Menu Icon

Debt Rattle April 17 2025

Apr 172025
 
 April 17, 2025  Posted by at 9:54 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan Trafalgar Square 1939-43

 

• What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)
• Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)
• New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)
• Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)
• Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)
• Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)
• OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)
• Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)
• What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)
• ‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)
• US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)
• US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)
• Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)
• Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)
• Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

 

 


Longhorn beetle’s face.

 

 

Genetics

Hero

AI

CCP

Macleod

Bukele taxes
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1912335542806802689

Flynn

Tucker Bernier

 

 

 

 

From a bit of an unexpected corner, but we’ll take it. A man’s no. 1 duty is to protect women, and that was not happening.

• What Is a Woman? The UK Supreme Court Knows the Answer (Margolis)

The U.K. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling Wednesday that affirmed that the legal definition of “woman” refers specifically to those born biologically female, excluding biological men who “identify” as women from that category. The decision marks a major course correction after years of gender ideology sweeping Europe. The AP reports: “Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women. “Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to, back to reality.” The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a controversial issue that has roiled politics as women, parents, LGBTQ+ groups, lawmakers and athletes have debated gender identity rights.”

This wasn’t some razor-thin ruling divided on ideological grounds. The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, with all five judges in agreement: under the Equality Act, biological men can be lawfully excluded from women-only spaces and services even if they “identify” as women. That includes places like changing rooms, female-only shelters, swimming areas, and women-centered medical or counseling services. The court made it explicit that even a transgender person holding a certificate legally recognizing them as female does not qualify as a “woman” under equality law. As far as I know, none of the judges on the UK Supreme Court are biologists, yet they were able to answer the question “What is a woman?” when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t do the same when asked during her confirmation hearings.

The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament stating there should be a 50% female representation on the boards of Scottish public bodies. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota. “Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ … and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.” Hannah Ford, an employment lawyer, said that while the judgment will provide clarity, it would be a setback for transgender rights and there would be “an uphill battle” to ensure workplaces are welcoming places for trans people. “This will be really wounding for the trans community,” Ford told Sky News. Groups that had challenged the Scottish government popped the cork on a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”

The UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling defining women based on biological sex isn’t just a victory for common sense; it’s a desperately needed course correction following years of radical gender ideology being legitimized worldwide. Thankfully, President Donald Trump has been fighting to bring this return to sanity to America, despite relentless opposition from radical leftists and activist judges who seem determined to deny basic biological reality.

Read more …

Looks like a narrow escape. Bombing Iran is sheer stupidity. A country that has always said it doesn’t want nukes, for religious reasons. Good to see multiple cabinet members get input.

• Trump Shot Down Israel’s Plan To Attack Iran – NYT (RT)

US President Donald Trump has rejected Israel’s proposal to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, The New York Times reported on Wednesday evening, citing White House officials and others familiar with the matter. Trump reportedly chose instead to pursue a new deal with Tehran.According to the Times, Israel had drafted plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in early May, aiming to delay its ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. After considering a combination of airstrikes and commando raids, the Jewish state reportedly proposed “an extensive bombing campaign” that would have lasted more than a week. Israeli officials had hoped that the US would not only greenlight the operation but also actively support it.

Trump, however, shot down the plan earlier this month, following a “rough consensus” in the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among the top administration members who reportedly raised concerns that the strikes would “spark a wider conflict with Iran.” Iran and Israel exchanged strikes in April and October of last year, marking the most dramatic escalation between the regional arch-rivals.

Trump tore up the 2015 UN-backed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office. The president accused Tehran of secretly violating the deal and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by rolling back its own compliance with the accord and accelerating its enrichment of uranium. Last month, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “if they don’t make a deal,” to which the Islamic Republic vowed not to bow to pressure. Despite the belligerent rhetoric, the US and Iran held a first round of talks in Oman on Saturday. The negotiations took place in a “productive, calm and positive atmosphere,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1912670170977382901

Read more …

She deserves it.

• New York AG Letitia James Accused of Alleged Mortgage Fraud (Turley)

“No matter how big, rich or powerful you think you are, no one is above the law.” Those words by New York state Attorney General Letitia James echoed throughout the media, lionizing her after her office secured a judgment against Donald Trump for false business practices, including misrepresentations on loan documents. They may echo even louder this week as James finds herself the subject of a criminal referral for committing alleged financial fraud to secure her own property loans. On April 14, William J. Pulte, Director of US Federal Housing (FHFA), sent a referral letter to the Justice Department detailing alleged false statements made in filings by James to secure housing loans. For an attorney general who just prosecuted Trump for everything short of ripping a label off a mattress, the irony is crushing.

The alleged false statements are particularly damning for someone who insisted that she had zero tolerance for such irregularities or errors in financial filings. Indeed, the greatest danger is that the Letitia James standard could be applied to Letitia James in guaranteeing that “no one is above the law.” The allegations against James run from the demonstrably false to the downright bizarre. In securing a loan for a home in Norfolk, Va., James is accused of claiming through her representative that the property would be her principal residence. As the referral notes, primary residences receive more advantageous rates. However, as “the sitting New York Attorney General of New York [James] is required by law to have her primary residence in the state of New York.” Notably, the Justice Department has prosecuted those who have committed this common fraud.

For example, in 2017, it charged a man in Puerto Rico with false statements on a reverse mortgage loan application in which he falsely claimed the property as his principal residence. It emphasized that “mortgage lenders provide capital so people can purchase homes, not enrich themselves illegally.” There are other such cases under 18 U.S.C. 1014 and related laws. James could claim that these representations were made by a third party acting on her behalf. However, that is precisely the argument that she repeatedly rejected in the Trump case, insisting that he was legally obligated to review all filings made in his name or that of his companies. James is also accused of misrepresenting a five-unit property in Brooklyn as a four-unit property “to receive better interest rates … and to receive mortgage assistance through [the Home Affordable Modification Program].”

The referral also includes a claim that James filed papers that listed herself and her father as a married couple. The referral notes that just last year, Baltimore’s State Attorney, Marilyn Mosby, was convicted by the Biden administration of filing a false mortgage application. Another case resulted in a guilty plea last week for fraudulent filings in a home loan. The timing for James could not be worse. The Trump civil case has languished on appeal for months with a long overdue opinion. The appellate argument did not go well for James in the case that resulted in a grotesque half-billion-dollar fine in a case where no one lost a dime. James accused Trump of inflating property value in filings, a common practice in the real estate field. It did not matter that the company warned banks to do their own evaluations. It did not matter that bank officials testified that they made money on the deal. Indeed, the “victim” wanted more business from Trump. None of that matters.

James not only demanded an even greater fine but wanted to foreclose on Trump properties after Trump was told to secure a ridiculous $455 million bond to simply secure appellate review. Throughout that case, James repeated her mantra that there would be no exceptions for the rich and powerful. She insisted that accuracy on such financial records is essential and must be rigorously enforced. Many of us objected that James was selectively targeting Trump after she ran for office on the pledge to nail him on some unspecified offense.

James insisted that this was not lawfare and that she would prosecute anyone guilty of false or misleading statements on financial filings. She is now allegedly that person. It is not clear what James’ defense will be to these allegations. However, she may cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Thompson v. United States, which ruled in March that 18 U.S.C. § 1014 does not criminalize statements that are merely misleading but are not false. The problem is that, if proven, these statements are not misleading. They are false.

Read more …

Two separate judges are on the MS-13 case.

• Judge to Trump Administration: I Feel Unfacilitated (Turley)

After the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, I wrote a column disagreeing with the media coverage that claimed that the Trump Administration was ordered to return Garcia to the United States from El Salvador. The Administration mistakingly sent Garcia to a foreign prison. However, the Court only ordered that the Administration “facilitate” such a return, a term it failed to define. Now, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis is indicating that she feels unfacilitated, but it is unclear how a court should address this curious writ of facilitation. After the ruling, many on the left claimed “Supreme Court in a unanimous decision: He has a legal right to be here, and you have to bring him back.” The Court actually warned that the district court could order the government to facilitate but not necessarily “to effectuate” the return.

“The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.”

So what does that mean? As I asked in the column, “what if the Trump Administration says that inquiries were made, but the matter has proven intractable or unresolvable? Crickets.” The Administration has made clear that it views the orders as meaning that, if El Salvador brings Garcia to its doorstep, it must open the door. The court clearly has a different interpretation. Judge Xinis said yesterday, “I’ve gotten nothing. I’ve gotten no real response, and no real legal justification for not answering,” she continued, adding that if the administration is not going to answer her questions “then justify why. That’s what we do in this house.” There is nothing worse than a feeling of being unfacilitated, but how does the court measure good faith facilitation? Garcia is an El Salvadorian citizen in an El Salvadorian prison. The refusal of El Salvador to send the accused MS-13 gang member back effectively ends the question on any return.

Many of us suspect that El Salvador would send back Garcia if asked, but how can a court measure the effort of an Administration in communications with a foreign country? Judge Xinis is suggesting that she will be holding someone in contempt. However, this is a discussion occurring at the highest level. Would a formal request be enough? Is Judge Xinis suggesting that the court can require punitive or coercive measures against a foreign country to facilitate a change in its position? The fact is that a unanimous decision of the Court is not hard when no one can say conclusively what the order means. If Judge Xinis is going to move ahead with new orders, it will find its way back to the Supreme Court.

