Menu Icon

Debt Rattle September 27 2026

Sep 272026
 
 September 27, 2026  Posted by at 9:04 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  35 Responses »


Claude Monet Impression Sunrise 1872


• Trump Bans Media From the White House—This Is Why He’s Angry (Larry Elder)
• Trump Won’t Play Charlie Brown With Iran As Lucy Holds the Football (Spencer)
• CNN Has Total Meltdown Over Trump Showing Xi the Autopen Photo (Margolis)
• Supreme Court Grants States Ability to Verify Voter Status in Midterms (CTH)
• US NATO Commander Tells Europe to Prove Russian Hybrid Attacks (CTH)
• Putin Reacts to Call for Trilateral Negotiations (CTH)
• We Need To Talk About Democrats (J.B. Shurk)
• Trump Told Zelensky To Meet With Putin In Moscow – Bloomberg (RT)
• South Korea Slams ‘Callous and Irresponsible’ Zelensky (RT)
• AI Could ‘Cause A Billion Deaths’ – Bill Gates (RT)
• UK’s Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule (Robert Spencer)
• Britain’s Muslim Migration Crisis Is a Warning for America (Robert B. Bluey)

 

 

 

 


Three assassination attempts.

• Trump Bans Media From the White House—This Is Why He’s Angry (Larry Elder)

Why did President Donald Trump ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House? The better question is: What took so long? But Trump made his point. The man is angry at the blatantly biased and Trump-despising legacy media. He blames them for his poor poll numbers. His bitterness is more than justified.


The economy is far better than reported. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model currently estimates third-quarter growth at an annualized rate of approximately 5.1%, up from an earlier estimate of 4.4%. And even at today’s elevated gasoline prices, the cost of gas as a percentage of income remains far smaller than during earlier price shocks.

Inflation is lower than the Biden average. The official poverty rate is the lowest on record. The stock market has been up, and 401(k)s are fatter. A recent survey of CEOs finds confidence in the economy higher than it’s been in years—with 73% expecting hiring to remain the same or to be increased. Crime is down. The deportation of criminal illegal aliens, argues the Trump administration, is likely a contributing factor.

The administration says its military campaign has pushed Iran further away from developing a nuclear weapon. Military recruitment is up. DEI is in retreat. NATO allies are finally upping defense spending as a percentage of their gross domestic product, after former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama unsuccessfully urged them to do so. There’s a lot of good news.

This stands in stark contrast with the breathless drum-beating coverage of the Russia-Trump collusion hoax, the first and biggest media-clamped weight on Trump’s ankle. And when the hoax unraveled—and the bad actors were exposed—the media was far less interested.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the opposition research that produced the discredited Steele dossier. Obama was later briefed on intelligence alleging that Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia and divert attention from her email controversy. The Washington Post, not exactly pro-Trump, in 2017, wrote:

“The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.” The collusion probe began before the dossier, but the dossier later gave the investigation a lot of fuel, particularly for the Carter Page FISA surveillance applications.

According to documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, preelection intelligence reports emphasized Russia’s efforts to disrupt the election and undermine confidence in the democratic process, without concluding that Moscow’s objective was to elect Trump. After Trump’s unexpected victory, however, Obama ordered a new assessment. This time, it concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin had developed a preference for Trump and wanted him to win.

The Media Research Center said 92% of the evaluative coverage of Trump 2.0 during his first 100 days by ABC’s “World News Tonight,” the “CBS Evening News,” and “NBC Nightly News” was negative. And much of this was after Trump closed the southern border, when, for years, the Biden administration claimed it was closed.

During the Biden administration when more than 2.75 million people had entered the country illegally during the 12 months ending September 2022, a December 2022 Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll of registered voters asked, “How many border crossings by illegal immigrants do you think are occurring each year?” Fifty-five percent estimated 500,000 or fewer, and the largest group of voters believed annual illegal border crossings numbered between 100,000 and 250,000. Ill-informed?

It never ends. Nicolle Wallace, an MS NOW host, last week played an excerpt of Vice President JD Vance imploring voters to keep the Republican congressional majorities. Wallace, laughing, then said, “What I love is, like, give us two more years of rounding and—rounding up and shooting Americans in the streets, stealing all of your money, and destroying the economy. Nobody wants that.”

It boggles the mind how much time the media spend on the inconsequential—such as Trump attaching his name to the Kennedy Center—compared with how little they spend examining how close Iran came to producing enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Words fail. Trump fumes. Understandably so.

His ban may not survive a court challenge. But the record of overwhelmingly negative media coverage remains open for all to see.

Read more …

We’ve long said=: he had to play along with Iran for a while.

• Trump Won’t Play Charlie Brown With Iran As Lucy Holds the Football (Spencer)

The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked for another ceasefire, and President Donald Trump has said no. While Trump has actively sought ceasefires in the past, this time he had no patience for the Iranian demands, and that’s all to the good, as nothing good could possibly come from giving the Islamic Republic more time to regroup and strengthen its forces.


The New York Post reported Friday that Trump has “rejected a seven-day cease-fire proposed by Iran and expects to resume bombing the country after the midterm elections.” Trump apparently doesn’t think that the conflict with Iran will cost the Republicans in the midterms, and could be waiting in the hope that the Islamic Republic will collapse of its own accord. Inflation is skyrocketing, most of the Iranian people already hate the Islamic regime, and if that regime fell tomorrow, no one would be surprised.

That, indeed, is why the Islamic Republic’s leadership is trying to buy time with a new ceasefire. Islamic law allows an Islamic army to conclude a truce with a non-Muslim army only if the Muslims are losing and need time to regroup (or if the non-Muslim army is about to convert to Islam, which is not in play here, at least not yet). Thus is it wise of Trump to refuse the request, for when the Islamic Republic asks for a ceasefire, that’s a tacit admission that it knows that it’s losing. Paradoxically, the worst time to conclude a ceasefire with an Islamic force is when that force asks for one.

The Post noted that “as part of the proposed cease-fire, Tehran pledged to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations on dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for the US ending its blockade of Iranian ports.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi “told reporters at the UN gathering in New York that the seven-day proposal had been formally offered to the US. Aside from lifting the naval blockade, the regime is also seeking sanctions relief from the US and the unfreezing of some of its assets.” Of course. The sanctions relief and unfreezing of assets would give the Iranians the funds they need to build their forces back up and resume their jihad against America and Israel.

Trump, however, said: “I’ve rejected their deal. They want to make a deal where they open the strait immediately because they’re losing so badly. We’re winning tremendously.” He explained that even with the Strait closed, ships were getting through: “We have total control of the Hormuz Strait, massive amounts of oil are coming out of the Hormuz Strait. Last night we had 29 ships come out. They want to make a deal, and I think that’s fine, I like making a deal, too, but that deal would not be acceptable.” Indeed. It would only have bought the Islamic Republic time to build up and continue waging its jihad later.

Trump continued: “And what they want to do is immediately open the Hormuz Strait. You know why? Because they’re dying. You know why they’re dying? Because they have no money coming in. Because they get their money from the Hormuz Strait. So they outsmarted themselves. They said, ‘let’s close it and cause a problem for the world.’ And then I came along and we put up the greatest blockade ever in military history. It’s a wall of steel.” The Islamic Republic’s spiraling economic woes could well turn out to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

“I would put it up,” Trump added, “and guess what? They don’t have any money now because they wanted to close the strait. And I said, ‘that’s fine, we’re going to close it on you. But everybody else is able to use it.’” Now, according to the Post, “Trump is ‘skeptical’ Iran will agree to his demands and has told aides it is ‘likely’ the US military restarts airstrikes after the November contests.”

While the Iranians continue to try to project an air of confident victory, issuing peremptory demands to Trump as if the mighty Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had defeated the forces of the United States, Trump, in his imitable way, mocked their pretensions. On Friday evening, he posted a map on Truth Social, with the Strait of Hormuz prominently labeled “Trump Strait.”

A White House official, meanwhile, said that “Trump was content to allow the ‘inevitable Iranian collapse’ play out rather than be ‘played’ by the regime.” Good. Bring on that collapse.

Read more …

Ha ha ha!

• CNN Has Total Meltdown Over Trump Showing Xi the Autopen Photo (Margolis)

When President Donald Trump showed Chinese President Xi Jinping the picture of an autopen that now hangs in Joe Biden’s spot on the Presidential Walk of Fame, Xi laughed. Over at CNN, however, Anderson Cooper needed an emotional support animal and an emergency session with this therapist. Last year, Trump installed the Presidential Walk of Fame along the West Colonnade of the White House, but instead of using Joe Biden’s portrait, he put up a picture of an autopen. It’s a great bit, and even a Communist dictator got the joke.


Somehow CNN has decided that Trump pointing it out to Xi is a huge scandal. On AC360, Cooper assembled a panel and spent the segment fishing for someone to trash Trump. “To see the President Trump mock former President Biden in front of an autocratic leader like Xi, I guess not surprising, but still, did it surprise you?” Cooper asked Johns Hopkins political historian Leah Wright Rigueur.

Rigueur was happy to oblige. “I think we should still be surprised and we should still have the capacity to be horrified by the President’s actions,” she said. “But in particular, this action, mocking a former President, mocking his predecessor at a moment where U.S.-China tensions, U.S.-China relations are tense, but also in front of the President of China and at a moment where China is thinking about, you know, what is U.S. strength.”

Horrified? Joe Biden literally used the power of the federal government to try to put Trump in prison, but we’re supposed to be outraged that Trump was mocking Biden to Xi? CNN spent years treating the prosecutions of Biden’s chief political rival as a sober exercise in accountability. Now the network wants a national day of mourning over a framed photo.

Rigueur went on to call the moment “childish” and “classless,” and she scolded Trump for failing to “showcase a level of decorum and respect for the office of the presidency.” Funny how that deep concern for the dignity of the office never came up while Biden’s aides were busy running it for him. Cooper then turned to David Urban, a former Trump campaign adviser, with a question that sounded like it had been assembled from spare parts. He clearly wanted Urban to join the pile-on.

“David, there was something particularly kind of pathetic about the president’s attempt to make sure that Xi understood that this was mocking President Biden, kind of reaching out and kind of, you know, kind of as if he didn’t get the joke, kind of explaining the joke, which is obviously never a good position to be in,” Cooper said. Cooper then complained that the moment “played well with some of the online kind of trolling supporters of the president.”

Urban didn’t take the bait; in fact, he destroyed Cooper’s premise. He reminded Cooper that Trump brought Xi to the National Archives to see the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, that a U.S. military band performed songs from Les Misérables at the state dinner, and that a B-1 bomber roared overhead during the national anthem. “I don’t know how much more strong you can get,” Urban said. “And the ultimate sign of strength, wait, and, Anderson, the ultimate sign of strength. President Xi flew home in a U.S.-made Boeing 747.”

Cooper still wasn’t satisfied. “You don’t think it’s a sign of weakness to mock the former president of the United States in front of a dictator?” he asked. “I think, it maybe distasteful, but I don’t think it weakens the U.S. position vis-a-vis China,” Urban replied. Having struck out twice, Cooper gave up and just said what he’d been thinking the whole time.


“I just think it makes him look small,” Cooper said. “You know, it’s not the first time, anyway.”You know what really makes a president look small? Standing on a stage lost, needing his wife to show him which way to go. Yet, CNN was one of many left-leaning outlets that ignored Biden’s obvious cognitive decline for years, waving off every stumble and blank stare as a right-wing smear. It only found the story after more than 50 million Americans watched Biden lose his train of thought on the debate stage in June 2024.

A little perspective, Anderson Cooper. A little perspective.

Read more …

“.. the state govt can check whether the applicant was legally in the country. The SAVE system worked. Nobody talked about it for 39 years.”

• Supreme Court Grants States Ability to Verify Voter Status in Midterms (CTH)

In 1986, the federal government built a computer database called SAVE, Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The purpose was simple – when a noncitizen applies for public benefits the state govt can check whether the applicant was legally in the country. The SAVE system worked. Nobody talked about it for 39 years.


In March 2025, President Trump signed an executive order expanding SAVE’s use. The order told DHS to use the SAVE system to verify citizenship of registered voters and people registering to vote. The order instructed the Social Security Administration to share its records with DHS for that purpose. Two months later, DHS launched the modified version. Two changes: (1) it now checks Social Security numbers against SSA databases. (2) it allows state and local authorities to run bulk searches; the entire voter roll at once.

Blue states sued. Slowly the cases went through the lower courts, then the appellate courts, until finally the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 the SAVE system can be used in the midterm election [RULING HERE]. “While the ruling gives the Department of Homeland Security authority to use the database ahead of the midterms, the court’s conservative majority noted that the impact of the ruling was blunted by another federal law — the National Voter Registration Act — which prohibits states from purging voters within 90 days of the election.” {ABC link}


If the states use the SAVE system, but do not purge their voter rolls for 2026 based on the results, the system still can be of value. “the justices’ action came so close to the upcoming election that the records can only legally be used on a case-by-case basis — and not for the type of bulk voter-roll matching that some states want to conduct.” {Politico link}

WASHINGTON – […] The court, ruling along ideological lines, rejected an argument that federal law prohibited the Trump administration from a revamping citizenship database to verify voters. In an unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that Congress, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, authorized the “an information-sharing regime like the modified SAVE program.”

The majority also concluded that the Trump administration would suffer irreparable harm if they were barred from using the database because the lower court ruling “inhibits the Federal Government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.”

Due to the National Voter Registration Act’s prohibition against purging voter roles this close to an election, the ruling only allows the Trump administration to conduct “individualized inquiries” to verify voters, rather than perform the bulk searches the system was created to conduct. As a result, according to the court’s liberal wing, the ruling “will likely have a minimal, short-term impact.”

