghosn may well have wanted to avoid this fate.

In Japan, the accused can be held for 23 days without charge – this is almost indefinitely renewable as judges normally give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt. In April 2019, more than 1,000 lawyers and scholars submitted a petition to the justice ministry demanding an end to this antediluvian system. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations has also long lobbied against it. The 2019 petition doesn’t mince its words, asserting that the “long-term detention in the Carlos Ghosn case has triggered surprise and criticism overseas, leading to doubts about Japan’s integrity as a democratic nation that guarantees human rights”.

Read more …

“Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.”

Come Home, America: Stop Policing the Globe (Whitehead)

It’s time to bring our troops home. Bring them home from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Bring them home from Germany, South Korea and Japan. Bring them home from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman. Bring them home from Niger, Chad and Mali. Bring them home from Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia. That’s not what’s going to happen, of course. The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world. Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon’s policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of “operational security and denying the enemy any advantage.”

As investigative journalist David Vine explains, “Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.” Don’t fall for the propaganda, though: America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world. The reach of America’s military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries, operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually.

As Vine reports, “Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.” This is how a military empire occupies the globe. Already, American military servicepeople are being deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere in anticipation of the war drums being sounded over Iran. This Iran crisis, salivated over by the neocons since prior to the Iraq War and manufactured by war hawks who want to jumpstart the next world war, has been a long time coming. Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton: they all have done their part to ensure that the military industrial complex can continue to get rich at taxpayer expense.

Read more …

The opposition will get rid of Guaidó, Maduro doesn’t have to do much.

Juan Guaidó’s Surreal Regime Change Reality Show (GZ)

Fistfights and screaming matches broke out at Venezuela’s National Assembly on January 5, when the legislative body was scheduled to elect its leader. But the melee was not what the corporate US media has portrayed it as. The fights weren’t between the Chavistas who support the Bolivarian Revolution and President Nicolás Maduro on one side and opposition members on the other, but rather between competing members of the opposition itself. The opposition imploded because Juan Guaidó, the former president of the National Assembly and self-declared “interim president” of the country, lost his campaign to be reelected as head of the legislature.

The Venezuelan opposition is in a state of disaster — as it has been since former President Hugo Chávez’s first election in 1998. It’s a loose and ever-changing coalition of around a dozen political parties, with differing ideologies, strategies, and constituencies. The far right, which is comprised mainly of the Voluntad Popular and Primero Justicia parties, is filled with people who have been receiving financial and logistical support from the United States for the past 20 years. In the 2002 coup against then President Chávez, the far right briefly took over, and excluded the more moderate opposition from positions of power. The moderates learned the wrong lesson: instead of challenging the US-backed right, it caved to them, acceding to their plans of regime change and undemocratic maneuvers.

But an important split occurred between the moderates and the extremists during the presidential elections in May 2018. The moderates ignored the far right’s calls for a boycott and won 3 million votes in the presidential elections, out of a voting electorate of around 15 million people (with approximately 20 million eligible voters). In September 2019, these moderate opposition figures sat down with the Maduro administration and came to a wide-ranging agreement that included a bipartisan rejection of US sanctions and the appointment of new members of the National Electoral Council.

Between them, the moderates and Chavistas now represent more than 9 million votes, accounting for a full 60 percent of likely voters and 45 percent of eligible voters. This dialogue between two important sectors of Venezuela electoral politics helps explain why September, October, and November were easily the most stable three months for Venezuela in the past year. The dialogue led directly to the events of January 5 in Caracas.

Read more …

Get out of the race, Joe, you’re muddying the field.

Hunter Biden ‘Biological And Legal Father’ Of Stripper’s Child – Judge (Fox)

Hunter Biden, the son of presidential candidate Joe Biden, is the “biological and legal father” of a child he fathered with an ex-stripper, an Arkansas judge ruled Tuesday, contradicting the younger Biden’s previous denials that he had any role in the pregnancy. In an order establishing paternity, Independence County, Ark., Circuit Judge Holly Meyer noted that the results of DNA tests indicated Biden was the father “with near scientific certainty,” and instructed the Arkansas Department of Health to issue a birth certificate listing Biden as the father of 29-year-old Lunden Alexis Roberts’ child.

Roberts, who The New York Post reported was a stripper at a Washington, D.C., club that Biden patronized, received “primary physical and legal custody” of the child. In previous filings, Roberts told the court that Hunter Biden “had no involvement in the child’s life since the child’s birth, never interacted with the child, never parented the child,” and “could not identify the child out of a photo lineup.”

Biden “shall have visitation with the child as agreed between the parties,” Judge Meyer ruled. The next hearing in the case is now set for Jan. 29 at 9:30 a.m. ET, to address “temporary child support for the minor child and other matters,” the judge wrote, adding that the parties have until Jan. 16 to comply with all “pending discovery” which is currently “past due.” Another hearing is set for the morning of March 13 to handle any remaining discovery issues, with a final hearing on May 13 to set “permanent child support for the minor child.”

Read more …

 

 

 

Include the Automatic Earth in your 2020 charity list. Support us on Paypal and Patreon.