The Court clearly (and correctly) held that Garcia deserves due process and that this removal was a mistake. As I have previously stated, the Administration should have brought him back for proper deportation. I still believe that. However, the Court also held that the President’s Article II authority over foreign policy has to weigh heavily in such questions. As the court goes down this road, it can quickly get bogged down in subjective judgments on what constitutes facilitation. That is the can kicked down the road by the Supreme Court and it is now likely to come rattling back to the justices.

Read more …

The de facto ruler of America.

• Judge Boasberg Floats ‘Criminal Contempt’ Against Trump Admin (ZH)

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for ignoring oral instructions to turn a plane full of alleged Venezuelan gang members around mid-flight, despite the US Supreme Court determining that Boasberg’s court was an improper venue for the case altogether – and vacating two of his temporary restraining orders related to the case. “The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a “46-page rant” (as Julie Kelly puts it). “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” Boasberg continues. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.” Oh, and if the DOJ won’t prosecute the Trump admin’s alleged contempt, “the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.””

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1912553159269949783?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1912553159269949783%7Ctwgr%5Ea3688f29ee12125fd4b2930b336905f62a939345%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fpresident-jeb-boasberg-floats-criminal-contempt-against-trump-admin-over-deportations

That said, the Supreme Court is partially to blame here over their refusal to draw clear boundaries for District court judges… Which has created a complete shit-show…

Read more …

“There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

• Scott Jennings Schools CNN Panel Over Gang Member’s Deportation (PJM)

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of the hand-wringing on Monday’s panel discussion over the Trump administration’s handling of the deportation of MS-13 gang member Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — the latest cause célèbre of the radical left. While the liberals on the panel tiptoed around legal technicalities and rhetorical posturing, Jennings delivered a blunt reality check that left the rest of the table scrambling. Anchor Abby Phillip tried to tee up criticism of Trump by focusing on “the optics” of sending “Americans” to El Salvador — even though Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant. But Jennings wasn’t distracted. “Yes. He said they were studying the laws. I mean, there wasn’t any definitive statement,” he clarified, before cutting right to the core of the debate: “I think you guys need to understand, for the Trump administration, there’s no version of this man’s life that ends up with him living in the United States.”

Jennings laid out the Trump administration’s reasoning without flinching: “He’s an illegal alien from El Salvador who came to the country illegally, who has a deportation order, who, in their view and in the view of some immigration courts, has an affiliation with MS-13.” Phillip tried to interject by claiming that Garcia’s affiliation with MS-13 isn’t definitive because Abrego Garcia “strongly disputes in court.” Well, I guess that settles it, right? “I’m telling you that their view of it is that… it’s an El Salvador citizen who was sent back to El Salvador, who was in the country illegally,” Jennings reiterated. “According to some people in his long process… he has an existing deportation order, [and they] believe he has an affiliation with MS-13.” Then Jennings repeated his knockout point: “There’s no version of this man’s life where he comes back.”

As the panel continued to push the narrative of unjust exile, Jennings laid out the consequences if Abrego Garcia is returned. “If the president of El Salvador releases him and we do facilitate his return, when he lands in this country, one of two things will happen,” Jennings explained. “He’ll either be arrested… or sent to another country that I promise you you don’t want to go to. He’s not going to be allowed to come back and live in this country as though he is a U.S. citizen.” Harvard Law’s Jay Michaelson jumped in with the melodramatic accusation, “That’s literally the definition of tyranny, right?” Umm, no? What are they teaching at Harvard Law these days? Seriously.

Michaelson continued, “So, here’s what’s going to happen: We’re going to throw him in jail. No, there’s a thing called the rule of law and due process, which has not been followed in this case. And if I have a slightly optimistic take on this; I actually think this is going to come back to bite the Trump administration. Because what’s going to happen is the next time this goes up the court system, they have absolutely zero credibility to say, Don’t worry, you can file a habeas petition. You can get your person back.” But Jennings coolly reminded the panel, “They have the ability to deport people who have deportation orders.” He added that Garcia “got due process. He has a deportation order.”

Later, he dissected the legal victory Trump’s team got last week. “The reason the administration believes they got a big win at the Supreme Court is because the district court was trying to compel the executive on foreign affairs. The Supreme Court threw that out,” Jennings explained. “The courts have long recognized that they cannot compel the executive on foreign policy matters.” As for the politics? Jennings didn’t sugarcoat it. “What they also believe is that, politically, the American people want them to be as aggressive as possible… to solve a crisis that has festered for years,” he asserted. Then he drove the moral argument home with a chilling reminder: “We keep calling this guy ‘Maryland man’ in the press. Nobody seems to worry about the Maryland mother, Rachel Morin, who was murdered by someone that the previous administration let out of jail.”

Read more …

Social media without people. Just AI bots.

• OpenAI Planning To Take On Musk’s X (RT)

OpenAI, a San Francisco-based company best known for ChatGPT, has reportedly been working on a new social media app similar to Elon Musk’s X. The early prototype features a feed centered on AI-generated images, according to sources familiar with the project cited by The Verge on Sunday. The experimental platform reportedly includes a social media feed and is being tested internally. CEO Sam Altman has also been seeking private feedback from individuals outside the company, the outlet reported. It remains unclear whether OpenAI intends to release the project as a separate app or integrate it into ChatGPT, which was the most downloaded app worldwide last month, with 46 million new downloads, according to Appfigures.

OpenAI’s potential social media network “would likely increase Altman’s already-bitter rivalry with Elon Musk,” The Verge writes. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI but left the company in 2018. In February, Musk offered $97.4 billion to acquire OpenAI, but Altman rejected the offer, reportedly saying, “no thank you but we will buy twitter [now known as X] for $9.74 billion if you want,” according to The Verge. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, could also be in OpenAI’s sights. The report noted that Meta is planning to launch its own AI assistant app with a social media feed. Following reports that Meta is building a ChatGPT rival, Altman responded on X in February: “ok fine maybe we’ll do a social app.”

Having a social media platform would reportedly allow OpenAI to collect unique real-time user data to enhance its AI models, similar to how Meta and Musk’s xAI currently operate, according to The Verge. Musk has merged his AI company xAI with X. Grok is a chatbot developed by xAI. It has been integrated with X and pulls content from the platform to inform its responses. According to a source from another AI lab cited by the Verge, “The Grok integration with X has made everyone jealous,” particularly regarding its role in helping users create viral content. It is reportedly uncertain whether OpenAI’s social media prototype will be released publicly.

Read more …

“Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.”

• Trump Is Right to Hammer Environmental Lawfare (DS)

President Donald Trump’s critics are right about one thing: The first few months of his second term have been a reckoning. Starting with the federal government’s pursuit of law firms and organizations that committed lawfare against the president to hobble his political comeback, Trump has now supercharged executive authority to stop the flood of ideologically based lawsuits targeting America’s energy providers. In an executive order signed last week, Trump empowered Attorney General Pam Bondi to turn up the heat on local prosecutors and state attorneys general abusing the legal system with lawsuits against energy companies. He is right to do so. “Making America Great Again” has to include energy dominance and eradicating the barriers to innovation and growth at all levels of government, including courtrooms.

Trump has directed Bondi to “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of state laws and continuation of civil actions” that threaten American energy dominance, including restrictive rules and civil actions against oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, and nuclear energy projects. What Trump is specifically targeting here is the well-resourced cadre of state attorneys general and liability “lawfare” firms that have deployed creative legal strategies to try to extract money from companies by claiming they’ve committed “climate” crimes. This genre of lawsuit relies on the alleged violation of state nuisance or consumer deception laws, and litigators argue that the energy companies actively strove to mislead the public about their products’ impact on the climate.

A local lawsuit in North Carolina against Duke Energy, one of the largest nuclear energy utilities in the nation, provides the most baffling case. Officials in the small suburb town of Carrboro want the company to pay for the “climate-related harm” caused by its electricity generation, even though Duke Energy’s carbon-free nuclear energy fleet powers half the homes in North and South Carolina, and the region’s use of natural gas is one of the lowest per capita in the country. Climate lawfare has a direct impact on consumers who rely on affordable energy of all types by forcing these companies to beef up their legal departments rather than improving the delivery of their goods and services. The end result is higher prices for consumers who already live on tight budgets due to the rising cost of living in other areas of the economy.

Most, if not all, of these cases are filed in blue states and launched by attorneys on behalf of city governments such as Honolulu; Boulder, Colorado; and San Francisco. The states of Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, Maine, New York, and California each have their own lawsuits aimed at recouping the “costs” of climate change on local communities and enforcing “net-zero” energy policies. Net-zero policies seek to rapidly choke off fossil fuel use in order to reach zero carbon emissions by reducing them as well as removing them from the atmosphere and relying on renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and sometimes, nuclear power. Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP get hit hardest, but like in the case of Duke Energy in North Carolina, electricity utility companies get dragged into the mess as well.

But as far as messes go, it’s one carefully orchestrated by the climate litigation industry, armed with deep pockets and patience in its quest to pull the rug out from under Big Energy. That’s why Trump’s revamp of federalism to review many of these laws and statutes is not only legal but deeply necessary. Consumers who need affordable energy and who rely on continued innovation from the companies that power their lives should not have their standard of living cut by greedy environmental lawyers jamming up district courts where judges are ideologically inclined to their side. In March, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the deluge of Democrat state-led climate lawsuits, denying the request by red states to put a halt to the lawfare.