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority, rejecting the argument that Congress allowed such a database. They wrote that the majority misreads the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to override “the limits that privacy laws impose on the sharing of citizenship information with DHS.” (more)

While the ruling has limited value in the 2026 election, it can still be utilized as a tool (without disqualification) to identify the integrity of the voter rolls as they currently exist. There is nothing in the ruling that blocks the use of the SAVE database from being utilized. Current law just says the results cannot be used to change, modify or purge the rolls.

It will be interesting to see if any state goes ahead and just runs the comparison to see how compromised their voter rolls are, without making any modifications to the rolls themselves. I wonder if any state will do that?

Read more …

Let them. Insist on it.

• US NATO Commander Tells Europe to Prove Russian Hybrid Attacks (CTH)

Politico (EU) puts the spin on the actual ask by saying, “NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich wants more information on escalating hybrid threats.” However, if you pull back the NATO wording and current position, what it really looks like is U.S NATO leaders telling Europe to prove all of these “hybrid attacks” they keep speaking about.


NATO is a collective of EU nations. The official position of NATO is it sees no imminent threat of a Russian attack. However, several of the EU-NATO countries are independently reporting hybrid attacks under opaque descriptions and then using political soundbites to designate Russia as the cause.

Just like the drone attack on Zelenskyy’s airplane, most of these reports end up being debunked once they are investigated, or scrutinized. There have been dozens of so-called hybrid attacks that were debunked or claimed in such an ambigous fashion they cannot be proven as accurate.

Ex. Russia flying a helicopter in Kaliningrad, is not a hybrid attack against Poland. A Russian drone crashing 160km away from Chisinau, is not a hybrid attack against Moldova. A can of tuna fish attached to a short-range quadcopter at the Leipzig/Halle Airport is not a hybrid attack against Germany.

None of the heads of the nations described above (Poland, Moldova, Germany) have ever asserted those “hybrid attack” examples as an official position of the government. It’s always some arms-length politician or internal bureaucrat that makes the claim, then the media amplifies it.

Well, it would appear that NATO Commander Grynkewich is trying to figure out how/why these quasi-official “hybrid attack” claims are getting promoted by media; because ultimately, it’s his responsibility to formulate a response. One can only imagine Secretary Hegseth calling General Grynkewich on behalf of President Trump and asking for some clarity amid the European claims/noise.

(Politico EU) – BRUSSELS — NATO’s top commander has asked allies to share more information about Russian hybrid attacks as the alliance grapples with escalating threats across Europe.

U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s supreme allied commander Europe, has in recent weeks asked allies to provide details of hybrid incidents and their responses to give the alliance a clearer picture of the threats, according to two NATO diplomats and one person familiar with the matter, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about the sensitive issue.

The effort reflects a challenge for NATO: Individual allies often hold different pieces of intelligence about suspected Russian operations, potentially slowing attribution and making it harder for the alliance to map out cross-country hybrid campaigns. (read more)

Read more …

Putin should come out and say: ”We’re not fighting Ukraine. We’re fighting NATO.

• Putin Reacts to Call for Trilateral Negotiations (CTH)

Again yesterday, western media were running articles with soundbites and interpretations from a press conference in St Petersburg, Russia, given by Vladimir Putin. When there are significant consequences within words, it is always the best option to review the source of the words spoken and not the interpretation of them by western media. Below you will find the direct transcription of Putin’s remarks without filtered opinion.


Transcript: Question: Mr President, you said earlier that the trilateral format negotiations of Russia, the United States and Ukraine could resume after the State Duma elections. The elections have concluded. Where and when could a new round of negotiations take place?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: As is well known, the Ukrainian side broke off the negotiations that were held in Istanbul. But now – or rather, even before the elections, about 10 days or a couple of weeks ago – it declared its readiness to resume these negotiations. Indeed, we said that negotiations are unlikely to be held before the State Duma elections, and that we will be ready to resume these contacts following them.

However, the recent developments are also well known to everyone. On the night of September 20, that is, on the main voting day, a massive strike was launched against Moscow. More than 1,600 drones entered the area near Moscow. This is the first point.

Second. Strikes were carried out on polling stations. In one location, the polling station was located in a school; the school was virtually destroyed by the strike. Attacks began on the residential homes of the chairpersons of territorial election commissions. In one case, the chairperson of a territorial commission, her husband and her child were injured. In another case, it unfortunately resulted in tragedy, and, as you know, the chair of the territorial election commission was killed as her home was the target of the strike.

In addition, as we are currently in St Petersburg, I think everyone remembers the St Petersburg International Economic Forum being held, when the Ukrainian authorities targeted St Petersburg, hitting the so-called coal harbor in the port and setting it on fire. Who did they want to scare, us or our guests? Those who work with Russia are unlikely to be scared of anything or run away. And no one did. We held that forum to the end.

Then, starting in June, they began targeting our oil refineries. As is also well known, in June they announced the start of a forty day operation. Well, this led to certain losses on our part.

In addition, they tried to organize a naval blockade of our Black Sea coast. They damaged over 100 ships, 100 vessels, including both Russian ones and those flying foreign flags. Yes, we have restored all of this. But these are active operations that….

After that, they started targeting civilian facilities such as Wildberries or Ozon storage facilities. What is this? What’s the point? Nevertheless, it has been done.

After that, we started responding to each item. Well, it appears that the retaliatory actions by the Russian Armed Forces have been so sensitive and devastating for the enemy that they are now once again actively raising the issue of a ceasefire across several areas, as they themselves put it: the energy sector (that is, they are now ready to stop attacking our oil refineries), and the air sector (a mutual ceasefire).

In particular, we see that they want us to stop the strikes by Geran drones – modern Gerans – against which, there are no countermeasures or an antidote, at least now, and to lift the blockade of their Black Sea coast. However, they are the ones who started it all. They started it on every single point.

What is this, child’s play? Is this some kind of a children’s game? In other words, they must feel the retaliatory blows from Russia and understand that no provocations and no escalation of the situation will bring about the desired result for them. They are only making the situation worse for themselves.

[..]


Chairman Xi has invited President Putin to attend the APEC summit in Beijing in November. It appears Putin is going. That will put Putin and Trump together at the APEC summit with Xi one month ahead of the G20 in Doral, Miami. Zelenskyy will not be attending the APEC summit. Ukraine is never invited.

That said, despite having no association with the G20 assembly, Zelenskyy has been invited in recent years in some kind of weird political effort to show global support – or something. However, honestly, no-one has ever explained the factual reason for any of Zelenskyy’s summit appearances (G7, G20, NATO etc). Ukraine is not in the EU, Ukraine is not in NATO, and Ukraine is not a large economy.

If President Trump invites Zelenskyy to the G20, it’s worth remembering that President Trump has also invited President Putin to attend the G20 in Miami.

Read more …

“People who celebrate political violence cannot be trusted.”.

• We Need To Talk About Democrats (J.B. Shurk)

Fifteen years ago, a dark movie called We Need to Talk about Kevin told the story of a mother struggling to understand why her sociopathic teenaged son had gone on a murder spree at home and at school. In the same vein, we need to talk about Democrats.


We should have had a national conversation about Democrat violence back in 2017, when an Illinois Democrat and Bernie Sanders supporter attempted to assassinate an entire baseball team of Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate. While the would-be assassin failed to murder anyone before being neutralized, he did manage to shoot four people, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was one of two critically injured. The mass murder attempt could have easily been much worse. Twenty-four Republican congressmen were on the field that day, and had the Democrat assassin been successful, he would have substantially shifted the balance of power in Congress. It was an unprecedented attack on one of the three branches of the federal government.

Instead of acknowledging the seriousness of Democrat violence, Establishment Republicans and Democrats joined hands and pretended that the assassination attempt was the fault of “both parties.” Former Republican Senator Jeff Flake lectured the country to “tone it down” because “discourse” had “gotten out of hand…on all sides” — which was his way of blaming newly-inaugurated President Trump for saying things that might provoke a Democrat to murder two dozen Republican congressmen.

The shooter had a list of Republican congressmen in his pocket and another list of Republican congressmen in a storage locker. Amazingly, he even asked two Republican members of Congress leaving early that day whether “Republicans or Democrats” were practicing on the baseball field. The would-be assassin had recently written on social media, “Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.” The aspiring mass murderer also belonged to Facebook groups named, “Terminate the Republican Party,” and “The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans.”

Nevertheless, the FBI refused to ascribe a motive to the shooter and initially designated the attack as “suicide by cop.” Only after significant public outcry did the FBI reclassify the mass assassination attempt as an act of “domestic terrorism” and correctly acknowledge that the Democrat shooter was a “domestic violent extremist” with a “personalized violent ideology.”

The FBI’s ludicrous efforts to cover up the partisan nature of the attack reflected Establishment Washington’s similarly ludicrous framing of the assassination attempt as a natural and justified response to President Trump’s political rhetoric. Unofficially, D.C.’s “ruling class” seemed to be saying that President Trump and his MAGA supporters deserved to be attacked.

In contrast, after the president’s supporters protested the mail-in-ballot-tainted 2020 election at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Establishment Washington immediately labeled the incident an “attack” and defamed unarmed Americans as “domestic terrorists,” “seditionists,” and “traitors.” Politicians, FBI and DOJ officials, news media commentators, and even judges preposterously compared Republicans’ protests against election fraud to 9/11’s Islamic terror attacks, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, and a U.S. Civil War that claimed as many as 850,000 lives.

They made these absurd comparisons — unmoored from reason or respect for history — after excusing as “social justice” the widespread violence and property destruction during the previous summer as Democrat-aligned domestic terrorists from Antifa and Black Lives Matter burned down cities, looted stores, left a trail of unsolved homicides, and caused more property damage than any other riot in American history. Establishment D.C.’s double-standard was as revolting as it was shocking.

This double-standard — in which Democrat violence is justified as “protest” or “free speech” while Republican protest is falsely described as “violence” and “terrorism” — surely contributed to every subsequent attack on conservative Americans, including the multiple assassination attempts on President Trump and the successful assassination of Charlie Kirk. There is something incredibly disturbing about Democrats’ current state of mind.

Nearly two years after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports conducted a statistically significant poll that showed just how much Democrats supported extreme measures against Americans who refused the experimental mRNA “vaccines.” In 2022, fifty-five percent of Democrat voters supported government efforts to fine “unvaccinated” Americans. Fifty-nine percent of Democrats were in favor of confining “unvaccinated” Americans in their homes.

Forty-eight percent of Democrats supported fining and imprisoning Americans “who publicly question the efficacy” of the experimental mRNA “vaccines.” Forty-five percent of Democrats believed that the government should relocate “unvaccinated” Americans to quarantine camps. Forty-seven percent of Democrats thought the government should monitor and track “unvaccinated” Americans. And twenty-nine percent of Democrats wanted the government to remove children from parents who refused the “vaccine.”

A more recent poll reveals just how comfortable Democrats are with violence against those who disagree with them. The ideologically leftist Center for Strategic Politics polled only Democrat voters about how they would “feel” if President Trump were unable to complete his term under five different scenarios. Eighty-seven percent said they would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” if the president were impeached, convicted, and removed from office. Eighty-four percent would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” if Trump’s cabinet declared him unfit and removed him from office. Fifty-five percent would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” if Trump died in his sleep.

Fifty-nine percent would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” — and an additional thirteen percent would have no feelings one way or the other — if a faction of the U.S. military overthrew the president and assumed control over the federal government. Lastly, thirty-two percent would feel “very” or “somewhat positive” — and an additional twenty-five percent would have no feelings about the matter — if President Trump were assassinated. Looking at those last two disturbing possibilities more closely, seventy-two percent of Democrats would be okay with a military coup, and fifty-seven percent of democrats would be okay with a presidential assassination.

Read more …

“The suggestion was reportedly made during a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly..”

• Trump Told Zelensky To Meet With Putin In Moscow – Bloomberg (RT)

US President Donald Trump reportedly urged Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to travel to Moscow for peace talks with President Vladimir Putin, Bloomberg reports, citing sources close to Zelensky. Russia has said Zelensky can visit Moscow any time. The US president made the suggestion during a meeting with Zelensky on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly this week, the outlet reported. The Ukrainian leader rejected the idea, people familiar with the conversation told Bloomberg, adding that Trump’s proposal “upset him.”


Zelensky was visibly irritated by journalists outside UN headquarters on Wednesday. Pressed about when he might visit Moscow, he replied: “On a f**king missile!”

Earlier this week, Ukraine and 51 of its backers released a statement demanding that Russia accept an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire” so peace talks can begin. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow will not halt its military operation, accusing Ukraine’s European sponsors of seeking a pause only “to pump the Kiev regime with weapons.”

Trump recently renewed efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict. His special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and son-in-law Jared Kushner traveled to Moscow and Kiev earlier this month. Witkoff said afterward that he felt good about the discussions and that the Trump administration hopes diplomacy can bring an end to the conflict. Moscow has said it is ready to settle the Ukraine conflict as long as the root causes are addressed and the realities on the ground are taken into account.

Russia’s demands include Ukraine abandoning its plans to join NATO and adopting a neutral status, accepting restrictions on its military, and formally recognizing Crimea and four other former Ukrainian regions as Russian territory. Crimea voted to join Russia shortly after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev. The regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson held referendums in September 2022.

Kiev has consistently rejected Moscow’s conditions, insisting on joining NATO and restoring control over all territories that it claims. Zelensky has said, however, that he wants to meet with Putin in person to settle the conflict, even though he legally barred himself from talks with the Russian leader.