In their dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made clear that the court was punting on a vital constitutional case “for policy reasons.” When the Supreme Court refuses to address the obvious abuse of our litigation system for energy providers and the consumers that rely on them, the intervention of the executive branch becomes a necessity. The most likely unconstitutional state statutes that enable these costly lawsuits should meet the wrath of a president willing to exercise some federal authority. Trump has answered that call, and at least on this specific issue, he’s proved that our government’s unique balancing act between state and federal power does make it possible to get important things done for Americans.

Read more …

PCR won’t give Putin a break. But Putin has a problem with dead Ukrainians: they’re Russia’s brothers.

• What Can We Expect from the Peace Negotiations? (Paul Craig Roberts)

Are the peace negotiations leading anywhere we want to go, or are they leading nowhere, or to more conflict? If I had to bet, I would pick one of the last two choices. Most likely more conflict. It is a tendency of peace negotiations to go nowhere except to a ceasefire that is immediately broken. As for the Ukraine negotiations, the Russians are the only party to the limited cease fire in Ukraine that have kept the agreement. Putin’s reward is to be told by Trump to stop fighting and put Russia’s fate in Washington’s hands or there will be more sanctions. Negotiations tend to keep on continuing, because it is in the interest of the negotiating teams. It is their time of fame. They are in the limelight. They enjoy being important. An agreement would make them invisible again. It is their 15 minutes of fame that they stretch into months and years.

Consider how long peace negotiations have been going on between Israel and Palestine to no effect except the utter and total destruction of Palestine and its people. The same could happen to Russia as the Kremlin seems to consist of 19th century naive liberals. In my recent interview on Dialogue Works I wondered why Iran was negotiating when the solution is to invite inspectors in to see if there is any evidence of nuclear weapons production. I wondered why Putin was negotiating when his real responsibility to Russia is to win the conflict and dictate the peace terms. After all his sad costly experiences with negotiating with Washington, why does Putin desire yet another sad experience? As far as I can tell, I am the only person who has answered the question. Putin is trying to use the conflict to negotiate a Great Powers Agreement like Yalta. If he wins the war, as he should have done long ago, to his way of thinking he loses the chance for a new Yalta that naive Russian foreign affairs commentators are talking about.

My view differs from Putin’s. If he won the war, especially if he had done so right away, Russia would be recognized as a great power worthy of a Great Power Agreement. Instead, by preventing the Russian military from winning, Putin has convinced the West that Russia is not a formidable military force, and that its leadership is irresolute. Among the consequences, we have today the French and British considering sending their soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine. Only Putin’s irresolution could have convinced the British and French that they could take on Russia. We also have Baltic countries with small populations engaging in unresisted and unanswered aggression against Russia. Both Estonia and Finland have moved to use military force to capture and detain Russian oil tankers.

If you were the captain of a Russian oil tanker delivering oil to somewhere in Europe, you might already be wondering why your government is fueling the ability of its enemies to wage war against Russia. But when you are boarded by a two-bit country whose population is less than Moscow’s and the Kremlin does not intervene, what do you think about the world’s respect for your country? You must be heart-broken. Powerful Russia humiliated by Estonia! Putin does not think about these things. His focus is only on negotiation. He is wedded to it, firmly. He might even be a little crazed by it. It is all that is important. He won’t respond to humiliations because it might queer the all-important negotiations. So the smallest countries on earth can humiliate Russia at will.

This must affect the Russian population, unless they have been so corrupted by Western “culture” that they are no longer Russian. That is the case with many of the Russian intellectuals. If Russia can’t be a part of the West, they feel isolated and alone. Decades of Washington’s propaganda succeeded in diminishing the Russian in them. From the day that Putin, who had erroneously relied on negotiations, was forced by Washington to intervene in Donbas, Putin and his foreign minister have not ceased bleating how welcoming they would be of peace negotiations. Consequently, no one in Western governments thought, or think today, that the Kremlin has an ounce of resolve on the battlefield. This is the problem Putin caused himself.

Do you remember Prigozhin and the Wagner Group? The Wagner Group was the essentially private military force under the command of Yevgeny Prigozhin that Putin had to rely upon when he belatedly intervened in Ukraine. Having erroneously relied on the Minsk Agreement, which the West used to deceive Putin, Putin had no military force prepared to deal with the massive Ukrainian army Washington had trained and equipped. Prigozhin found Putin’s way of fighting a war problematical. He said his top echelon troops were being required to take casualties but were prohibited from fighting to win. The dissatisfaction of the troops with Putin’s strictures that prevented victory, led to a protest march on Moscow, which the jealous Russian General Staff misrepresented as a “rebellion.” Prigozhin was removed and later died in a mysterious airplane crash, and the Wagner Group was broken up, thereby depriving Russia of its hardest hitting military force. This is a huge sacrifice in behalf of a distant possible negotiated settlement.

Prigozhin wasn’t alone. The second most effective Russian force were the Muslim troops from Chechnya. Their leader also complained that his force had to take casualties but were prevented from winning. He asked publicly, why can’t we get this conflict over with? I think the answer is that Putin thinks a negotiated settlement possibly leading to a Great Power Agreement is more important than the reputation of Russian military arms and Russian and Ukrainian casualties. If Washington comes to my conclusion, the settlement imposed on Putin will look good on paper but will perpetuate American hegemony. I have said many times that Putin does not need a mutual security agreement with the West. He does not need a New Yalta. Russia needs a mutual security agreement with China and Iran. A mutual security agreement of these three powers would end all wars. The US, NATO, Israel cannot possibly confront these three countries militarily.

But there is no agreement. Why? Is it a lack of vision of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian leaders? Or is it distrust between them? Russia and Iran walked away from Syria, leaving the country to Israel, Washington, and Turkey. Why wouldn’t they walk away from one another? China, knows that if China wished, China could crush Taiwan, with or without US support to Taiwan, in a few hours. But Putin can’t defeat outclassed Ukraine in more than three years, longer than it took Stalin’s Red Army to destroy the powerful German Wehrmacht, driving the Germans out of thousands of miles of Russia, Eastern Europe, and arriving in the streets of Berlin in a shorter time than Putin has been fighting over a few kilometers in Donbas. China must wonder what sort of military help would Russia be?

My conclusion is, and I much regret it, it is not a conclusion I want, that Putin has so badly handled the Ukrainian situation, the pipeline, and all other matters with Washington that the only agreement that can be reached is Russia’s surrender. Putin has shown no will to fight, only to engage in fruitless negotiation. Putin rolls out all of Russia’s superior weapons systems, which clearly are superior to anything the West has. But no one in the West believes he would use them. Putin has failed to present himself and his country as entities that must be contended with on their terms. Consequently, Putin is dismissed by Trump as someone to be bossed around, and by militarily impotent Britain and France who are talking about sending their soldiers to Ukraine to defeat Russia.

Read more …

Blackmail? Is that what it is?

• ‘Stop Blackmailing’ – China to US (RT)

China has called on the US to “stop threatening and blackmailing,” if it wants to resolve the escalating trade dispute between the two countries through dialogue. Beijing has stressed that it will continue to protect its interests in the face of US pressure. The two countries have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months, with the US imposing a cumulative rate of 145% last week. On Tuesday, the White House warned that Chinese imports to the US could face tariffs as high as 245%, and claimed the ball is in China’s court. “If the United States really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should give up the extreme pressure, stop threatening and blackmailing,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian told journalists on Wednesday.

The diplomat reiterated that the tariff war was initiated by the US and stated that China’s response was aimed at safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests. Beijing’s retaliation has included a hike to 125% on all American imports, a suspension of global shipments of rare-earth metals and magnets used in tech and military industries. In addition, Beijing ordered Chinese airlines to stop accepting Boeing jets and parts, according to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump previously suggested that the “proud” Chinese want to make a deal, they “just don’t know how quite to go about it.” The Chinese authorities have meanwhile insisted that “the door remains open” for negotiation with the US, but dialogue must be based on mutual respect. The Ministry of Commerce last week dismissed the multiple rounds of duties imposed by the US on China as “numbers game” with no practical meaning and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Read more …

The US wants to prevent China from using third countries to circumvent tarriffs.

• US To Restrict China’s Access in Exchange for Fewer Tariffs on Allies (Sp.)

During negotiations with more than 70 countries, the US administration plans to secure commitments from trade partners to economically isolate China in exchange for lower tariffs imposed by the White House, The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported. The White House plans to convince countries to prohibit China from transporting goods through their territories, the report said on Tuesday, adding that Washington also wants to ban Chinese companies from locating in these countries in order to circumvent US tariffs, and prevent cheap Chinese industrial goods from entering their markets.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has become one of the key developers of this strategy, the report read. In his opinion, in the near future, such agreements can be reached primarily with Japan, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea and India. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs on imports from various countries, establishing a baseline rate of 10%. The tariffs were intended to be adjusted based on the rates charged by those countries on US goods. However, on April 9, Trump declared a 90-day pause on tariffs for all countries except China and lowered the rate to 10% to facilitate negotiations.

Read more …

“The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said..”

• US To Tie Tariff Deals To China Curbs – WSJ (RT)

The US plans to use tariff negotiations to push trade partners to scale back economic ties with China, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the talks. The strategy is reportedly aimed at securing commitments from countries hit by recent US tariff hikes to help isolate China’s economy and pressure Beijing to negotiate. US President Donald Trump announced new “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly 90 countries earlier this month, citing unfair trade practices. After global markets reacted by dropping sharply and several governments sought exemptions, he paused most of the tariffs for 90 days, reducing them to a baseline rate of 10%. However, the pause does not apply to China, whose exports to the US are now subject to tariffs of up to 145% amid an ongoing tit-for-tat trade war.