Moscow has cited Kiev’s aggressive posture and the hostile position of its European backers as major obstacles to a peace settlement. The Kremlin has nevertheless maintained that it is ready to welcome Zelensky to Moscow if he truly wishes to reach a deal, even though Russia considers him illegitimate, as his presidential term expired more than two years ago and he has not called a new election.

On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia is ready to provide security guarantees to Zelensky if he travels to Moscow.

Read more …

“President Lee Jae-myung has accused the Ukrainian leader of breaching a secrecy agreement for a PR stunt..”

• South Korea Slams ‘Callous and Irresponsible’ Zelensky (RT)


South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, Mexico City, Mexico, September 24, 2026

Vladimir Zelensky put his personal interests first when he breached an agreement with Seoul not to disclose the transfer of two North Korean prisoners of war captured in Russia, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has said. Zelensky touted the arrangement during his speech to the UN General Assembly this week, saying it was “not easy to capture alive” the two soldiers. North Korea deployed troops to assist Russia in repelling a Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region in 2024-2025.


Lee rebuked Zelensky, without naming him, in an X post on Thursday, arguing that statesmen should put national interests first rather than opportunistically seeking to boost their own popularity. The Ukrainian leader demonstrated a “callous and irresponsible attitude [that is] simply unacceptable,” the president wrote, stressing that Seoul and Kiev had agreed to keep the highly sensitive transfer private. South Korean opposition lawmaker Yoo Yong-won, who championed the transfer of North Korean POWs since meeting them in Ukraine last year, told reporters that the two soldiers arrived in the country earlier this week.

He criticized the Lee administration for seeking to keep the agreement with Zelensky secret and said the government “should have taken a more proactive and assertive approach.” The deal was reached sometime in June, he added.= Kiev has long pressured Seoul to provide direct military support for the conflict with Russia, citing North Korea’s involvement in the conflict. Yoo said that, as far as he knew, the delivery of the POWs was not conditioned on South Korea changing its policy of not sending weapons to Ukraine.

South Korea does not formally recognize the government in Pyongyang as legitimate and considers all Koreans citizens of a single nation, regardless of the part of the peninsula where they were born. The two soldiers captured in Russia are said to have expressed the wish to be sent to South Korea. Both were reportedly taken prisoner in January 2025.

Read more …

Bill wants attention.

• AI Could ‘Cause A Billion Deaths’ – Bill Gates (RT)

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates speaks at Caltech’s Beckman Auditorium in Pasadena, California, US, Monday, November 3, 2025. © Getty Images / Hans Gutknecht/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News Artificial intelligence is powerful enough to cause a billion deaths if used by people with malicious intent, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates told NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press’ in an interview on Friday.


Governments should not rely on tech companies to police themselves, the billionaire stressed, urging Washington to pass legislation regulating AI development. “AI is certainly powerful enough to drive events that… cause a billion deaths,” he said. “Even though it’s pretty hard to get to 100%, there’s never been a weapon as powerful as the combination of people of ill intent using the latest AI tools.”

Gates’ warning came just days after OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei renewed calls for stronger government guardrails on the technology following multiple incidents involving AI agents breaking containment in recent months.

Last month, Gates warned that “AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice.” He also argued that the risk of a rogue group using “open source AI tools to design a bioterrorism weapon” is greater than that of “a naturally caused pandemic.” It is not the first time Gates has warned of a looming global epidemic. In a widely viewed 2015 TED talk, he said the world was poorly prepared for the next major pandemic.

His warning drew renewed attention after the Covid-19 pandemic emerged in late 2019. Gates subsequently became a magnet for conspiracy theories because of his prominent role in global public health. His earlier warnings and the Gates Foundation’s involvement in a 2019 pandemic preparedness exercise were incorporated into claims that he had planned the outbreak and intended to profit from vaccines.

His earlier remarks linking vaccines and health care to slower population growth also drew controversy. In a 2010 TED talk, Gates said the world’s population was heading from 6.8 billion toward 9 billion before adding: “Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10% or 15%.”

Gates has dismissed vaccine- and pandemic-related accusations against him as “crazy” and “evil.”The billionaire’s ties to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have also fueled public scrutiny and conspiracy theories, although Gates has repeatedly said that meeting Epstein was a mistake and denied any improper relationship with him.

Read more …

“UK’s Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule, and That Means Trouble for the U.S…”

In Europe, it’s Burnham vs Weidel and Le Pen.

• UK’s Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule (Robert Spencer)

Here we go again: leftists have shown us again and again that they hate dissent and debate, which are the foundations of any free society. Now the U.K. is heading decisively toward authoritarianism as its crazy-left prime minister, Andy Burnham, has just announced that he plans to establish a “National Centre for Information Defence” in order to fight — you guessed it — “disinformation.”


The “National Centre for Information Defence“ is a canny name. It beats Old Joe Biden’s abortive “Disinformation Governance Board” in couching the whole totalitarian move as “defense” (as we spell it in the land of the free and the home of the brave) rather than “governance.” This is intended to give Burnham’s hapless citizenry the impression that what’s being done to them is not more control from the ruling elites, but protection from the evil machinations of deceivers.

Yeah, Andy, the Mafia offered protection, too. Anyway, GB News reported Wednesday that Burnham, “the Prime Minister, addressing the United Nations, announced the centre to improve ‘community cohesion’ and prevent a ‘distorted and untrue narrative about Britain.’” As a result, Burnham “ordered security chiefs to set up the quango, which will detect, attribute and disrupt ‘hostile information attacks’ and ‘deepfakes’ which hurt British interests.”

A “quango” is an organization that receives government financing but is ostensibly an independent group. And we all know that the far-left British government will stay fastidiously out of the affairs of an organization that is charged with stamping out “hostile information attacks” that supposedly “hurt British interests,” now, don’t we? GB News explained that this new National Centre for Information Defence “is initially being led out of the Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with the new centre working alongside intelligence agencies, Government departments, the police and social media firms.”

What could possibly go wrong, with all those agencies that have nothing but the best interests of the British people at heart running this new center? Surely it will only censor genuine disinformation, and not what the political elites falsely claim is disinformation because it could harm them politically, a la Hunter Biden’s laptop, right?

Burnham insisted that this censorship agency was necessary because there was no “national security without a strong, cohesive society. That’s the starting point for everything we hold dear and everything we want to achieve. But the fact is that it has been under attack.” From whom? Russia was the only attacker he focused upon, but once this monster is up and running, what is to prevent the Labour government from using it against the British patriots it smears as “far right”? Why, nothing, of course.

Burnham claimed that Russia was leading an “industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment.” He asserted that the Russians were using “every means at their disposal to spread lies and disinformation and prey on people’s fears.” The left is big on stamping out “fear.” They are, after all, relentless crusaders (jihadis?) against “Islamophobia.” They insist that patriots consistently exaggerate the threats of jihad, Sharia, open borders and more in order to exploit people’s “fears.” And so it’s no surprise that British leftists would want a government organ they can use to fight “fear,” by which they mean opposition to their agenda.

“They’ve used bots and fake websites,” Burnham thundered on. “Falsified newspaper articles and forged the branding of 28 British organisations – including universities and the BBC. They’ve amplified far right narratives. And we have evidence that they tried to interfere with the 2019 General Election.” There you go: they’ve “amplified far right narratives.” And the Conservatives won the 2019 election, so it’s all right to suspect that it was stolen; if anyone suggested that about the 2024 election, which Labour won in a landslide, Burnham and his comrades would react much the way Democrats do at the suggestion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Burnham said that Russia was trying to “stoke tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events,” and termed what they were doing “repulsive.” No, Mr. Prime Minister. Whatever the Russians may or may not really be doing, what is genuinely repulsive is your attempt to destroy the freedom of speech in one of the lands where it came to its first flowering, and bring Britain’s days as a free society to an end.

Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will know very well who was really the repulsive one here. But make no mistake: if Burnham manages to pull this off, the U.S. will be next.

Read more …

It’s a warning for all European countries too.

• Britain’s Muslim Migration Crisis Is a Warning for America (Robert B. Bluey)

When Nick Freitas walks down a city street in the opening scene of his new documentary, recounting his days as a Green Beret, most viewers might think he’s somewhere in the Muslim world. I certainly did. He’s in Britain. And the transformation he documents there, driven by decades of mass Muslim migration and a political class unwilling to demand assimilation, is one Americans ignore at their peril.


Freitas, a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates, joined me on “Midterm Report” to discuss “The Immigration Crisis That Will Destroy the West,” a film he made with The Heritage Foundation and The Blaze. It features Heritage experts Mike Gonzalez, Nile Gardiner, and Lora Ries. Asked how a nation is demoralized and destabilized, Freitas has a simple answer.“In the simplest terms, you give it an identity crisis,” he told me. “And I think we’re suffering that in the West in general, and we’re starting to see it become a significant problem in the United States.”

A Clash of Worldviews
Freitas embarked on the project because he cares deeply about his own country’s future. He decided to visit Britain given its shared heritage with the United States. In the United Kingdom, mass migration from Muslim countries has tested the country’s traditions and reshaped its culture. “I’m not talking about differences in dress or festivals or food,” Freitas said. “I’m talking about diametrically opposed views on the fundamental components of what builds a high-trust society.”

Those components, he explained, are political, social, theological, and economic. When migrants arrive with “no genuine interest in assimilating,” he warned, the result is “ultimately destructive.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Britain’s grooming gang scandal, the film’s most heart-wrenching segment. Freitas said the overwhelming majority of the men who organized the abuse were Pakistani. Yet British police were reluctant to pursue them because they feared being called Islamophobic.“That should just absolutely baffle us,” Freitas said. “But on the other side, we should start to recognize how far America has gone down this path.”

What Americans Can Do
In its promotion of the film, Heritage is blunt about the stakes: What mass Islamic immigration did to Britain could happen here if Americans don’t act now. Freitas said America can change course, and he believes it starts close to home. His advice: Vote in primaries, where he estimates only 7% to 8% of voters participate. And parents shouldn’t assume their local public school reflects their values, even in a conservative community with good teachers.

“The teachers don’t select the curriculum,” he said. Instead, Freitas urges parents to teach their kids the real history of the United States, ensuring they pass that inheritance to the next generation. That, he said, is the surest way our country doesn’t follow the Britain’s path.

Virginia’s Choice
As a former Virginia delegate who spent 10 years in the General Assembly, Freitas is closely watching this year’s midterm elections.Early voting began Sept. 18 and will continue through Election Day on Nov. 3. Virginia voters will decide the fate of three constitutional amendments after they received approval in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly, as required under state law.

Question 1 would amend Virginia’s constitution to expand abortion access throughout pregnancy and eliminate the need for parental consent. Question 2 would replace the current constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman with language guaranteeing the right of two adults to marry regardless of sex. Question 3 would restore voting rights for felons.

Freitas urged a “no” vote on all three constitutional amendments. “The Left feels no obligation to be open and honest about what they’re trying to do,” Freitas said. Freitas warned about the long-term consequences for Virginians if the amendments pass, equating it to what’s already happened in Britain. “

They selectively enforce the law,” he said, warning that Democrats would go after Christian pastors while leaving mosques and imams alone. “That’s what they do all the time.” He added, “This is a question of whether or not they are eventually going to be able to sue you as a Christian pastor because you don’t want to sanctify a gay marriage.” The film’s message ultimately comes down to Freitas’ plea to value “the truth over comfort.” Britain didn’t. America still can.

You can watch the full documentary below.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 24 2026

Sep 242026
 
 September 24, 2026  Posted by at 8:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Paul Klee Analysis of Various Perversities 1922


• Europe’s Car Makers Are In Crisis. Will The Threat of War Rescue Them? (BBC)
• You Still Don’t Have The Cards: Zelensky Bringing A Bluff To Trump? (RT)
• Something Has Changed and World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table (AltM)
• EU Plotting New ‘Scheme’ To Steal Moscow’s Frozen Assets – Russian Intel (RT)
• Zelensky To UN: Russia’s Deficit ‘Bigger’ – More Sanctions Needed (ZH)
• At the UN, Trump Gives Iran’s ‘Vile Regime’ a Stark Choice (Robert Spencer)
• Iran Is Projecting Weakness, Not the Strength It Wants You to See (Florack)
• Melania Trump Outlines Plans for Chairman Xi Jinping Official State Visit (CTH)
• Karoline Leavitt Outs the White House Press Corps (Matt Margolis)
• Campaign Poison Kamala Harris Hopes DSA Commies Can Make Her Popular (Kruiser)
• Good News – Diesel and Gasoline Prices Set to Collapse in Roughly 60-Days (CTH)
• Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Victor Davis Hanson Explains to Canadians (CTH)

 

 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2102768917001204096?s=20 https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/2102563722644668678?s=20

 

 

 

 


They missed the entire EV move. How is that even possible?

180,000 jobs in Britain alone.

Russia doesn’t want war. Not with Ukraine and not with Europe.

• Europe’s Car Makers Are In Crisis. Will The Threat of War Rescue Them? (BBC)

It’s green, bulging and intimidating. Ford’s latest vehicle looks like a pick-up truck that has been through an Incredible Hulk transformation. Based on its popular Ranger series, this beefy number parked outside the front door of Ford’s Dagenham plant can carry a load of two tonnes, tow up to four tonnes and is also shouldering the hopes of the 2,000-strong workforce that still makes engines here. Inside the factory, the three-litre diesel engines that will power this camo-painted beast drift down a production line that has seen output cut from 90,000 engines a year to about half that over the last decade.


Ford is hoping that a pivot towards military vehicles can help fill the void created by what the company’s UK boss calls the most challenging environment since the invention of the motor car. Once mighty, the European car industry is starting to look puny and is hoping surging defence budgets as Europe re-arms can help it flex its industrial muscles once more.