US officials aim to convince trade partners to accept permanent tariff cuts in exchange for curbing their economic engagement with China, according to the WSJ. Proposed commitments may vary by country, but could reportedly include stopping China from rerouting exports through third-party nations, banning Chinese firms from setting up operations locally to avoid US tariffs, and limiting imports of low-cost Chinese industrial goods. Sources said the measures are meant to undermine China’s economy and reduce its leverage ahead of potential negotiations between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The US has already raised the proposal in early discussions with some countries, sources claimed.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reportedly one of the main architects of the plan. Sources claimed he presented the strategy to Trump during an April 6 meeting at Mar-a-Lago, arguing that obtaining concessions from partners could prevent China from evading tariffs and export controls. He previously named the UK, Australia, South Korea, India, and Japan as countries likely to finalize trade agreements with Washington in the near future.

The White House and Treasury Department declined to comment on the WSJ report. On Tuesday, Trump urged China to initiate negotiations to resolve the tariff dispute. “The ball is in China’s court. China needs to make a deal with us. We don’t have to make a deal with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, quoting a statement she claimed was dictated by the president. Beijing, however, has so far refused to back down. On Friday, China announced it would impose a 125% tariff on all US goods, reiterating it will “fight to the end” against Washington’s trade policy. Beijing also signaled this could be the last increase, noting that “at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China,” while adding that other countermeasures are being considered.

Read more …

You grow up in Holland and you’re forced to hear the call to Muslim prayer 5x a day. Get real.

• Dutch MPs Call For Ban On Amplified Islamic Calls To Prayer (RMX)

Two minor conservative parties in the Netherlands, the SGP and JA21, have tabled a private members’ bill aiming to ban amplified Islamic calls to prayer in residential areas, arguing that the practice is increasingly at odds with Dutch cultural norms. The proposed legislation, submitted by SGP MP André Flach and JA21 leader Joost Eerdmans, targets the growing use of loudspeakers in mosques to broadcast the adhan — the Islamic call to prayer — across neighborhoods. While amplified calls were rare until the 1990s, the MPs claim they are now heard in dozens of communities nationwide, “from Amsterdam to Alblasserdam.” “It doesn’t fit in with Dutch culture,” Flach said, as cited by De Telegraaf newspaper. He noted that current broadcasts loudly proclaim religious texts such as “Allah is the greatest” and “there is no other god but Allah” several times a day. He argued that when laws were changed in 1988 to allow amplified religious calls under the Public Manifestations Act, lawmakers did not anticipate how pervasive and loud such calls might become.

Eerdmans expressed equal concern over the trend, pointing to what he sees as a steady increase in Islamic practice seeping into the Dutch way of life. “Today, around 40 mosques play the adhan on Fridays, but with about 500 mosques in the Netherlands and that number growing, how many will there be in 10 years?” sIn some neighborhoods, “you really feel like you’re in Istanbul or Marrakesh,” he added. The MPs also cited a poll commissioned from researcher Maurice de Hond, which claims that nearly 80 percent of Dutch citizens view amplified calls to prayer as inconsistent with Dutch culture and find them bothersome. While the government had already signaled plans to tighten regulations on amplified prayer calls earlier this year, Flach and Eerdmans are pushing for a complete ban on sound amplification for such broadcasts.

“This is not about restricting freedom of religion,” Flach insisted. “People can still make the call to prayer, just without sound amplification. The current law simply lacks the word ‘unamplified’ — and we are adding it,” he said. In a statement, JA21 wrote, “More and more Dutch streets are drowned out by amplified Islamic calls to prayer. The public space belongs to everyone – the mosque does not have to rise above it. That is why JA21 and SGP are submitting a private members’ bill to ban the reinforced call.” The proposal follows earlier statements by Integration Secretary Jurgen Nobel, who in February pledged to review existing legislation to better manage noise disturbances from amplified religious expressions. Supporters argue that the measure would restore balance and respond to long-standing complaints from residents in affected areas. The bill will now move to parliamentary debate.

Read more …

Just to get to 2%. Then that becomes 5%. And then Ursula wants $800 billion on top of that.

• Belgium Eyes Welfare Cuts To Meet NATO Target (RT)

Belgium is preparing to raise debt and cut welfare to meet NATO’s minimum military spending target, the EU country’s budget minister has said. Vincent Van Peteghem told the Financial Times on Wednesday that Brussels recently agreed to lift its 2025 military budget to 2% of GDP through a mix of temporary cash injections, creative accounting, and structural reforms. The planned hike in military spending could exacerbate the budget crisis as debt mounts. Recent government plans to cut social services have sparked protests, with over 100,000 people rallying in Brussels in February. Belgium had previously planned to meet the 2% target only by 2029. Military spending currently stands at around 1.31% of GDP, or roughly €8 billion ($8.5 billion), according to Defense Minister Theo Francken.

The shift comes amid pressure from Washington and ahead of a NATO summit in June, where members are expected to consider raising the spending target to above 3% of GDP. US President Donald Trump has urged the bloc members to increase military spending to 5%, warning that countries that fail to do so may no longer be guaranteed American protection. Higher spending on military budgets would take a toll on the EU’s welfare programs, Van Peteghem warned. Last month, the European Commission proposed exempting military budgets from fiscal rules and offering €150 billion in loans as part of its ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion through debt and tax incentives for the bloc’s military-industrial complex.

Van Peteghem said Belgium would tap both options to fund additional military spending this year. To maintain the 2% level, the government plans to raise more debt and may privatize state-owned assets, the minister said. The remaining gap would be filled through spending cuts, including curbs on unemployment benefits, pension reforms, and tax changes. “But of course, we will need to do more,” Van Peteghem, who also serves as deputy prime minister, said. France has also announced plans to cut €5 billion from its budget, with some of the savings potentially redirected to military spending. Moscow has condemned the EU’s military buildup. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “a matter of deep concern,” noting that it was aimed at Russia.

Read more …

“That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?”

• Trump Confronts Economic and Geopolitical Reality (Ring)

By the time this is published, everything may have changed, and that is to be expected. Throughout his career, well before and since becoming a politician, Trump has explicitly stated that he does not think it is always a good strategy to be predictable. And while markets love predictability, sometimes markets, and the systems propping them up, need disruption. This is such a moment. Nobody should deny that the anxiety is genuine. An older friend of mine, well into his 70s, still working but ready to retire, is wondering how he and his wife will survive if their savings are wiped out. That’s true for all of us, but it begs the question: What if the painful restructuring we may be about to endure, and which may last for many years, is necessary to avoid an even worse fate? Trump’s abrupt escalation of import tariffs goes well beyond violating the principles of comparative advantage, but we can start there.

“Comparative advantage” is not all it’s cracked up to be. Repeated in business schools as if it were gospel since the 1980s, it goes something like this: “Wool is cheaper in Scotland, and wine is cheaper in France, so France should sell their wine to Scotland, and Scotland should sell their wool to France.” Everybody wins. Period. That’s the extent of it. That is the essence of free trade theory. In the real world, though, policies that rely on “comparative advantage” doctrine as their moral justification have gotten pretty ugly. While overall economic growth may be maximized when every nation exports products that it produces most cost-effectively, the local impacts are not always benign. Nations that produce coffee at competitive global prices, for example, end up with valuable cropland converted from food production to coffee plantations.

These coffee plantations are typically owned by multinational corporations that repatriate profits to low-tax nations elsewhere while buying off a small local elite that streamlines the regulatory environment. Meanwhile, the nation becomes dependent on imports for everything except coffee, and even the coffee ends up priced out of reach for the average citizen. Replace “coffee” with any specialty product, and all too often, the “gains of trade” translate on the ground into nations with seething, destitute populations dependent on accumulating debt and foreign aid. These examples aren’t restricted to foreign nations, nor are they restricted to commodities. While American multinationals moved manufacturing overseas, in the process destroying millions of jobs and thousands of communities in America, it wasn’t just cheap wool, cheap wine, and dirt-cheap flat-screen TVs that were pouring into the country in exchange. We offshored our production of steel, our chip manufacturers, our pharmaceutical industry, and much more.

And even that devastation was tolerated for decades because its effects were mostly felt in what we now call rust belt states. Our service economy and tech sectors boomed, along with what was left of manufacturing, satiating a majority of the population that loved buying cheaper foreign imports. But this whole scheme could never go on forever. America’s trade deficit in 2024 was up to $918 billion, a new record. America’s cumulative trade deficit, nearly all of it incurred since 2000, is now estimated in excess of $17 trillion.

To balance the trade deficit, there is what economists call the “current account.” If dollars flow overseas for us to purchase foreign imports in excess of foreign nations spending dollars to purchase our exports, the surplus dollars are repatriated in the form of foreigners bidding up the prices for assets they purchase in America. A slight oversimplification would be that trade deficits equate to cheap flat screens and unaffordable homes. But there is another reason America has huge trade deficits. It floods the world with dollar-denominated transactions, and by permitting foreigners to buy American assets, we effectively collateralize our currency. And so long as America is for sale in this manner, that helps sustain the dollar as a hard currency.

That comes in handy. For 46 out of the last 50 years, Americans have logged federal budget deficits. So far, the dollar’s status as the dominant transaction and reserve currency of the world gives America’s federal government the ability to borrow money by selling Treasury Notes. This is all well known and rehashed beyond the need to elaborate further. So, why are people acting like this was sustainable? How long can the global economic model rest on American trade deficits funding the military and industrial development of nations that, in some cases, aren’t even allies, with all of it balanced through foreign purchases of American assets? And how long will international demand for dollars finance federal budget deficits? To understand why this had to come to a head, consider federal budget trends in recent years.

In 2019, the last year of Trump’s first term, the federal budget was $4.4 trillion, with interest payments of $400 billion. For 2025, the first year of Trump’s current term, the projected federal budget is $7.0 trillion, with interest of just under $1.0 trillion. What changed? While the COVID pandemic was used to justify massive infusions of stimulative federal cash into the economy, much of it probably necessary, why hasn’t spending been reduced since the pandemic’s impact has been over for at least two years? Are we supposed to just expect massive federal budget deficits year after year? Is it sustainable to log a federal budget deficit that has grown from an alarming $900 billion in 2019 to $1.9 trillion in 2025, more than twice as much?

A roughly accurate summary of the economic reality we confront is federal budget deficits of $2 trillion per year and trade deficits of $1 trillion per year. Trade deficits translate into growing foreign ownership of American assets. Federal budget deficits add up in the form of accumulating, interest-bearing national debt. In 2019, the interest payments on what at the time was $22 trillion in national debt had already reached $575 billion, at an average interest rate of 2.5 percent. By 2024, the national debt had skyrocketed to $35 trillion, an increase of $13 trillion in just six years. Interest payments in 2024 were $1.1 trillion, and the average interest rate had risen to 3.3 percent. “Average” interest rate requires explanation. Ten-year treasury notes currently pay 4.4 percent. Interest rates have risen over the past few years. Imagine if that continues, and $35 trillion (or more) in treasury notes mature and are reinvested at 4.4 percent. That would raise the annual federal interest payment on the national debt to $1.5 trillion. At what point does this become a crisis?

Read more …

 

 

Favorite Calvin of all time.

 

 

https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1911960834559148452

Holy week

 

 

Fairy

 

 

Vancouver
https://twitter.com/dom_lucre/status/1912240470480285729

 

 

Charlie
https://twitter.com/khnh80044/status/1912456564352717089

 

 

Two things
https://twitter.com/RealDonKeith/status/1912496724888690887

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 11 2024

Aug 112024
 
 August 11, 2024  Posted by at 9:11 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  74 Responses »


Vincent van Gogh Starry night over the Rhône 1888

 

• “Who Elected YOU Boss of This Outfit?” (Jim Kunstler)
• Decay, Decrepitude, Deceit in Journalism (Ray McGovern)
• Associated Press Slammed for Giving Harris Pass on Answering Questions (Sp.)
• Harris Leading Trump In Key States – NYT Poll (RT)
• Polling On Latinos Shows Trouble For Harris (RCW)
• Police Audio Corroborates Claims Biden Had A Medical Emergency In Vegas (MN)
• No ‘Solid’ Way To Distinguish Man From Woman – IOC Chief (RT)
• UK Police Chief Threatens Elon Musk (RT)
• London Calling (Turley)
• Trump Campaign Hacked, Microsoft Says Iran-Backed Group Responsible (ZH)
• Poland Warns Against Kicking Hungary Out Of Schengen (RT)
• Ukraine Losing Battle to Recruit New ‘Cannon Fodder’ For NATO Proxy War (Sp.)
• The Forever Wars go full War OF Terror (Pepe Escobar)

 

 

 

 

Brilliant Rowan
https://twitter.com/i/status/1822316145698804079

 

 

Walz superior

 

 

J6

 

 

 

 

Jim summarizes the madness pretty well. And mad it is.

• “Who Elected YOU Boss of This Outfit?” (Jim Kunstler)

You might well wonder: how does the Democratic Party rank and file sustain such fervor for the wrecking crew of Harris & Walz conjured up with zero input from the Party’s demos? Just plopped onstage as by the old MGM studio heads casting a pair of iffy contract players in a “B” movie musical called Our Pronouns Are Cash and Carry. So far, Harris and Walz levitate in fake polls on gusts of idiot wind from the Party’s unofficial public relations team of the The New York Times / MSNBC / CNN / NPR media matrix. But it’s already obvious that Veep Kamala Harris’ brain is just a laugh generator triggered by anything that sounds like an idea from the material world: the economy? Hee-haw. . . Ukraine? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha. . . The border? Tee-hee. . . Transitioning minor children? Yuk-yuk-yukity-yuk. . . The Middle East? Cackle cackle. . . .

You are well aware, I’m sure, that the veep has yet to be exposed to a single unscripted interchange with anyone outside her promotional circle. It’s been kind of a neat trick to behold, like watching a barking terrier walk around the stage on its hind legs — but after a while the audience might be thinking, What else can you show me? You must not suppose this liminal moment in history between the defenestration of “Joe Biden” and the apparent selection of Harris & Walz is anything but a transient psychotic episode in American politics. The tell is that nobody in the Dem fold is inquiring as to how it happened, and especially who is behind it. Has the Dem Party become just Speaker emeritus Nancy Pelosi’s personal mafia? It appears that she was the one who delivered the black spot to “JB.” Do Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries even matter in that supposed hierarchy, or is Mrs. Pelosi sole proprietor of the org now?

There must be a few unfettered souls among the Dem delegates who detect that, without the smoke and mirrors of the media matrix, Harris & Walz can’t possibly make the case for getting elected honestly. And the odds of successfully rigging another national election seem to be on-the-fade, too, with such obvious pranks as registering 371 illegal aliens (non-citizens) to vote using an address that turns out to be a Walmart parking lot. Yesterday, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia signed an excutive order requiring paper ballots and voter ID along with other new regs. Is a trend underway among the states to clean up their acts? The so far railroaded national Dem delegates have ten more days to watch the Harris / Walz tag-team get vivisected on “X”, which, like it or not, has become the sole open conduit for news and commentary in a nation ruled by a psychopathocracy.

You can say that because the policies they promote are obviously inimical to our country’s well being — open borders, harassment, arrest and censorship of political opponents, the pointless Ukraine war, sexual mutilation of children, mass digital surveillance, medical quackery, and a policy of lying about absolutely all of it. Many still recognize insanity when they see it in action. These matters are not defensible and, deep down, they must know it, and maybe enough of the delegates will decide to do something about it — like revolt against the candidates foisted on them. One possible result, of course, is that such a revolt will rip the party to shreds. You can easily imagine chaos in the streets of Chicago among the disaffected delegates and the Antifa shock troops called forth to punish them.

Chaos for its own sake is highly valued by so-called “progressives” looking to progressively destroy the entire armature of civilized life in order to create out of the ashes a nirvana of sadomasochistic persecution and punishment — their Hieronymus Bosch Wokester utopia. I’m guessing that there will be untoward discoveries about, and mortifying blunders galore by, Harris & Walz these ten days ahead, and they will go into the Chicago convention like two pitiful creatures marked for sacrifice. Gawd knows what will emerge from the turbulence that ensues — but I’m still dogged by the feeling that the only plausible outcome is a giant flying reptile with a face like Hillary’s swooping into the arena on her great, flapping, leathery wings crying, Caw caw caw, I own you all now, you miserable cat ladies, incels, nose-rings, and sundry victims of hateful offense! Follow me once more into the glorious rapture of defeat! And it shall be done!

Read more …

Russiagate lives forever.

• Decay, Decrepitude, Deceit in Journalism (Ray McGovern)

Mainstream journalism has successfully buried parts of the Russiagate story, including the role played by former President Barack Obama. Was Obama aware of the “Russian hack” chicanery? There’s ample evidence he was “all in.” More than a month before the 2016 election, while the F.B.I. was still waiting for the findings of cyber-firm CrowdStrike, which the Democratic Party had hired in place of the F.B.I. to find out who had breached their servers, Obama told Clapper and Dept. of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson not to wait. So with the election looming, the two dutifully published a Joint Statement on Oct. 7, 2016: “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. … “

Obama’s role was revealed in 2022 when the F.B.I. was forced to make public F.B.I. emails in connection with the trial of fellow Russiagate plotter, Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann Clapper and the C.I.A., F.B.I., and NSA directors briefed Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017. That was the day before they gave it personally to President-elect Donald Trump, telling him it showed the Russians helped him win, and that it had just been made public. On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama used lawyerly language in an awkward attempt to cover his derriere: “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.”

So we ended up with “inconclusive conclusions” on that admittedly crucial point … and, for good measure, use of both words — “hacking” and “leaked.” The tale that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016 was then disproved on Dec. 5, 2017 by the head of CrowdStrike’s sworn testimony to Congress. Shawn Henry told the House Intelligence committee behind closed doors that CrowdStrike found no evidence that anyone had successfully hacked the DNC servers. But it is still widely believed because The New York Times and other Democrat-allied corporate media never reported on that testimony when it was finally made public on May 7, 2020. Enter Michael van Landingham. Rolling Stone’s article on July 28 about van Landingham says he is still proud of his role as one of the “hand-picked analysts” in drafting the discredited ICA.