Ford is part of a joint venture with defence specialists General Dynamics and Ricardo bidding for a Ministry of Defence (MoD) contract to supply 9,000 vehicles over the next five to seven years to replace the Army’s ageing Land Rover-based fleet. Lisa Brankin, chair of Ford UK, says it is a chance to showcase their abilities to respond quickly to defence needs: “As a manufacturer you look at every opportunity that comes at you and this is a great opportunity that we would love to take advantage of.”

This is not the first time Ford has busied itself with defence work. Ahead of World War Two, Ford’s factory in Dagenham, east London, was the largest car plant in Europe. When war broke out, civilian car assembly stopped completely, and the factory was converted entirely to military production. Between 1939 and 1945, the Dagenham plant built 360,000 vehicles for the Allied war effort.Ford workers in Manchester manufactured 34,000 Rolls-Royce-designed Merlin engines, which powered Spitfires and Hurricane fighter planes. Eighty years later, the UK and European car industries are hoping that the engines of war can help defend against what one supplier told the BBC was a “terminal decline”.


As Europe feels compelled to commit hundreds of billions to ramp up defence spending in the face of the menace from Russia and US reluctance to be Europe’s protector, car makers that are under commercial attack from Chinese rivals have taken notice. So can the rearmament of Europe save an auto industry and a supply chain facing crisis?

The shift to defence
Ford is far from the only car company that sees defence as a growth industry – and one that can utilise the growing overcapacity at car plants across Europe. French car maker Renault has signed a strategic agreement with defence giant Thales to produce military drones – targeting an output of up to 1,000 units per month. The French military and Directorate General for Armament want to tap into Renault’s mass-production capabilities to bypass traditional, slower defence supply chains.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen has agreed to sell an under-used factory in Osnabruck, western Germany, which will become a military manufacturing hub in a joint venture with an Israeli-based defence investor.


Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which makes the Land Rover, is also bidding for the same contract as Ford – as the Army retires its existing Land Rover-based fleet by 2030. JLR has also established a new dedicated business unit to support its global military ambitions. It makes sense for under-utilised auto manufacturing capacity to switch to defence, says Mike Hawes of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) trade association.

The UK car industry and its suppliers are heavily reliant on a few big manufacturers – Nissan in Sunderland, Toyota in Derbyshire, BMW in Oxfordshire and the biggest of them all by value of output, JLR at multiple sites in the Midlands and Merseyside. And Hawes says the supply chain is very vulnerable.

Read more …

“Ukraine is facing a huge budget hole and a critical missile shortage, while corruption scandals and brutal conscription are eroding Kiev’s authority.”

• You Still Don’t Have The Cards: Zelensky Bringing A Bluff To Trump? (RT)

“You don’t have the cards.”


That was the message US President Donald Trump famously delivered to Vladimir Zelensky during their fiery Oval Office showdown in February 2025. Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War III” and showing ingratitude for US aid, while pointing out that Kiev’s worsening battlefield position had left Ukraine with few cards to play in peace talks with Russia.

While the clash did not sever US-Ukraine ties completely, the deck has hardly been reshuffled in Kiev’s favor since. Thus the table is set for another Trump-Zelensky game in New York this week on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Even getting a seat at that table was a late deal. Just two days earlier, Zelensky was absent from Trump’s publicly announced list of UN bilaterals, and Ukrainian officials said no meeting had yet been confirmed.

Trump’s tight schedule also leaves roughly an hour for the encounter before his next engagement. The hand Zelensky holds is hardly stacked with aces. Instead, it contains an unexpected $27 billion defense shortfall, a desperate shortage of Patriot air-defense missiles, a fresh trail of corruption scandals, and mounting battlefield losses.

Opening bet: The refinery dispute
Trump has already shown his hand. Earlier this month, he blamed Zelensky for the diesel price spike gripping the US, which the president said was caused by Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. By the eve of the UN gathering, the US national average had climbed to a record $6.5 per gallon, a topic particularly sensitive for Trump ahead of the midterms.

According to the Financial Times, Trump pressed Zelensky during a weekend phone call to stop striking Russian oil refineries, with the paper’s sources claiming he wanted to ensure Russian supplies could reach the global market.

Trump went so far as to announce that Russia and Ukraine had effectively agreed to stop attacks on energy infrastructure. Neither Kiev nor Moscow confirmed the truce, while Zelensky demanded Russia take the first step, and continued to attack Russian fuel plants.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the prospective truce a “very good idea” and said Moscow was “always on the side of peaceful solutions.” He also argued that protecting refineries alone would not solve the global fuel crunch. The bigger problem, he said, was getting Russian petroleum products onto world markets, which required safe passage for oil tankers – something he said Kiev was not willing to guarantee.

Ahead of the meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also rebuked Ukraine over targeting US-linked ships in the Black Sea, adding that while it did so “probably not deliberately,” “that’s something that needs to be addressed.”

Desperate for Patriot draw
Zelensky has repeatedly sounded the alarm over deliveries of US-made Patriot interceptors, one of the few weapons in Ukraine’s arsenal capable of tackling Russian ballistic missiles. In July, he said the country’s stocks were nearly exhausted and asked Trump for an emergency “winter package” of 300 interceptors, warning that Ukraine needed them “yesterday.” Ukrainian air defenses failed to intercept even a single Russian missile during some recent barrage.

However, multiple media reports have indicated that Washington’s Patriot stocks are also low due to the Iran war, with American Patriot inventories in Europe said to have fallen “beyond critical” levels. While Trump has denied the shortfall, the Pentagon has publicly acknowledged the strain.

Earlier this month, Trump also suggested that Ukraine could receive a license to produce Patriots in a “less sophisticated version,” though no details on the prospective agreement have emerged. Multiple experts have pointed out numerous obstacles to the program, also warning that any production facilities would be prime targets for Russia.

Zelensky is almost out of chips
Late summer exposed a glaring weakness in Zelensky’s gamble: an unexpected $27 billion defense budget shortfall expected by the end of the year – a figure that ballooned almost fourfold over the past several months. Kiev subsequently asked for more money from its European backers – met with a tepid response whereby Brussels even refused to acknowledge the $27 billion figure.

The shortfall arose as a result of Zelensky’s much-heralded 40-day pressure campaign against Russia that involved the very strikes on refineries Trump reportedly asked him to stop. The escalatory attacks also triggered Russian retaliation against Ukrainian military-related logistics, including effectively closing the port of Odessa, which serves as a key hub for agricultural exports. Ukraine’s $27 billion request “surprised and unsettled” European officials, according to the New York Times, with some of Ukraine’s backers reportedly asking questions about how Kiev is spending the cash and if it actually needs as much as it says it does.

The Trump wildcard
Kiev does have one fresh trump card to hope for – except it lies largely up the US president’s sleeve. On Friday, Trump signed a new sanctions legislation first proposed by late Republican Senator and Russia hawk Lindsey Graham last year. The measure gives the US president authority to target Russian officials, banks, and the energy sector, and to impose tariffs of up to 100% on leading importers of Russian oil and gas. Zelensky specifically thanked Trump for signing it when the pair arranged their New York meeting.

However, Trump retains authority over sanctions waivers and the scope of restrictions and tariffs, while the bill does not mention China and India, the key importers of Russian energy. In addition, the Trump administration has a recent history of easing sanctions on Russian oil. During the Iran war, the administration issued temporary exemptions allowing the sale and delivery of Russian crude already at sea to alleviate pressure on energy markets.

Read more …

Nothing changed.

• Something Has Changed and World War Over Ukraine Is Back On The Table (AltM)

The eyes of the world have been fixated on the war in Iran for the past six months, meanwhile, the single-most dangerous flashpoint on the planet has gone mostly ignored. Until, that is, waves of Ukrainian drone strikes activated a run on global diesel markets. Suddenly, everyone is paying attention again…


Russia is the second largest diesel exporter in the world next to the United States, supplying around 12% of total global exports (the US supplies 22% of exports). To put this in perspective, only 10% of global diesel exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz under normal conditions – And that supply is coming from seven different oil producing nations including Iran.

After western sanctions, Russian diesel shipments have gone primarily to Turkey, Brazil, India and China. However, because Russian supplies continued to circulate on global markets, these countries did not have to draw fuel from alternative sources.

Conditions have now changed, and not for the better. Constant Ukrainianian drone strikes on Russian refineries have forced the Kremlin to stop all diesel exports and retain their existing supply for the population and the war effort.

If you want to know why diesel prices have been hit hard since July, Russian export cuts are the reason. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has steadily climbed since July according to independent satellite tracking confirmation (anyone using AIS transponder data alone will have a low and inaccurate count). It’s the Russian refinery issue that has inflated diesel prices in recent months.

With Russian sources completely cut off, multiple nations will have to draw from other producers. Meaning, the pie is shrinking, but everyone still wants the same size slice they’ve always had. If the US also stops diesel exports in response, it would be a disaster for foreign markets and result in true supply shortages (Europe would be hard hit; half of their diesel imports come from the US).

In 2024 I questioned why the Ukrainians kept going after odd targets such as nuclear early warning radar stations rather than key resources like oil refineries in order to stop Russia’s attrition strategy. Well, it looks like the Ukrainians finally figured it out.

Russia’s attrition strategy has been highly effective in grinding down Ukraine’s troop strength (to the point that they were recruiting mostly men over 40), but the key flaw of a slow moving front line and a protracted offensive is that it requires a large stockpile of resources. Ukraine’s drone attacks have a low success rate, but if they send a thousand UAVs to attack a refinery and a couple get through, then that’s still a win in the long run because it drags down Russia’s lumbering attrition-based operation.

The Trump Administration has asked Ukraine to stop hitting Russian refineries due to the instability to global markets, but Zelensky has ignored the request. It’s not surprising; they’ve finally found a tactic that works.

Of course, now the rest of the world is being affected by diesel supply shortages when this was not the case a year ago. One would think the Europeans, who have been particularly throttled by price hikes on fuel and energy, would be in a rush to end the war. And maybe they are about to intervene, but not in the way we might hope…

I think it’s fair to say that the Ukraine war would have ended a long time ago had it not been for the interference of European governments propping up Ukraine and encouraging them to NOT make a deal. Ultimately, Russia is going to keep the Donbas region whether Ukraine likes it or not. But Zelensky refuses to accept this outcome, so, the war rages on much longer than it needs to.

The situation gets much more dangerous, though,with the push by European elites to put boots on the ground. They seem to want to start a world war. Beyond the diesel resource problem which puts a timetable on the war for both sides, European governments have increased troop movements to eastern borders and it’s starting to look like they’re getting ready for something big.

Poland has been building extensive trenches and fortifications using German combat engineers on the border of Belarus. Germany has established a 5000-man armored brigade in Lithuania, the first time the Germans have stationed permanent combat troops abroad since 1945. NATO has launched a 9th multinational battle group with regular exercises in Finland near the Russian border. Multiple nations are sending rotating brigades to Latvia, Romania and Estonia. Even the Canadians are sending troops.

Recent weeks have seen repeated Polish and Baltic fighter activations due to alleged drone or aircraft activity near alliance airspace. Allies are pre-positioning equipment and planning much larger stockpiles of ammunition and resources in frontline states. NATO has also published extensive contingency planning for the eastern flank.

There has been a surge in political and civil-preparedness messaging for civilians. Polish warnings about possible disguised drone/missile incidents. French measures to protect critical infrastructure after hybrid-attack briefings. German military-hospital capacity planning. Lithuanian plans for evacuation routes. UK public preparedness bulletins including recommendations for civilians to stock up on food and supplies..

Even Switzerland has been posting security and preparedness messages for citizens, indicating a “deteriorating security situation” in relation to the military build up.

All of this could be viewed as a defensive posture and not necessarily planning for direct engagement with the Russians; but consider for a moment that Russia has not once threatened to attack European or NATO targets and has consistently said that their only interest is Ukraine. Yet, Europe has removed their “trip wire” defense strategy and replaced it with a permanent front. It sure does seem like they are getting ready for an event which might provoke the Russians to strike targets outside of Ukraine.

Read more …

“Brussels is considering moving the funds out of Belgium’s Euroclear into a new supranational structure, the SVR has said..”

• EU Plotting New ‘Scheme’ To Steal Moscow’s Frozen Assets – Russian Intel (RT)

The EU is working on a new scheme to “steal” Moscow’s frozen sovereign assets to bankroll Ukraine, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) said in a press release on Tuesday. Around $300 billion in Russian sovereign assets was frozen by Kiev’s Western backers after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Roughly $240 billion is still being held at the Belgium-based clearing house Euroclear.


According to the SVR, EU leaders have “a vital interest in stealing Russian assets,” because they fear they will not be able to indefinitely finance “the thieving Kiev regime” without appropriating the funds. Eurocrats are now “in a hurry” to pull off the seizure before elections in several EU states in 2027, the agency stated, arguing that future governments in the bloc could be less willing to back further financial support for Ukraine.

The EU has already redirected profits generated by the immobilized funds to Ukraine but has been unable to seize the underlying assets due to strong political and legal resistance. According to the SVR, experts in Brussels are now discussing the creation of a new supranational structure that could take control of Russian central bank funds after they are moved outside of Belgian jurisdiction.

Belgium has repeatedly blocked proposals to seize the assets, with Prime Minister Bart De Wever warning that outright confiscation would expose his country to legal and financial retaliation. Euroclear has also said it could sue the EU if the funds are seized.

Last week, Belgium’s top administrative court also struck down a government decision not to release the assets of Russia’s BCS Bank, which were frozen alongside Moscow’s sovereign assets in 2022. The court found that Belgian authorities had mishandled the case and ruled that the bank could seek a fresh review, potentially setting a precedent for other entities whose requests were rejected under similar circumstances.