The piece is entitled: “He Confirmed Russia Meddled in 2016 to Help Trump. Now, He’s Speaking Out.” It says: “Trump viewed the 2017 intel report as his ‘Achilles heel.’ The analyst who wrote it opens up about Trump, Russia and what really happened in 2016.” Without ever mentioning that the conclusions of the ICA were proven false, by Henry’s testimony and the conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that found no evidence of Trump-Russia “collusion,” Rolling Stone says: “The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), dubbed ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,’ was one of the most consequential documents in modern American history. It helped trigger investigations by the House and Senate intelligence committees and a special counsel investigation, and it fueled an eight-year-long grudge that Trump has nursed against the intelligence community.”

Rawnsley writes in Rolling Stone the following as gospel truth, without providing any evidence to back it up. “When WikiLeaks published a tranche of [John] Podesta’s emails in late October, the link between the Russian hackers and the releases became undeniable. The dump contained the original spear phishing message that Russian hackers had used to trick Podesta into coughing up his password. News outlets quickly seized on the email, crediting it for what it was: proof that the Russians were behind the campaign.” Because Rawnsley didn’t tell us, it’s not clear how this “spear phishing message” provides “undeniable” proof that Russia was behind it. Consortium News has contacted Rawnsley to provide more detail to back up his assertion.

Read more …

You are one small mental leap away from saying: ‘Public servants don’t need to face the public, actually’..”

• Associated Press Slammed for Giving Harris Pass on Answering Questions (Sp.)

After President Biden announced last month that he would not be seeking reelection for a second term, Vice President Kamala Harris was transformed by the Democratic Party machine and much of the media from the least popular VP in recent memory to an overnight media darling, to the chagrin of her detractors. Big three Western news agencies member the Associated Press is facing scathing criticism from readers after appearing to play down the significance of presidential candidates speaking to the media. In a piece published Friday night titled “Meet the press? Hold that thought. The candidate sit-down interview ain’t what it used to be,” AP contributor David Bauder argued that the fact that Kamala Harris “hasn’t given an interview and has barely engaged with reporters since becoming the Democratic choice to replace Joe Biden” isn’t that big a deal, and that “for journalists, the larger lesson is that their role as presidential gatekeepers is probably diminishing forever.”

The problem with interviews and news conferences, Bauder explained, is that they take away the “control” that campaigns, which have essentially become “marketing operations,” may depend on as far as campaign messaging goes. Harris’ conscious camera shyness, attributed to her well-worn tendency for embarrassing word salad remarks, contrasts her sharply from her Republican opponent, who in addition to nonstop social media posting revels in speaking with the media every chance he gets, including, most recently, through a heated interview with the National Association of Black Journalists – which the vice president skipped.The AP’s headline and messaging struck a nerve with Harris’s detractors, with the AP’s X post on the story ratioed by users peeved with the attempt to spin the candidate’s refusal to speak to media into something benign.“This is not ok! And it’s journalists’ job to say so, to hold politicians accountable. I am embarrassed for the profession,” writer and columnist Amanda Fortini wrote in response to the AP piece.

“What exactly are you drawing salaries for? If talking to the media is irrelevant and unnecessary why exactly to we need a media? What is it you’d say ya do around here?” another person quipped, quoting the line of one of the Bobs in the 1999 Mike Judge comedy Office Space. “The national press are now stumping for Harris to not do interviews. News organizations would rather protect Kamala Harris than make news. Astonishing,” someone else wrote. “Your girl is afraid to answer any questions she didn’t get in advance and didn’t memorize the answer to. And our ‘press’, especially you, are the worst in the world,” another person suggested.“You are one small mental leap away from saying: ‘Public servants don’t need to face the public, actually’,” someone else said.“This is a pretty weak editorial. Obviously the campaigns want to control messaging. But the legacy media is under no obligation to play along. The reason Harris is continuing to hide from the press is because you guys are enabling her,” another user suggested.

“Is it really worth burning your credibility for this? I mean, for Kamala specifically? For a good candidate I get it, but for Kamala?” one person asked. A spate of polling on a Harris-Trump matchup in November has flipped the script on months of polling favoring Trump against President Biden, whose ratings have declined precipitously amid handlers’ increasing in inability to hide his visibly declining mental acuity and physical state. A string of polling over the past two-and-a-half weeks now shows Trump trailing behind Harris by a 1-4 point margin, including in key battleground states, notwithstanding the vice president’s lackluster record as Biden’s border czar, and controversial record as California’s attorney general, including her attempts to keep hundreds of people, most of them African Americans, incarcerated for non-violent offenses beyond their sentences to prop up the pool of available prison labor.

Read more …

We’ll see tons of polls with very different results. The NYT simply polls way more democrats. That works.

• Harris Leading Trump In Key States – NYT Poll (RT)

A New York Times poll released on Saturday shows US Vice President Kamala Harris with a significant lead over former President Donald Trump in the swing states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The poll’s sampling data, however, suggests that the race could be far closer in reality. Conducted by the Siena College Research Institute, the survey of nearly 2,000 likely voters found Harris beating Trump by 50% to 46% across all three states. The poll was conducted between August 5 and 9, in the week that Harris announced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan reliably voted Democrat from 1992 until 2016, when Trump defied almost all polling to win all three. President Joe Biden managed to flip these Rust Belt states back in 2020, but did so by razor-thin margins.

For both Harris and Trump, winning either Pennsylvania and its 19 electoral votes, or Michigan and Wisconsin’s combined 25 votes, is essential to winning this November’s election. While the poll suggests that Harris is on track to win a resounding victory in all three states, a look at its methodology suggests that the Democrat’s lead could be an illusion. For example, 45% of respondents in Michigan voted for Biden in 2020, while 39% chose Trump. In reality, Biden won Michigan by less than three points, instead of the six that the poll suggests. Similar disparities can be seen in Pennsylvania, where the poll’s sampling suggests that Biden won the state by five points in 2020, compared to 1.2 in reality, and in Wisconsin, where the poll showed Biden winning by eight points, instead of 0.6. With this oversampling of Democrats taken into account, Harris and Trump are in a statistical dead heat in all three states.

Regardless, the poll is one of several to show Harris closing in on Trump. According to an average of multiple polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, Harris is currently leading Trump nationwide by 0.5%. By contrast, Trump was leading Biden by around three points immediately before the president suspended his reelection campaign last month. Despite publishing no policy positions and taking no questions from journalists since announcing her campaign, Harris has seen her favorability rise to 48%, up from 36% in February, according to previous New York Times/Siena polls. Trump’s favorability currently sits at 46%, up from 44% in February.

Read more …

“..though Latinos still continue to believe in the American Dream, nearly 88% believe that it’s harder to achieve than ever before..”

• Polling On Latinos Shows Trouble For Harris (RCW)

According to a new survey, Latinos are disillusioned with President Joe Biden and his administration’s policies. The survey, primarily sampling Latinos living in several key states such as Pennsylvania, finds that a majority feel like things are worse than they were four years ago. And a whopping 72% say that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The findings are significant because Biden comfortably won the Latino vote in the 2020 presidential election, and Latinos have traditionally voted for Democrats in previous elections. And following the dramatic shake up atop of the Democratic ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign will need to put together a coalition – which includes Latinos – if she is to win the presidency.

Unfortunately for Harris, our poll shows that the economy is front and center for most Latino voters. According to our findings, consistent with other polls, Latinos are most worried about jobs, the economy, inflation, and the high cost of living. According to our findings, two-thirds of Latinos say the state of the economy is either fair or poor. It’s no surprise, then, that our poll found that though Latinos still continue to believe in the American Dream, nearly 88% believe that it’s harder to achieve than ever before. These findings are consistent with what I am hearing every day from Latinos drawn to our workshops on financial literacy, the role of government, and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. Hispanics are drawn to America because of the promise of a better life and want to be active in making this country better and more prosperous.

Most immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean are not looking for handouts, but instead are looking for ways to get ahead in a country of abundant opportunity and prosperity. They know that unlike other countries – including the ones they may have fled from – the United States is where people can accomplish extraordinary things through hard work and perseverance. But as our polling makes clear, Latinos are feeling battered after years of runaway spending, crony capitalism, and ever-expanding regulations that make owning a business or raising a family more difficult. The everyday Latinos I talk to, who are working two shifts or struggling to make ends meet, are looking for solutions from our elected officials. They are looking for bold leadership and they are tired of partisan politics.

Many of us, having come from countries ruled by dictators with little chance of prosperity, are grateful to take on the responsibilities that come with living in a republican democracy where the elected officials are accountable to the people – not the other way around. We’re not a perfect nation, but the founders of this country knew that to make this a “more perfect union,” this great experiment of democracy needs an educated and vibrant citizenry. Latinos are showing that we are both and will not be seen as a monolithic, one-issue voting bloc for anyone. As one of the youngest and fastest growing demographics, Latinos will have an outsized role in determining the future of our country. This election is just the start in shaping the next chapter of America’s history.

Read more …

Behold: the president.

They could use this to push Kamala forward. But they do not.

• Police Audio Corroborates Claims Biden Had A Medical Emergency In Vegas (MN)

Police audio has been released revealing that law enforcement in Las Vegas were engaged in a snap operation to secure a route for Joe Biden to get to University Medical hospital, a trauma center, corroborating previous reports that there was some sort of medical emergency involving Biden before he stepped down as the Democratic nominee. As we highlighted at the time, police sources claimed that US Secret Service informed local law enforcement that there was an emergency situation involving Biden on July 17, and to close necessary streets so that he could be transported immediately to the hospital. According to the sources, hundreds of officers and employees heard the broadcast live and set in motion emergency response procedures, with radio dispatchers asking for a “surge” of police resources to secure the area and the emergency room on standby.