Moscow has long denounced any attempt to appropriate its sovereign assets, calling it “theft” and warning that confiscation would trigger retaliation, potentially including measures against Western assets held in Russia. The SVR has also warned that confiscating Russia’s sovereign funds would damage trust in European financial institutions among major foreign investors, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Singapore.

Read more …

He’s willing to waste a million lives. Hard to fight against.

• Zelensky To UN: Russia’s Deficit ‘Bigger’ – More Sanctions Needed (ZH)

Among the more interesting parts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before the UN General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon was when he lashed out at North Korea. Zelensky said while issuing leveling a litany of charges against Russia for its war that “The leader of North Korea sent his troops to Russia to support the weak points of the Russian army.” He questioned why a faraway southeast Asian country would be so willing to sacrifice its troops for a Russian endeavor.


Zelensky said: “You probably saw the broadcast from Pyongyang when they honored those who were killed. And this is madness, too. Why should Koreans give their lives in a war against Ukraine?” He further accused Kim Jong Un of using his own citizens “like currency” in return for “improved ballistic missiles and Pyongyang’s much [upgraded] drone capabilities.” Likely these barbs will only cause Kim’s regime to double down, and keep up its military support to Moscow.

By some estimates, hundreds or possibly even thousands of DPRK troops have died so far in the Ukraine conflict. Pyongyang and Moscow have increasingly openly acknowledged the deaths, with North Korea even having held patriotic state funerals for slain troops. Elsewhere in the address, Zelensky sought to portray his country as essentially ‘winning’ the war, claiming immense but unverifiable Russian losses on the battlefield, also while Ukraine’s long-range drones unleash destruction on Russian energy infrastructure.


Concerning the energy war, Zelensky went on to assert that “Oil itself is not Ukraine’s target, not our target, not gasoline or diesel, not factories or ports … Our target is Russia’s ability to finance this war, to drag it out, to make it more brutal and more destructive.” “Russia’s finances and Russia’s production are what must be stopped if Putin is to be stopped,” Zelensky added. On this front, he presented Ukraine’s risky long-range strikes as victorious. But he has also this week expressed willingness to agree to a joint energy ceasefire.

On sanctions, he pointed to Russia’s budget deficit as now being “bigger than in any other year” – claiming that “Russia planned major operations on the front this summer; all of them failed.”[..] Zelensky also used the speech to try and rally Western countries to not grow weak on punishing Russia and keeping its global isolation in place. “Something always seems to stop Putin from saying, ‘That’s it. Enough, Peace,’” Zelensky said. “Can you even imagine him without war? He is ‘Patient Zero’, the one from whom war keeps spreading further. … ‘Patient Zero’ must be stopped.”

He said Russian assets must “remain a target,” arguing that “when someone in the world weakens sanctions, weakens sanctions against Russian oligarchs, it may make life more comfortable for rich Russians, but it also gives Putin more time, to send his people into the kill zones.”

Read more …

He doesn’t want to.

• At the UN, Trump Gives Iran’s ‘Vile Regime’ a Stark Choice (Robert Spencer)

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly with his characteristic directness and forthrightness, which had a particular impact in that hall of evasion, diversion, obfuscation and lies. He made it abundantly clear that the time for temporizing regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran is over, and he said that both he and the leaders of the Islamic Republic faced a stark choice.


Trump confronted head-on the claims that he is fighting an unnecessary war, noting the threat from the Islamic Republic has been longstanding, but that his predecessors preferred to appease the mullahs — or just ignore them altogether and hope that the “Death to America!”-chanting hordes would simply melt away.

Iran, Trump noted, posed an immense and immediate threat. “Just imagine,” Trump said, if “such a vile regime were ever empowered to carry out large-scale terror attacks from behind a nuclear shield. This was the reality we had to confront — a reality that far too many preferred to ignore. They all ignored it. Many presidents and many others just wanted to ignore it. They were unwilling to do anything about it, but they knew the problem.”

They knew it, but they did nothing, or even worse, sent billions over to Tehran, thereby financing the Islamic Republic’s jihad against Israel and the rest of the free world. Trump pointed out that he had given the Iranian leadership every chance to come to some kind of negotiated agreement: “After giving Iran every chance for a deal, I took action to ensure that neither the United States nor any nation in this hall would ever have to face such a nightmare, such a catastrophic problem.”

Although the Islamic Republic continues to insist that it has achieved a tremendous victory over the Great Satan, Trump came to the UN with the details: “As a result of Operation Epic Fury,” he said, “all 159 ships of their navy are now lying at the bottom of the sea. Likewise, their air force is gone. Their radar is gone. Their anti-aircraft equipment is gone. Their missile and drone manufacturing capacity is almost gone. Their economy is gone. The only thing that isn’t gone is inflation, which is destroying their country and is now well over 300 percent.” That inflation could be what finally does in the Islamic Republic from within.

Trump also reminded the hostile gang of alleged diplomats that he had bent over backwards to make peace with the murderous mullahs: “Yet even after we agreed to a ceasefire for nuclear discussions, Iran promptly violated it with brazen acts of terrorism against civilian ships from other countries.” He added magnanimously: “I want to thank the UN Security Council for voting overwhelmingly to pass a resolution condemning Iran’s despicable terrorist attacks on commercial shipping. Thank you very much. That resolution, I’m pleased to say, received more co-sponsors from UN member nations than any Security Council resolution in history. That’s something.” Given the UN’s resolute and persistent anti-Americanism, it is indeed striking.

“Now,” Trump continued, “we must be equally united in maintaining pressure. The United States Navy has recently escorted more than 1 billion barrels of oil out of the Strait of Hormuz, and more oil is flowing than at any point since the start of the war. We’re taking 22, 25, 30, 32, and 37 ships out, respectively, every single day, every single night. But I have a big decision to make.”

Trump then characterized that decision as one that is in the hands of the Islamic Republic’s leaders: “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before — maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell, with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness for generations?”

This sort of talk drives leftists crazy, and sure enough, Mediaite gave this headline to its transcript of this part of Trump’s speech: “‘Do I Annihilate the Islamic Republic?’ Trump Issues Shocking Threat to Iran in UN Speech.” Never fans of thinking clearly or making fine distinctions, leftists will no doubt fail to note that this time, Trump threatened to annihilate “the Islamic Republic,” not “Iran” itself. He was not threatening the destruction of the nation, but the removal of the regime. And indeed, until that regime is driven from power, there will be no possibility of real peace with Iran.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic have time to think over the choice Trump gave them: “But I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election,” Trump said, “because it doesn’t make sense for them not to. They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running. I did that already, and won in a landslide. We won in a giant landslide, and I’ll be here for two and a half years. The Republican Party is running, and I will be helping them, but I am not running.”

Indeed, he isn’t. And free people around the world can hope that the anti-American left doesn’t gain sufficient power in those elections to stop his efforts to bring the global problem of the Islamic Republic of Iran to an end.

Read more …

“A regime negotiating from strength doesn’t convert its leverage into a countdown clock — it converts it when the clock is running against it, not the other way around..”

• Iran Is Projecting Weakness, Not the Strength It Wants You to See (Florack)

In the cleanest tell yet that Iran is on the ropes, a senior Iranian official just put a number on the table Tehran has never put there before. That official told Reuters on Sept. 22 that Iran can reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if Washington eases military pressure and lifts the blockade on Iranian ports. Per that reporting, this marks the first time Tehran has attached a specific, dated performance window to reopening the strait rather than treating it as an open-ended bargaining chip.


That’s a meaningful shift. A regime negotiating from strength doesn’t convert its leverage into a countdown clock — it converts it when the clock is running against it, not the other way around. Reuters doesn’t name the “senior official,” but it’s a safe bet that it’s either President Masoud Pezeshkian himself or someone standing close enough to him to speak for the office. Of course, there’s always the question of whether Iran actually follows through on its promises, and the standard response should be “they won’t,” since in practice, they never have.

That suspicion only deepens once you look at what other Iranian officials said in the same news cycle. CNBC’s reporting notes that a separate senior Iranian government official told MS NOW, CNBC’s Versant Media partner, that the Reuters and Kyodo reports were “not true.” And according to yournews.com’s writeup, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency disputed the account, too. So this isn’t a clean, confirmed data point. It’s a single-sourced Reuters/Kyodo report, attributed to one unnamed official, that Iran’s own state-adjacent media machine turned around and contradicted within the same day. CNBC itself states it “could not independently verify the reports.”

That contradiction goes directly to a point I made back in April: Iran’s civilian government under Pezeshkian and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aren’t singing from the same hymnal, and this flip-flop looks a great deal like the result. It’s reasonable to conclude Iran is fighting something close to an internal civil war right now, waged between the IRGC and whatever still passes for a civilian government in Tehran — one arm offering concessions to end a war it can’t win, the other arm racing to deny it before Iranian state media has to explain the offer to its own people.

Let’s recall that Ali Khamenei was killed in a February 28 U.S.-Israeli strike and his son Mojtaba Khamenei was installed as his successor. Mojtaba is now reportedly walled off from his own government by an IRGC security cordon. Gee, big shock.

The walk-back on the Hormuz offer itself is the more useful data point, because it measures Iran’s shrinking ability to control its own message, let alone its own war. Even Iranian state media has lately taken on a tone bracing its audience for something difficult, a marked departure from its usual self-assured, defiant register. Pezeshkian’s own framing — “we emerged with our heads held high,” vowing to “firmly defend” Iran’s positions — is the language of a leader managing domestic face-saving, not one negotiating from a position that needs no defending.

That combination — tough public talk paired with real, dated concessions offered quietly through mediators — is the classic signature of a regime under genuine pressure, trying to manage two audiences at once: an international one it’s handing specific offers to, and a domestic one it’s still trying to sell a story of resilience. It calls to mind the rhetoric coming out of Berlin in the days after the Allied landing at Normandy — total confidence on the radio, total collapse on the map.

Interestingly, reports have surfaced, as yet unconfirmed, that Pezeshkian submitted an actual resignation letter back in May, arguing the elected government had been excluded from major decisions entirely. The regime reportedly denied this within hours, including through IRGC-affiliated media — the same pattern that just played out with the Hormuz offer this week. Clearly, the IRGC wants the illusion of a popularly elected government presented to the world. Accepting the resignation would risk triggering domestic unrest, which the IRGC can’t afford from a global PR standpoint.

Not everyone reads the power dynamic the same way. Iran analyst Ben Taleblu, quoted by Fox News, cautions against reading Pezeshkian’s sidelining as a dramatic new break — his argument is that the president never held much real power to begin with, so this is an intensification of a long-standing structure, not a sudden coup. And a GIS Reports analysis lays out a genuinely fragmented decision-making body — Pezeshkian, Araghchi, Zolghadr, Ghalibaf, and a hardline chief justice all holding formal seats at the table, with the regime needing Pezeshkian and Araghchi kept visibly in the picture specifically because their public-facing legitimacy is worth something to a regime that still needs to claim popular consent.

Clearly the IRGC holds the cards, and despite that, Pezeshkian is still pushing for a more moderate approach. He’s still alive for one reason: The IRGC needs him for the illusion of legitimacy. At this point, I wouldn’t bet on Pezeshkian surviving the eventual loss of power the IRGC appears headed toward. Someone will need to take the blame for that loss, and it won’t be the men holding the guns.

Put plainly, the messaging coming out of Tehran this week is exactly what you’d expect from a regime managing weakness rather than strength — walking back a leak that looked too accommodating the moment it hit international wires, precisely because Pezeshkian’s “heads held high” routine back home can’t coexist with what amounts, in plain terms, to a public seven-day surrender clock.

Now, before some of you get this twisted, the offer from Pezeshkian’s people came about a week before Trump’s UN speech, not because of it. What brought it to the surface was the speech itself, and the Iranian delegation’s walkout partway through Trump’s remarks on the war. The speech didn’t create the weakness. It just made it impossible for the Iranians to keep hiding it, which is perhaps even more useful.

Thought for the Day: Nixon saved his career by refusing to give back a dog nobody asked him to return — proof that sometimes the shrewdest defense is simply declining to negotiate over something that was never actually up for debate.

Read more …

Xi has landed.

• Melania Trump Outlines Plans for Chairman Xi Jinping Official State Visit (CTH)

From First Lady Melania Trump:


President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will welcome His Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan to the White House on Thursday, September 24, 2026, for an official state visit. This visit comes more than a decade since President Xi and Madame Peng’s last visit to the White House, marking a significant milestone in the relationship between the two countries.

On Wednesday, September 23, the President will greet His Excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan at Joint Base Andrews. On Thursday morning, September 24, the President and First Lady will host a State Arrival Ceremony honoring His Excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and Madame Peng Liyuan. The ceremony, which will be held on the South Lawn, State Floor, and Rose Garden of the White House, will feature 479 military personnel, representing all branches of the United States Armed Forces.

As the arrival begins, the South Drive will be lined with the Armed Forces Full Honor Cordon leading to a national flag display of U.S. and China flags where the United States Army Herald Trumpets will present a fanfare on the South Portico as the President and First Lady welcome His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan to the White House.

On the State Floor, “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band will play the national anthems of the People’s Republic of China and the United States of America, followed by remarks from both The President and His Excellency Xi Jinping.

The ceremony will also feature a Presidential Salute from the United States Marine Silent Drill Platoon and United States Joint Forces Command on the South Lawn. There will then be a Military Review in the Rose Garden where The United States Army Herald Trumpets will line the roof of the West and Oval Colonnades. Military demonstrations will be performed by the United States Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps, the United States Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, and “The Commandant’s Own” United States Marine Drum and Bugle Corps. The ceremony will conclude with a military flyover featuring a B-2 Spirit and four F-22 Raptors.

After the arrival ceremony, Mrs. Trump and Madame Peng Liyuan will visit the Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art to explore works spanning centuries of artistic achievement and Sino-American cultural exchange. On Thursday evening, the President and First Lady will greet His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan upon their arrival to the North Portico of the White House for a State Dinner in the East Room. The Office of the First Lady will share additional details on the State Dinner on Wednesday, September 23.

On Friday morning, the President and First Lady will greet His Excellency Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan upon their arrival to the South Portico of the White House for tea in the Red Room of the White House. Afterward, the couples will travel to the National Archives in Washington, DC where they will view a variety of important records and documents significant to the American and Chinese relationship throughout history. To conclude the historic State visit, the President and First Lady will bid farewell to His Excellency and Madame Peng Liyuan at the National Archives.

Read more …

“.. the Constitution says nothing about a guaranteed seat in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room or a hard pass to roam the West Wing. CNN can still cover the White House. MS NOW can still spend hours a day ranting like unhinged lunatics about Trump.”

• Karoline Leavitt Outs the White House Press Corps (Matt Margolis)

Karoline Leavitt may go down as the best White House press secretary this country has ever had. Her exit last month stung, but now that she’s no longer behind the podium, she’s dishing about what happened behind the scenes, and what she revealed on Tuesday is a doozy. Appearing on Sean Hannity’s podcast, Leavitt pulled back the curtain on the briefing room and revealed how much of what happens during White House daily press briefings is just for show.


According to Leavitt, reporters who hit her with loaded questions on camera would later come to her privately and apologize once the cameras stopped rolling. “You name people that act one way when they’re questioning you,” Hannity began. “They want their moment, right? They want their clip for the night so they get their time on the evening news.” “Exactly,” Leavitt confirmed. “And then off air they’re totally different people. Do you find that a lot?” “Yeah, that’s true.” “Would you say they’re phony?” Hannity asked.

“Yeah, there’s a performative aspect to the briefing room, in fairness, I think on both sides, right, but definitely with the press. And they have to do that because their bosses are demanding it. There’s been times reporters have even said to me, ‘I’m sorry, I had to ask that today, you know, my bosses really wanted me to ask that.’ They know it’s an unfair question, but they’re not in control of their own livelihood. They are dictated by the editors and the execs at some of these companies.”

Leavitt’s comments come amid the fight over President Donald Trump’s decision to pull White House press credentials from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The three outlets have sued Trump to get their passes back, and other networks have essentially boycotted pool coverage of Trump in solidarity.

Naturally, the left and its media allies are treating the credential decision as an assault on the First Amendment. That’s a cute argument, but the Constitution says nothing about a guaranteed seat in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room or a hard pass to roam the West Wing. CNN can still cover the White House. MS NOW can still spend hours a day ranting like unhinged lunatics about Trump. Politico can still publish all the anonymous-source gossip it wants. Nobody has stopped a single story from running.

In fact, our republic has survived. Leavitt also pointed to CBS News, where coverage shifted after Bari Weiss took over as editor-in-chief. “You know, we’re seeing big changes at CBS, which I think are great. I think we’ve seen a lot of improvement with them, and again, we’re not asking for, like, positive puff pieces every day. Just fairness. Truth. Accuracy,” she said. “Writing about an executive order that the president of the United States signed should not be a questionable thing… it should just be, ‘Yeah, of course I’ll write about this,'” Leavitt said.


And that’s a pretty darn low bar, and plenty of newsrooms still manage to trip over it.

Read more …

The main thing I get from her is she looks so sad.

• Campaign Poison Kamala Harris Hopes DSA Commies Can Make Her Popular (Kruiser)

There is an interesting phenomenon in politics that I have seen play out in different ways over the past 40 or so years. One might think that primary and general elections are the ultimate performances reviews for political candidates. They should be, but they’re not. Having spent my entire adult life working in both the entertainment industry and politics, I’ve seen the role that ego plays in each. Most people have heard the line about Washington, D.C. being “Hollywood for ugly people,” and it’s pretty much true. The difference is that Hollywood is merciless when letting people know that they are past their due date.


Politics is filled with wealthy hangers-on who will keep telling people that they’re pretty. Politicians who have national ambitions just need one or two serious power players in their corners to keep hanging around seemingly forever. I can think of at least one presidential candidate who had two deep runs even though he only had one wealthy backer. Democrats in California who are nationally known got that way because they met the right money people early on in their careers. A Bay Area connection is especially helpful for them. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Governor Gavin Newsom, and former Vice President Kamala Harris all started out there.

While Pelosi is finally off to hit the box wine even harder for breakfast, Newsom and the former Madame Veep still have donors whispering sweet nothings in their ears. Guess who is now looking for love in all the hammer and sickle places? The New York Times:

Kamala Harris campaigned in Detroit today alongside Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic nominee for the Senate. It was a rare stop for the former vice president, who has received a cold shoulder from many Democratic candidates wary of tying themselves to the unpopular Biden administration. The visit could boost both figures. El-Sayed — who is in a tight race in a state Trump won in 2024 — needs to shore up his support from Black voters and moderates. (It’s not clear that Tucker Carlson’s support will help.) Harris is trying to maintain her influence as she considers a presidential run.

While most establishment Democrats — which the former vice president most certainly is — are trying to figure out the exact nature of their relationships with the upstarts from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Harris is the desperate girl who texted while still in the Uber on her way home after meeting for drinks for the first time. Robert wrote a column back in early July about Harris reaching out for some love from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Queen of the DSA commies.

This could be an indication that Harris is finally coming to grips with the fact that she isn’t very well liked by mainstream money Democrats. She was the first top-tier Democrat they bailed on during the 2020 Democratic primary season, forcing her out of the race before Christmas 2019. Harris became confused when she was forced upon them in 2024 and they pretended to like her for a couple of months.

After that, she couldn’t get enough backing to make a serious run for governor of California. Somebody keeps telling her that she has a shot in 2028, though. Maybe it’s those people who are pushing her in the direction of the DSA.

Harris is driven more by a sense of entitlement than any deep political philosophy, so hitching her wagon to the DSA isn’t difficult for her. “Desperate to be liked” is her default mode and that is certainly on display right now. This could also be a sign that Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign isn’t going as well as the polling and the Dem propagandists in the mainstream media would have us believe. The notion that Harris could be the stabilizer who helps him with moderate voters is rather far-fetched.

Hey, longshots do hit every once in a while. The only certainty here is that Abdul El-Sayed and Kamala Harris are two headaches that those in charge at the Democratic National Committee would rather not have. Oh, and AOC would absolutely kneecap Harris in a primary battle.

Read more …

After the elections.

• Good News – Diesel and Gasoline Prices Set to Collapse in Roughly 60-Days (CTH)

Take heart, we only need to wait approximately 60-days until we see a major price decline in diesel and gasoline prices in the USA. Once the midterm election is over, prices will begin their retreat with the finished collapse mid-January.


The non-pretending reality exists within a generally non-western perspective that current “market prices” are not driven by oil supplies, refining capacity or the other various justifications used by the speculators, traders and various regional spot-market control systems. The prices are being controlled in order to influence political outcomes.

Once those political influence operations are concluded, the stakeholders in the market price approach will moderate their justifications accordingly, and prices will plummet. Sound nuts? Well, let me explain who agrees.

On my side of the argument is Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, who does happen to operate the world’s largest gasoline station – at least, according to the professional republicans. Others on my side include Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salmon, Qatari Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Turkish President Recep Erdogan and Venezuelan interim President Delcy Eloína Rodríguez Gómez.

Others who accept the reality of this position, albeit with various political limits to their ability to speak openly about such matters, include President Donald J Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Unfortunately for this aligned group they are stuck inside the largest western political system who controls global finance and world economic outcomes.

What all of these aforementioned names understand is that “market prices” are entirely detached from the archaic terminology behind supply and demand; a quaint concept that stopped applying years ago – but pretenses must be maintained or else the masses may find their pitchforks, see: DSA pitchfork suppliers.

A second subset of allies who unintentionally support this perspective, includes those who use the terms “sold at a discount” where “sold at a discount” in reality means sold outside the western market pricing approach. How many times have you seen the term “sold at a discount” repeated when you are reading about former Venezuela oil being sold to China, or current Russian oil being sold to India?

It’s such a common term it is accepted without anyone ever asking, ‘what is this discount you speak of, and how is it applied’? No-one seems to ask that part. We accept this terminology created by “western market pricing” advocates just as we accepted the term “service driven economy” in the era before Donald Trump.

The reality is that ‘western market prices’ are not an outcome of supply, demand or even availability or production capacity. Western market prices are determined by speculators, traders and regional benchmarks created by “independent agencies.”

Remember those pesky housing loan bond rating agencies, Standard and Poor’s and/or Moody’s during the lead-in to the 2008 financial crisis. That type of rating ‘independence’ is akin to the benchmarks of these regional independent agencies within the energy markets; which is to say, they are not independent at all – they are part of the manipulated western financial system that determines ‘market pricing’.

Behind that curtain are the traders, speculators, ideological banks and financial systems who create the finance system for the energy market. Want to stop oil exploitation, change the lending requirements to favor windmills and solar panels etc. Not coincidentally changing these lending rules and regulations was Mark Carney’s former job. Does that sound like an open market approach?

Thus, when you really understand how this pricing is structured you begin to realize the price of diesel has nothing to do with the supply of it and the price is more controlled by those who wish to generate financial -or political- outcomes from it.

You don’t have to take my word for it, review the words of the world’s largest oil/gas producer about this rigged game. {SEE HERE} Wouldn’t Vladimir Putin be the subject matter expert?

“How, in fact, is the price of gas formed on the European exchanges? It is not determined by producers, but by exchange traders.” In essence, right now “the west”, specifically Americans, are paying fuel costs based on market commodity prices. The most recent examples are oil, LNG and now the headline leading, diesel fuel. However, the actual supply of diesel fuel is not driving the price. The price is being driven by speculation and trading, which is based on arbitrary price formulas created by western multinational corporations and financial markets.

Read more …

Victor Davis Hanson is being a busy man lately.

• Elon Musk Is Powering The American Renaissance (Victor Davis Hanson)

There’s a lot of controversy about Elon Musk. His reputation took a big hit, remember, right after the election, because half the country voted, roughly 48%, voted against Donald Trump. Elon Musk had flipped from a former Hillary Clinton supporter and Joe Biden supporter to a firm MAGA adherent and voted for Donald Trump in 2024.


As a result of that and his comments opposing illegal immigration, there were people who not only were demonstrating against [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], but attacking Tesla dealerships. Everybody said that Elon Musk’s brand had suffered accordingly, that Tesla was on the way down, that European and American [electric vehicle] makers, along with Chinese EV makers, would dominate the market, given the tarnishing of the Musk brand and in conjunction with the end of the federal subsidy for electric vehicles.

So, people were suggesting that the era of Elon Musk was over. He was very controversial, and he was outspoken on his own platform, X, on conservative issues such as illegal immigration, green energy, [artificial intelligence] in ways that infuriated the Left. And the Left, remember, was considered the natural consumer of electric vehicles.

So, are we watching the decline of Elon Musk? No. No, no, no. The exact opposite is happening. In the second quarter of 2026, Tesla had a rebound, and it captured 52% of all the EVs sold in the United States. It has a market capitalization of $1.2 trillion. The other “Big Three” automakers are beginning to exit the EV market.

China cannot send their EVs into the United States. Why did Tesla rebound? Was it because all of a sudden Elon Musk had a fight with Donald Trump for a while? No. Was it because he apologized to the Left? No. It’s because when you buy a Tesla and you drive it and you compare it with other brands of the Big Three in terms of distancing, acceleration, safety, appurtenances, it’s not just better, but it keeps getting better geometrically, at a geometric rate, not just an arithmetic.

It has the best program for self-driving. It’s the safest. It has the longest range. It’s the most fun to drive, and people like it regardless of their politics. If you move to SpaceX, 67% of all the satellites in low orbit around the world today are associated with Elon Musk’s SpaceX company – 67%, over 12,000 satellites.

The market capitalization of SpaceX is well over $2 trillion – $2 trillion. SpaceX, with its various rockets, has saved a morbid, calcified, ossified NASA. It alone, with its rocketry and space vehicles, has put the United States not just back into the so-called space race and return to the moon and eventually to Mars, it’s made it preeminent over the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Chinese. More importantly, it’s given the United States enormous technological advances in rocketry, ballistic missiles, which have a definite military component to them.

When Elon Musk paid an exorbitant fee for X, people felt that he had made an enormous mistake, that it was overpriced. And yet, people were saying that users would abandon him and go elsewhere. In fact, that has not happened. That has not happened. There are 560 million users of X today. BlueSky, the alternative that was supposed to break X, has 3 million users.

Three million versus 560 million users. And remember that his Starlink satellite platform has captured 97% of all satellite internet usage. There are 12 million people who have a Starlink receiver and are subscribers in 160 countries. Most of the U.S. military and our allied militaries, including the Ukrainians and the Israelis, count on Starlink to guide their missiles and their drones, to protect them from incoming attack.

Let’s just put all of this in some kind of perspective. In terms of market capitalization, Elon Musk has well over $3.5 trillion in his various companies. SpaceX is the largest and it’s the most dominant, and it will either ensure that the United States is first in space exploration and satellite launching.

And, by the way, more satellites were launched on Elon Musk rockets last year than all of the satellites launched elsewhere put together. In addition to that, he created the electric vehicle market. It did not exist. He created the idea. Everyone said it would not work, that he was going to go broke, and he was finished.