The plan then abruptly changed and Biden was flown back to Delaware at high speed. Speculation was that Biden was displaying stroke like symptoms, and that he could have experienced a transient ischaemic attack, also called a “mini stroke”, a serious condition where the blood supply to the brain is temporarily disrupted. The new audio is from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department’s protective detail for Biden and was released Friday afternoon by Oversight Project, which obtained the recordings through a Freedom of Information Act request. The three recordings, containing police chatter, are not time stamped, but appear to span a few hours. In two clips, both of around four-minutes, officers are asked to respond Code 3, which is an emergency response posture.

In the third longer clip of 43 minutes, someone on the radio states “For everybody on the radio, right now they’re on a hold for something regarding the President.” The protective detail was then informed “For everyone on the radio, right now POTUS is 421. He’s being seen, so we’re just kinda waiting to see how this is shaping out. So, for everybody’s knowledge, he’s 421 right now; we’re just trying to figure out what’s going on and we’re gonna go from there.” Code 421 means a sick or injured person, according to LVMPD’s code sheet. The rest of the audio contains chatter about the protective detail quickly moving their resources to ensure a secure route for “POTUS movement.” While it is difficult to determine exact details from the audio, it is clear evidence that something significant happened to Biden. Something that the American people and the world is still not privy to.

Read more …

Not the only person these days who doesn’t know what a woman is.

• No ‘Solid’ Way To Distinguish Man From Woman – IOC Chief (RT)

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach on Friday said he is not aware of a ‘scientifically solid’ way to distinguish a man from a woman, defending the body’s decision to allow two boxers whose gender eligibility has been disputed to take part in the women’s boxing championship. Bach’s words came in response to a question about whether the IOC would consider reviewing its gender identification guidelines in light of the controversy surrounding a pair of boxers, Algerian Imane Khelif and Taiwanese Lin Yu-ting, being allowed to take part in the Games as women despite previous allegations that they are actually biologically male. According to Bach, while the IOC “would be more than pleased to look into” the situation, it does not have a way to probe the gender claims of either athlete at this time.

“We have said from the very beginning, if somebody is presenting us with a scientifically solid system how to identify men and women, we are the first ones to do it. We do not like this uncertainty,” Bach stated, adding that chromosome testing is not enough to scientifically distinguish between men and women “anymore.” He noted also that “it is not possible” for the IOC to make its decisions based on “someone saying this is not a woman just by looking” or “by falling prey to a defamation campaign by a not credible organization with highly political interest.” The latter comment appears to be a jab aimed at the International Boxing Association (IBA), which disqualified both Khelif and Yu-ting from the World Championships last year after they “failed to meet the eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition.” The two bodies have been at odds in recent years.

In a statement released at the end of July, the IBA reiterated that “the athletes… were subject to a separate and recognized test [which] indicated that both… were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.” The gender controversy at the Paris Olympics sparked heated debates globally after Khelif beat Italy’s Angela Carini in the preliminary rounds at the Olympics in a bout that lasted a mere 45 seconds. The incident raised questions as to the fairness of allowing biological males to compete with females.

Last week, IOC spokesman Mark Adams claimed that all competitors approved for the Games “comply with the eligibility rules,” and cast doubts on the IBA tests. The IOC previously explained that Khelif and Lin Tu-ting had been cleared for the Games due to being “women according to their passports.” Several hours after Bach’s press briefing, Khelif won Olympic gold after defeating China’s Yang Liu in the welterweight final in Paris. The outcome sparked a new wave of heated debate online, with some social media users expressing support for Khelif, while others lambasted the IOC and called on it to strip the athlete of the award. Many also ridiculed Bach for his recent remarks, noting that there are a variety of genetic tests and accusing him of “gaslighting the world.”

Read more …

“..to punish social media companies that allow the spread of “legal but harmful” content..”

• UK Police Chief Threatens Elon Musk (RT)

London’s Metropolitan Police commissioner has threatened to charge foreigners for “whipping up hatred” online, naming X owner Elon Musk as someone who could be prosecuted. The warning comes amid a nationwide crackdown against supposed hate speech following a spate of right-wing riots. “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News on Friday. Asked whether the Metropolitan Police planned on charging people posting on social media from other countries, Rowley replied: “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law,” and named “the likes of Elon Musk” as potential targets for investigation.

As of Friday, more than 700 people had been arrested and more than 300 charged over their alleged participation in the riots, which kicked off after a teenager of Rwandan descent killed three children and injured ten others in a stabbing spree in the town of Southport late last month. Initially sparked by a false rumor that the knifeman responsible for the stabbings was a Muslim immigrant, the demonstrations grew into a wider backlash against Islam and mass immigration, culminating in rioters setting fire to a hotel housing asylum seekers in Rotherham last Sunday. Of those arrested, more than 30 have been charged with online offenses, such as sharing footage of the riots or posting content that – according to the Crown Prosecutorial Service – “incites violence or hatred.”

Critics, including Musk, have accused the government of stifling free speech, and of operating a “two-tier” justice system, in which white British suspects are punished far more severely than immigrants. Musk shared a post on Saturday highlighting the disparity between the cases of Steven Mailen and Mustafa al Mbaidib. Mailen, 54, was sentenced to more than two years in prison on Friday for shouting and “gesticulating” at a police officer during a violent demonstration in Hartlepool last week; Al Mbaidib, a 27-year-old Jordanian national, was fined £26 ($33) last month for assaulting a female police officer in Bournemouth in May.

“Sure seems like unequal justice in the UK,” Musk wrote on X. The billionaire also shared a series of memes comparing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to a Nazi officer and the British government to the totalitarian dictatorship of George Orwell’s ‘1984’. Starmer is considering amending Britain’s Online Safety Act to punish social media companies that allow the spread of “legal but harmful” content, The Telegraph reported on Friday. The act, passed by the country’s previous Conservative government, was originally set to include such a clause, but the passage was ultimately pulled after Business and Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch complained that it amounted to “legislating for hurt feelings.”

Read more …

“These foreign countries could force Americans to curtail their speech under the threat of ruinous financial penalties or even arrest..”

• London Calling (Turley)

In its hit song London Calling the Clash warns:
“London calling to the faraway towns
Now that war is declared and battle come down
London calling to the underworld
Come out of the cupboard, all you boys and girls”

According to a new report, the British punk rock band may have been prophetic in 1979 in a way never foreseen in its apocalyptic lyrics. This week, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that the police will not necessarily confine its arrests for speech crimes to London or even the United Kingdom. Rowley suggests that Americans and other citizens could be extradited and brought to London for online postings. London has been hit with days of violent protests over immigration policies, including attacks and arson directed at immigration centers. This violence has been fueled by false reports spread online about the person responsible for an attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded. Despite false claims about his being an asylum seeker, the culprit was an 18-year-old British citizen born to Rwandan parents.

News outlets and pundits have condemned the false reports and the violent protests. However, the police are moving to arrest those who are repeating false claims or engaging in inflammatory speech. Rowley is warning that they will not stop at the city limit or even the country’s borders. He warned “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.” Rowley was asked by a reporter about the criticism by Elon Musk and others over the response of the government. Musk noted a video of someone allegedly arrested for offensive online comments with a question, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” Pundits and politicians in the United Kingdom have called for an investigation or the arrest of Musk for merely speaking publicly on the controversy.

The reporter said that high profile figures have been “whipping up the hatred,” and that “the likes of Elon Musk” are involved in the online speech. She then asked what the London police are prepared to do “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”Rowley told the reporter: “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offenses of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred, there are numerous terrorist offenses regarding the publishing of material. All of those offenses are in play if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the thugs and the yobs who are taking — who are causing the problems for communities.”

[..] We previously discussed how Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton called on foreign countries to use or pass censorship laws to prevent Elon Musk from restoring free speech protections on Twitter. The effort of these politicians would allow free speech to be reduced to the lowest common denominator as countries export their anti-free speech laws. When Clinton called upon Europeans to censor Americans, this is precisely what such actions would look like. These foreign countries could force Americans to curtail their speech under the threat of ruinous financial penalties or even arrest. As some of us predicted, these laws have expanded as the desire to silence others becomes an insatiable appetite. Advocacy groups have pushed the police to crackdown on their critics. Now, the threat to “throw the full force of the law at people” may be extended to the people of other nations.

We could all soon be dancing to that same tune:
“London calling, see we ain’t got no swing
Except for the ring of that truncheon thing”

Read more …

Bit too convenient?

• Trump Campaign Hacked, Microsoft Says Iran-Backed Group Responsible (ZH)

Microsoft’s cyber threat assessment unit said on Aug. 9 that a high-ranking official on a U.S. presidential campaign had been hacked by an Iran-backed group, with the Trump campaign later revealing that it had been the target of a cyber attack and linked the breach to “foreign sources hostile to the United States.” The report from the Microsoft Threat Analysis Center (MTAC) indicates that an Iranian group called Mint Sandstorm that is connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sent a spear phishing email in June to a high-ranking official on a presidential campaign from the compromised email account belonging to a former senior campaign adviser. “Mint Sandstorm similarly targeted a presidential campaign in May and June 2020 five to six months ahead of the last U.S. presidential election,” MTAC said, adding that the same group also tried but failed to breach an account belonging to a former presidential candidate.