He not only created the Tesla electric vehicle, he made it preeminent and dominant today. And he did it because, for the price and a cost-benefit analysis, it was unmatched. In terms of Grok, it is about third. About 16% of all AI platforms and chatbots use Grok. So, let’s just keep that in perspective.

The United States is preeminent today in social media, in artificial intelligence, in satellite launches, in the number of rocket launches in general, in electric vehicles. And all of that put together is due to one person, Elon Musk, who has been reviled and attacked by the Left as either treasonous or insane or cruel or whatever.

One man has combined the talents of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford all in one person, and he’s an American. In other words, much of the success of the United States’ current renaissance in digital media, in satellites, in electrical vehicles, in AI, in software is due to one person. One person can make a difference. In the case of Elon Musk, he made a big difference.

Read more …

“Carney Inc deserves it.”

• Victor Davis Hanson Explains to Canadians (CTH)

President Trump has drawn attention to this segment by Victor Davis Hanson outlining the status of the Canadian position thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney. Why? Because VDH is the type of American that Canadians actually listen to. VDH apparently talks in the tones and constructs that appeal to Canadians, therefore his remarks on how Mark Carney is manipulating Canada hit more directly than when other pundits do it.


VDH has seen a remarkable uptick in the size of his audience ever since he started talking about Canada, because his new audience is almost exclusively Canadian. Hanson speaks about the Canadian dynamic below. It’s monotone, but the “elbows crew’ like it. WATCH (prompted):


Prime Minister Carney asks why Victor Davis Hanson is doing this to him. I’m not a big fan of Canadians switching positions and suddenly wanting to accept trade terms. CTH would prefer that we sever all ties with Canada, terminate the USMCA and watch them slowly spiral for a year or two. Carney Inc deserves it.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/LunarOptimus/status/2102390687589138513?s=20

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 21 2026

Sep 212026
 
 September 21, 2026  Posted by at 8:52 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  32 Responses »


Thomas Cole Destruction of Empire 1836


• Trump Announces AI Task Force and Pending Appointment of AI Czar (CTH)
• Nvidia CEO Discusses Current Status of AI (CTH)
• The Apocalyptic Game: Panic and Opportunity (Sasha Gong)
• Zelenskyy Brags About NATO Missiles Being Used to Attack Russia (CTH)
• Putin Remarks on Europe’s Preparations for Expanded War Against Russia (CTH)
• Can the President Ban Disfavored Media? (Turley)
• Carney Marries Canada to Dying Europe (J.B. Shurk)
• Tesla Engineers Audit Chinese Suppliers As Optimus Commercialization Nears (ZH)
• Shield of Americas, Rubio and Trump’s Moves Against Canada/EU (CTH)
• The $6.7 Billion DOGE Headline Is True. It Leaves Out Half the Story (Manney)
• The Supreme Court Remains a Court of Consensus (Turley)
• Israel Has the World on a Path to Destruction (Paul Craig Roberts)
• Nearly 90% of Midterm Races Were Not Competitive: Analysis (Ben Whedon)
• French Soldiers Applaud Military Chaplain’s Warning Of ‘Great Replacement’ (RMX)

 

 

https://twitter.com/ConstitustionX/status/2100726372897566749?s=20 https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/2101342022556598461?s=20

 

 


In an election in one of Germany’s states, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Chancellor Merz’s ruling CDU party didn’t even make the 5% voting threshold for Parliament


Can’t slow it down, so go head first.

• Trump Announces AI Task Force and Pending Appointment of AI Czar (CTH)

PRESIDENT TRUMP – Over the years, there have been many Hoaxes, all generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country. RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE, Global Warming, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, Men in Women’s Sports, Transgender for Everyone, and now, the decimation, or destruction, of AI, commonly known as Artificial Intelligence — And I, as President of the United States, will not stand by and let this happen.


It all began with an attack on our Data Centers, until people realized how wealthy and prestigious they were for the Communities in which they were built. Higher Salaries, Lower Taxes, and Safer Streets, was the result, and the crazed Data Center attack has largely failed, so now, in much the same way as they changed the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change,” in that it covers a much larger “territory” of doubt, they are going straight at AI.

We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows! However, we will also be looking for BAD, and we can do that, very easily, with our already existing Criminal and Civil Justice System.

For this purpose, I am forming the AI Force, much like I did Space Force, which has been a tremendous SUCCESS, in my First Term. To that end, I will be announcing, in the near future, the AI “Czar” — Only High I.Q. individuals need apply! AI is the next Industrial Revolution, or Internet, but will be even larger and more impactful, possibly as much as 25% of our Country’s GDP. We are leading China, and the rest of the World, and I intend to keep it that way!” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP

Read more …

Are they just trying to scare people?

• Nvidia CEO Discusses Current Status of AI (CTH)

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss AI development and point out that messaging is “quite frankly too much drama, irresponsible. It is not grounded in facts.” There is the short segment that was broadcast on Sunday morning and also the full video below.



Full Video Below:


Read more …

“America can decide how it develops artificial intelligence. It cannot decide whether artificial intelligence will continue to develop.”

• The Apocalyptic Game: Panic and Opportunity (Sasha Gong)

America’s latest argument over artificial intelligence has suddenly become apocalyptic. Former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon accused AI companies of “gambling with our lives.” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei urged the industry to slow the development of frontier models, an idea supported by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk. At the same time, opposition to the data centers needed to power AI is spreading across the United States. China has noticed.


X recently uncovered a suspected Chinese influence network of roughly 200,000 fake accounts; about 200 of them were directly involved in amplifying claims that American data centers were raising electricity prices and overwhelming the power grid. This does not mean that criticism of AI or data centers is manufactured in Beijing. Concerns about electricity costs, water use, pollution, cyberattacks, job losses, and mass surveillance are real. But China does not need to invent American divisions. It needs only to identify, amplify, and exploit them.

Modern democracies periodically succumb to predictions that a new technology will destroy humanity. The fear may be legitimate, but its political consequences are not evenly distributed. Democracies permit protest, litigation, regulation, and obstruction. They may even abandon a technology out of fear. Dictatorships suppress debate, concentrate resources, and use their rivals’ hesitation to catch up.

The first great technological apocalypse began with the atomic bomb. As the Manhattan Project approached completion in 1945, scientists considered whether an atomic explosion might ignite nitrogen in the atmosphere or trigger an uncontrollable reaction in the oceans. Edward Teller raised the possibility; Hans Bethe and others calculated that the risk was physically negligible. The Trinity test proceeded.

The question nevertheless haunted Robert Oppenheimer. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he feared that scientists had opened a Pandora’s box. When Washington decided to develop the hydrogen bomb after the Soviet atomic test, he opposed it on moral and strategic grounds.

Oppenheimer’s Communist associations then turned a policy dispute into a political scandal. His wife and brother were members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and he had many pro-Soviet acquaintances. Meanwhile, actual Soviet spies inside the Manhattan Project—including Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall—passed crucial nuclear information to Moscow.

The Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949 and a thermonuclear device in 1953. China tested its first atomic bomb in 1964, shortly after emerging from a famine that killed 40 million people. Neither Communist regime permitted a genuine public debate over the wisdom of nuclear competition.

The West did. Scientists, churches, students, and citizens organized enormous anti-nuclear movements. Their pressure contributed to test-ban treaties and arms control negotiations. Yet Americans still understood that the danger came not only from nuclear weapons but also from the regimes possessing them. After Sputnik in 1957, few believed the United States could safely withdraw from technological competition while the Soviet Union continued advancing.

After the Cold War, climate change became the next vehicle for apocalyptic politics. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth turned complex climate models into images of approaching catastrophe. Greta Thunberg transformed policy disagreements into moral indictments. Claims that humanity had only “12 years” remaining circulated widely.

Fear of climate change converted a scientific problem into an ideological commandment. Energy restrictions, endless permitting, penalties on traditional industries, and costly transitions were presented as the only acceptable path. These policies greatly contributed to and accelerated Western deindustrialization.

China followed a different course. Unrestrained by voters, environmental groups, or local governments, Beijing concentrated subsidies, land, energy, and credit to build complete industrial supply chains. The West congratulated itself for reducing domestic emissions while transferring production to China. It then discovered that it depended on China for pharmaceuticals, rare earths, batteries, solar panels, and electronics.

The pattern is now repeating with AI. While Americans debate moratoriums, China is treating artificial intelligence, robotics, and computing infrastructure as pillars of national power. Its “Eastern Data, Western Computing” strategy is creating an integrated national computing network, moving the eastern seaboard’s data-processing demands to western provinces with abundant land and energy. Beijing intends to control not only AI models but also the electricity, chips, servers, communications systems, and data centers that sustain them.

China is also competing to write the rules. In 2026, 29 countries signed an agreement in Shanghai establishing the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, which Beijing describes as the first intergovernmental organization devoted to AI. China does not plan to pause while America debates whether the future is too dangerous to build.

AI requires serious safeguards: independent testing, cybersecurity standards, protection against biological misuse, transparent energy pricing, and accountability for harms. But regulation should make development safer, not make development impossible. Data-center projects should bear their actual costs, but local objections cannot become a nationwide veto over the infrastructure of the next industrial age.

Open debate is one of democracy’s moral strengths. The power to suppress debate is one of authoritarianism’s strategic advantages. When democratic caution becomes paralysis, freedom itself becomes vulnerable to exploitation.

America can decide how it develops artificial intelligence. It cannot decide whether artificial intelligence will continue to develop. If the United States stops because it fears the future, China will not stop with it.

Read more …

Trump must be careful. Don’t get dragged in.

• Zelenskyy Brags About NATO Missiles Being Used to Attack Russia (CTH)

Days after President Trump asks Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries, Zelenskyy takes the attacks up a notch and brags about all of the different NATO country missile systems being used to attack Russian oil refineries. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, “One of Russia’s key oil industry facilities and the aggressor’s logistics facility were hit. These are billions of dollars that sustain the war machine. The systems used included FP-1, RZ-100, MICH-2000, Palianytsia, Vendetta, Liutyi, Bars, Flamingo, Sichen, and Pelican.”


Everyone can see this game for what it is. Everyone can see it. After weeks of various European/NATO countries hyping pending attacks from Russia, Zelenskyy now begins to name the missile systems being provided by those countries to target Russia. Zelenskyy and the EU-NATO group are intentionally trying to draw a Russian military response against the support the European countries are providing to Ukraine. Zelenskyy is naming the missile systems as part of that antagonistic effort, and his NATO allies do it on the last day of the Russian elections. Specifically timed and coordinated for maximum propaganda use.


President Trump, or someone inside the U.S. administration needs to make a very public statement highlighting that everyone can see the organized effort for what it is. EU-NATO wants an expanded conflict with Russia, beyond the confines of the non-NATO Ukraine conflict.Bloomberg reports that the Gazprom Neft-owned Moscow Oil Refinery, about 16 miles from the Kremlin, was struck by drones.

The facility has a processing capacity of around 245,000 barrels a day and supplies fuel to the surrounding metro area. Simultaneous with this increased provocation, the Ukrainian president announced plans for meeting with President Donald Trump in New York.


Zelenskyy feels emboldened by his relationships to his “NATO partners”, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Andy Burnham. This is not going to end well unless someone steps on Zelenskyy to bring him back to reality.

Read more …

No Nukes, No NATO, No Nazis. Nothing changed the past 5 years.

• Putin Remarks on Europe’s Preparations for Expanded War Against Russia (CTH)

European defense industries have been expanding the production of missiles and drones for use in Ukraine. For years, Moscow has watched and seemingly tolerated the use of British, German and Polish military warehouses to manufacture drones and weapons which are then used to target Russia and kill Russian civilians. It is these targets which Europe has placed on high alert, while simultaneously mixing in false flag alerts and events to scare the European population and rally them for increased spending and expanded conflict. However, a large part of the European citizenry can see the EU operations clearly (see recent German examples). Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers the following remarks (transcript):


President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Today, we will talk about the new draft State Armament Programme and the defence industry development programme. They will become the backbone for designing and serial production of modern weapons systems and hardware for our army and other defence and law enforcement agencies for them to be ready for a rapid and effective response to potential external threats.

As you know, such threats are not abating. NATO is “swelling” and expanding and has now extended its reach to other regions of the world. Certain European leaders are openly declaring that they are preparing for war with Russia. In my view, they are merely trying to salvage their plummeting approval ratings by concealing the failures of their economic and social policies. This approach is clearly ineffective – it does not produce results.

Instead of listening to their citizens – who have made it abundantly clear through elections that they do not want war with Russia – these leaders continue to escalate tensions. They are exploiting the situation in Ukraine to exacerbate the crisis, using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder.

“Their arguments invariably boil down to a few points. One of them is the assertion that Ukraine is ostensibly defending European values, European civilisation and democracy. Yet how can the current regime in Ukraine claim to be defending democracy when it has long since degenerated into dictatorship? No one wants to address this point.

It is common knowledge that no elections are being held in Ukraine. Power has been seized by a clique of embezzlers and corrupt officials who need war to retain their positions in the absence of elections and to maintain the conditions necessary for the plunder of their own people – enriching themselves with funds from sponsors, including those in Europe. And is this totally corrupt regime really the principal defender of democracy in Europe? It sounds rather strange.

The Ukrainian leadership, as you know, is in no hurry to hold elections; moreover, it is actively trying to hinder us. You are aware that quite recently, the Kiev regime committed yet another crime – it struck the residential building of the chairwoman of a district electoral commission in the village of Oktyabrskoye in the Zaporozhye Region. The chairwoman of the commission, Yelena Astanina, was tragically killed. Today, I signed an Executive Order posthumously awarding her the Order of Courage.