No details were released on the official’s identity, but Microsoft’s threat assessment team said that the Iranian-linked breaches related to increasing attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election in November. “This recent cyber-enabled influence activity arises from a combination of actors which are conducting initial cyber reconnaissance and seeding online personas and websites into the information space,” according to the report. Following the release of the report, the Trump 2024 presidential campaign confirmed that it had been the target of a cyberattack in which campaign documents were stolen. The breach, which Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told Politico on Aug. 10 has been attributed to “foreign sources hostile to the United States,” marks a significant development in the area of foreign interference in U.S. elections as the race for the White House heats up.

Politico reported that, on July 22, it began receiving emails from an anonymous source using the alias “Robert.” The emails reportedly contained internal documents from the Trump campaign, including a 271-page research dossier on Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who was vetted as a potential vice presidential nominee and later chosen as former President Donald Trump’s running mate. Cheung pointed to the Microsoft report and its finding that Iranian hackers had broken into the account of a high-ranking official on the U.S. presidential campaign as evidence of involvement of a foreign hostile power in the Trump campaign breach. “These documents were obtained illegally from foreign sources hostile to the United States, intended to interfere with the 2024 election and sow chaos throughout our democratic process,” Cheung told the outlet. He also linked the timing of the breach to reports of Iranian plots against Trump, who remains a target of Iranian hostility after ordering the 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Read more …

“..at first glance… it seems that provisions of European law have been violated,,”

• Poland Warns Against Kicking Hungary Out Of Schengen (RT)

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Friday warned against Hungary’s potential expulsion from the Schengen Area – a measure proposed as punishment after Budapest eased its entry rules for Russians. Last month, Budapest extended its special visa regime – the National Card system – to include Russian and Belarusian nationals. The scheme allows foreigners to work in Hungary for up to two years and paves the way for them to apply for permanent residency. Hungary’s move garnered attention after European People’s Party Chairman Manfred Weber criticized it in a letter to European Council President Charles Michel, claiming the new scheme could make it easier for “Russian spies” to enter the bloc. Earlier this week, a group of 67 members of the EU Parliament sent an official letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, demanding Hungary be punished if it refuses to change its visa policy.

One of the signatories, Finnish MP Tytti Tuppurainen, proposed introducing border controls with Hungary and ultimately excluding it from the Schengen Area if its new visa requirements are not amended. According to Tusk, drastic measures are not advisable. “Exclusion from the Schengen Area is actually a prelude to exclusion from the EU,” he said at a press briefing on Friday. “I would be careful here… I put a lot of effort into removing [Hungarian Prime Minister] Viktor Orban and his party from the international group… but I would be careful with motions to expel countries from the EU,” Tusk, an outspoken critic of what he has called Budapest’s “Russian position,” added. He said he did not know the full details of Hungary’s visa decision, but “at first glance… it seems that provisions of European law have been violated along with regulations related to risks to the security of the Schengen countries.” Tusk noted that Hungary is not the only EU country that grants visas to Belarusians and Russians, so punishing it would not prevent them from entering the bloc.

Poland has been a key backer of Kiev amid the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, sending military aid and serving as a hub for Western weapons supplies. Hungary, however, has opposed funding and arming Kiev. Orban has been calling for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, and embarked on what he called a Ukraine ‘peace mission’ last month, holding talks with Kiev and Moscow to urge them to negotiate. His actions, including a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, drew criticism within the EU, with some members calling for the rotating EU presidency which Hungary currently holds to be revoked. Brussels has so far responded to criticism of Hungary’s new visa rules by asking Budapest to officially explain the move. The EU is expected to address the issue at its summit in October.

Read more …

Dramatic.

• Ukraine Losing Battle to Recruit New ‘Cannon Fodder’ For NATO Proxy War (Sp.)

A drastic shortage of manpower in the Ukrainian Army has hounded the Kiev regime to such an extent that it has not only tightened its mobilization rules, but shown willingness to recruit deserters and convicted felons. The Kiev regime’s huge combat losses go hand in hand with its losing battle to recruit new “cannon fodder.” Conscription is becoming increasingly tough, despite assurances to the contrary spouted by official spokesmen for Ukraine’s military, The Wall Street Journal admitted. While troops at the front in eastern Ukraine are reportedly desperately short of men, draft dodgers are tirelessly devising strategies to avoid enlistment. Amid reports of commanders sending new recruits into the trenches without proper training, and with the only way to leave the military being injury, death, or the end of the conflagration, the outlet noted that men would rather be:
• Fleeced by smugglers, who charge up to $15,000 to get men out of the country illegally;
• Apply for postgraduate education programs (traditionally coming with an exemption from the draft), which reached a record high of 90,000 men this year;
• Go into hiding;

It should be noted that the postgrad loophole has effectively been shut down “so that postgraduate study does not turn into a corrupt tool to avoid mobilization,” per Ukraine’s Ministry of Education. Draft officers are described as having fanned out across the country in a race to dole out the dreaded summonses that require one to show up at a recruitment office within days or face an arrest warrant. A law tightening Ukraine’s mobilization rules went into effect on May 18 and aims at replenishing Ukrainian forces, depleted by more than two years of NATO’s proxy conflict. Ukraine is now facing not only a drastic shortage of men to fill battle ranks, but an unprecedented demographic crisis of its own making amid efforts to forcibly mobilize men aged 18-60 and even snatching mentally and physically handicapped draft-age men off the streets.

Read more …

“As Andrei Martyanov remarked, Belousov must have detailed how Kiev would simply cease to exist – and in due time, “so would D.C.”

• The Forever Wars go full War OF Terror (Pepe Escobar)

This is a very simple demonstration. Please allow me to present only two Exhibits, A and B.

Exhibit A The stunning confirmation came directly from Russian Deputy FM Ryabkov, during a quite revealing interview on Rossiya TV. Ryabkov, extremely competent, is also the leading Russian sherpa for BRICS+, preparing the summit next October in Kazan. Essentially, Russian intel discovered that Kiev intel was setting up the joint assassination of President Putin and Defense Minister Belousov during the Navy Day parade late last month in St. Petersburg. Ryabkov was very cautious – as this is a matter of national security, involving several top agencies. When asked directly whether “an action was being prepared at the Main Naval Parade” against Putin, Ryabkov was not explicit: he only acknowledged the presence of “a certain connection with this kind of event” – according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Ryabkov called this provocation being prepared by Kiev a “very alarming” episode, which was planned in connection “with our internal events in order to inflict maximum damage and obtain the maximum media effect they need.” What’s intriguing is how the plot line developed. Normally we would have Bortnikov (FSB) or Patrushev (special adviser to Putin) picking up the phone and calling the CIA’s Burns to ask for a serious explanation.

In this case it was much more hardcore. Belousov himself called the head of the Pentagon, weapons peddler Lloyd “Raytheon” Austin, and told him in no uncertain terms to tighten the leash on the Kiev goons – or else. Now imagine how the transcript of the blunt Russian message would read. As Andrei Martyanov remarked, Belousov must have detailed how Kiev would simply cease to exist – and in due time, “so would D.C.” if the Americans decided to authorize the hit. Ryabkov also referred to “some other countries” who would have been part of the package. Translation: Brits and Poles. What this little story tells us is that Moscow finally seems to be getting the picture: there’s no way to deal rationally with terror entities, except to politely tell them in their faces that if certain conditions are fulfilled, they will be incinerated with no mercy.

Exhibit B

This concerns the cosmic dementia permeating the Zionist Project. Apart from the inestimable Alastair Crooke, who called everyone’s attention to what’s really at stake, only a few people across the collective West have any idea of the “long black cloud” that may be coming down, to quote Dylan. This goes way beyond the government in Tel Aviv “losing control of the Extreme Right”. Cue to the key passages of an interview with Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon, former Chief of Staff of the IDF and also former Defense Minister. “When you talk about Smotrich and Ben Gvir: They have a Rabbi. His name is Dov Lior. He is the Rabbi of the Jewish Underground, who intended to blow up the Dome of the Rock – and before that the buses in Jerusalem. Why? In order to hurry up the ‘Last War’.” Translation: the two most extreme members of the Netanyahu cabinet follow the same rabbi who wants to blow up Al-Aqsa mosque to rebuild the Jewish Temple, expel or kill all Palestinians, and prevail in a coming Armageddon.

Ya’alon then delivers the clincher: “This concept rests on Jewish supremacy: Mein Kampf in reverse”. In this case, “a war of Gog and Magog”. Ya’alon adds: “This is what goes into the decision-making process in the Israeli government”. The lowdown: an escathological, ultra-rabid cult is dictating policy in Tel Aviv, the HQ of a genocidal, settler-colonial construct – complete with a massive vigilante militia, or interlocking militias, of hundreds of thousands of settlers, armed to their teeth, uncontrollable, and ready to do anything, even attacking the military and the Israeli state itself. There’s absolutely no way to talk or to reason with this fanatic mob. They could only be dealt with in one precise way. And the fact is the Axis of Resistance is not there – yet.

Read more …

 

 

 

Jeep

 

 

Fish
https://twitter.com/i/status/1822289345010704673

 

 

not a dog
https://twitter.com/i/status/1822027734350021031

 

 

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