Representatives of the Kiev regime – the leadership in Kiev – speak of peace and propose the resumption of so-called negotiations. Yet, even as they commit crimes of this nature, they do everything in their power to ensure that there is neither peace nor negotiations. Otherwise, one must ask: what is the purpose of these actions? To intimidate us? It is clear to everyone that this is impossible. Therefore, the objective can only be one: they have no intention whatsoever of conducting any negotiations – that is what it is all about.

I have also said about some European leaders: to justify their position and exorbitant spending on the war in Ukraine, they are using absolutely anything. In particular, one of the basic claims is an alleged threat from Russia. I want to say this again: Russia has no aggressive intentions regarding Europe or European countries. We simply have no reasons for this. We are ready for cooperation and restoring relations with our European neighbours.

Nevertheless, we have also noted another round of military drill held quite recently in the Baltic Sea. One of their objectives was to master seizing civilian vessels. Is that normal? All the time they are speaking about protecting international law, about observing its rules, while getting ready for capturing civil ships.

Meanwhile, the same people are displaying so-called concern and denouncing everything unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. But what are they really doing? What are they getting ready for? I just want to tell them: let’s live in harmony instead; otherwise, we’ll have to respond too. This should be obvious for everybody, a clear truism. It won’t be otherwise.

The basic areas of the new State Armament Programme have been determined with due account of the world situation, the special military operation experience and the global trends in military technologies. The top priorities include, as before, the strengthening of the nuclear triad that remains the guarantee of our country’s sovereignty and plays a key role in preserving the balance of force in the world.

I want to point out that hardly any nuclear country can boast such figures as, for example, those of our Strategic Missile Forces – 92 percent modernisation, that is, modern armaments. Another priority area of the new state programmes will be the improvement of the air defence system. It has to ensure destruction of any means of air and space attack.

Special attention will be given to developing a broad range of unmanned robot-assisted systems of various profiles as well as to precision munitions. We need to fully complete the orbital constellation of spacecraft. This will enhance the capabilities of all types of space reconnaissance, navigation, satellite communication and broadband internet access for the real-time command and control of troops and weapons.

In the course of implementing the proposed programmes, work to develop and introduce advanced digital technologies and AI will be continued. I want to emphasise that all the items and parameters of the new State Armament Programme require rational, carefully calibrated and effective solutions. This is what we are going to discuss.

There are some other issues but we will discuss them in a closed-door format.”

Read more …

He can try. Do we know how they treated him? He does. That’s why he does this. If only symbolic.

• Can the President Ban Disfavored Media? (Turley)

The Trump Administration is rushing to prepare for a fight that few knew was coming after President Donald Trump banned Politico, CNN, and MS NOW from the White House for spreading “fake news.” I understand the President had been planning this step for over a year, but he announced it with little notice to his staff. What will follow could be one of the most consequential fights over press rights in decades… and the odds are against the President.


I have previously expressed my disappointment with the ban. While I have been one of the most vocal critics of biased coverage on these outlets, I view this as an ill-considered, damaging move. Putting aside the constitutional concerns, it is a policy that undermines core values and traditions related to the free press. As I discussed in my Hill column this weekend, presidents since George Washington have denounced media bias, but they have refrained from this type of action.

During the Biden Administration, the President would regularly attack Fox News and reporters such as Peter Doocy. However, they were not banned over their negative coverage. The United States laid the foundation for free speech and the free press in the First Amendment. It remains the great champion of press freedom around the world. It is difficult to maintain that position when media outlets are barred because of the content of their coverage.

On the legal side, the ban runs against the grain of existing precedent. In 1977, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered a ban on Robert Sherrill, a reporter for The Nation. In Sherrill v. Knight, the court ruled that the First Amendment limited the right of the White House to arbitrarily deny a press pass to a journalist. Since that time, viewpoint discrimination has long been viewed as not a reasonable basis for exclusion.

The D.C. Circuit held “White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press . . . requires that this access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” The White House appears ready to seek a possible reversal of Sherrill either before the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court. It is a risk since a countervailing decision could cement and even amplify the Sherrill standard in a Supreme Court opinion.

The White House is not without good-faith arguments to make in the coming litigation. The White House is not a public forum, and it can deny access for reasons such as security. Last year, the D.C. Circuit ruled for the White House in Ateba v. Leavitt. Journalist Simon Ateba challenged White House credentialing requirements after he was denied a permanent “hard pass.” The appeals court found that, as a nonpublic forum, such a denial was permissible.

However, the Court in Ateba rejected the notion of “unbridled discretion” in such denials. Citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985), the Court still reaffirmed that “[a]s a nonpublic forum, access to the White House Press Area “can be restricted as long as the restrictions are” viewpoint neutral and reasonable.” Likewise, after the Trump White House denied access to CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, a federal judge (and Trump appointee) ordered the White House to restore the press pass due to the lack of due process and notice.

The D.C. Circuit also considered such denials in the case involving the Associated Press when the Administration barred access to Air Force One and the Oval Office after AP refused to change references to the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. In Associated Press v. Budowich, the D.C. Circuit noted: In Sherrill, we held that the “White House press facilities having been made publicly available as a source of information for newsmen, the protection afforded newsgathering under the [F]irst [A]mendment guarantee of freedom of the press” attached, requiring that “access not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.” 569 F.2d at 129 (cleaned up).

AP initially prevailed before District Judge Trevor McFadden, also a Trump appointee, who ruled that the ban probably violated the First Amendment. He wrote that “under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere – it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.” A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit later lifted the injunction by stressing that Air Force One and the Oval Office are very specific locations subject to greater discretion and controls. However, the court stressed that Sherrill is still good law and bars arbitrary denials. The litigation is still ongoing.

In this case, the White House gave no procedural protections or any reason other than the President’s view that these outlets were publishing “fake news.” That creates a clean and straightforward record. The White House will have to argue that it can deny access without notice, procedural protections, and based entirely on the content of coverage. In other words, it will have to argue that it can engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Once again, opposing this policy is not to defend the underlying coverage. Many of us have raised the same objections to the coverage. However, this would create a dangerous and unfettered power. Future presidents could use it to bar conservative media and outlets that expose government abuse or waste. Whatever the outcome of this litigation, it is not a policy that advances our core values and traditions.

Read more …

“Bon voyage and bonne chance, poor, misguided snow socialists.”

• Carney Marries Canada to Dying Europe (J.B. Shurk)

On Wednesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave an American-style “State of the Union” address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. During her speech, she proposed that Canada be admitted as an “associate member” of the ostensibly European Union. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney sat in the front row as an honored guest before delivering a speech of his own to the parliament the next day. Taken together, the Leyen-Carney parade of oratorical self-puffery exuded a nauseating bouquet of arrogance, foolishness, incompetence, and stale entitlement.


E.C. President (some say “Queen”) Ursula speaks as if she rules Europe (regularly invoking “our values” when describing a continent of distinct nations, dissimilar cultures, and over two hundred native languages), but European citizens never voted for her. P.M. Carney is the former head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and his globalist cronies installed him in Canada’s highest political office just last year. While the central banker and the queen prattle on about “democracy,” neither ascended to the peaks of power in a democratic fashion. They are “elites” chosen by “elites” to represent the interests of “elites.”

Since the Second World War, the United States has heavily subsidized the economies of Canada and Europe, providing for the West’s collective security while permitting one-way tariffs against American producers. This eighty-year arrangement has endured long beyond its immediate post-war necessity, when European manufacturers were desperate to rebuild amid general ruin and the United States worried about losing more of the continent to the Soviet Union’s billowing Iron Curtain.

Unfortunately, this part of Western history does not get an honest treatment in children’s textbooks, so Europeans and Canadians grow up believing that their economies succeed despite the United States instead of because of it. When President Trump began insisting on fair and reciprocal trade terms between the United States and its partners, European and Canadian “elites” all screamed about “Trump’s trade war” as if it were a “surprise attack.” They did not explain to citizens how their nations have greatly benefited for eight decades by tariffing U.S. products while selling European and Canadian goods to American consumers. This is yet another example of the “misinformation” that the European and Canadian governments regularly disseminate to their respective peoples and a prime reason why governments cannot be trusted to objectively and dispassionately “police” so-called “disinformation.”

While Queen Ursula and Central Banker Mark denounced America’s so-called “trade war” in the harshest terms, they both spoke of an expanding security and economic alliance that would reintegrate the United Kingdom into Europe’s bureaucratic ranks and envelop Ukraine with military and financial support (paid for by Canadian and European taxpayers). For all intents and purposes, the British people’s 2016 referendum in favor of Brexit (the withdrawal of the U.K. from the E.U.) has been sabotaged and nullified by government fiat.

As is true of Canada, Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, but, just as the British Establishment effectively cancelled Brexit, the European and American Establishments orchestrated a 2014 coup d’état against the last Ukrainian government opposed to integration with the E.U. This is how the Canadians and Europeans do “democracy” — through sabotage, censorship, government propaganda, the installation of unelected “elites,” the blacklisting of political parties, the criminalization of speech, election nullification, and NGO-sponsored coups. (To be sure, this is how Democrats and Establishment Republicans in the United States do “democracy,” too, which is why President Trump drives them and their Establishment friends in Canada and Europe absolutely nuts!)

All this rhetorical flexing is sad! Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Ukraine are dilapidated vessels drifting in an open sea with huge and growing ruptures in their hulls. They are taking on more water than they can dump back out, but they pretend as if they’re part of a glorious armada.

Without U.S. military assets and personnel providing the backbone for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada, the U.K., and the E.U. would have but one defense posture: to lie down and play dead. Canada can’t even fight forest fires, for goodness’ sake! The U.K. lacks a sufficient number of seaworthy naval vessels to secure its own islands, let alone the ability to back up with military strength its territorial claims to the Falkland Islands (or what the Argentinians call their Islas Malvinas).

Most E.U. nations depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella and U.S.-NATO security guarantees to provide deterrence against military threats, which is why it is all the more preposterous when Denmark and France huff and puff about “keeping” Greenland (a North American landmass) in Europe or Spain and Italy refuse to permit U.S. military aircraft to refuel before engaging Iran. And Ukraine (whose diminutive holdover-president must be fuming at the idea of Canada becoming an “associate member” of the E.U. while Brussels refuses to let his collapsing rump state join the club) remains an albatross of corruption, as one high-ranking official after the next flees the war-torn country with suitcases of jewelry and cash. If Canada, the U.K., the E.U., and Ukraine were warhorses, they’d all be sent to the glue factory.

Read more …

How about espionage?

• Tesla Engineers Audit Chinese Suppliers As Optimus Commercialization Nears (ZH)

About a month after JPMorgan analysts toured Tesla’s Fremont factory and confirmed a “targeted four-month transition following the end of S/X production in May” to humanoid production lines, a new report on Friday says that Tesla engineers arrived in China to inspect robotics component suppliers, as Elon Musk appears to be moving closer and closer toward the commercialization of humanoid robots. Bloomberg first reported this development as Tesla engineers arrived in Ningbo, a major port and manufacturing city in Zhejiang province on China’s eastern coast, just south of Shanghai.


The engineers inspected parts and component factories for the humanoid robot called “Optimus.” “Tesla’s reported supplier audits are a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain, pointing to progress toward repeatable Optimus production,” Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma wrote in a note, adding, “Near-term sentiment could stay supported if audits lead to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders.”

Tesla is reportedly targeting the second half of 2027 for commercial sales of Optimus. Production is likely to begin much earlier, as JPM analyst Rajat Gupta said the “Optimus Academy” will be operating later this year, with robots collecting real-world training data before being deployed in factories. News of this development sent the Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index slightly higher on Friday, up about 1.4%, amid a tumultuous year that has left it down about 30%.

The market’s appetite for physical AI, specifically humanoids, was hyped in mid-August by China’s blockbuster Unitree IPO, but the momentum failed to follow through.Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee recently pointed out that the adoption curve for humanoids will be much steeper than that of automobiles over a century ago.Goldman analysts last month raised their global humanoid robot delivery base case to 75,000 shipments in 2026, 890,000 in 2030, and 6.5 million in 2035, versus previous estimates of 51,000, 256,000, and 1.4 million, respectively.

The invasion of physical AI is just around the corner.

Read more …

” .. if it’s hostile the U.S. could impose heavy tariffs or even halt trade with Europe.”

• Shield of Americas, Rubio and Trump’s Moves Against Canada/EU (CTH)

Promethean Action’s Barbara Boyd recaps some of last week’s geopolitical events and activities of both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Good video for those catching up.


President Trump reacts to Mark Carney’s push to align Canada with the EU, calling it “laughable” and warning that if it’s hostile the U.S. could impose heavy tariffs or even halt trade with Europe. The episode argues the administration is securing the southern border through Marco Rubio’s Latin America trip and “Operation Shield of the Americas,” linking Peru’s participation and Keiko Fujimori’s election to an intensified campaign against cartels, drug production and trafficking, and Chinese influence.

Boyd’s recap frames Carney as a longtime opponent of U.S. interests, citing his Bank of England role, “green” credit agenda, and support for Ukraine, and claims Canada-EU plans target Arctic control and the U.S. northern defense line. It ends with Trump announcing a permanent U.S. presence in Greenland and warning Canada to curb fentanyl labs and criminal networks.

Read more …

Not all’s gold that glitters.

• The $6.7 Billion DOGE Headline Is True. It Leaves Out Half the Story (Manney)

Washington has discovered a government program that costs billions of dollars, and naturally, everyone is shocked. The Government Accountability Office says federal agencies spent an estimated $9.5 billion on paid administrative leave in 2025. Roughly $6.7 billion of that was tied to the Trump administration’s Deferred Resignation Program, which allowed workers who agreed to leave government to remain on salary while generally no longer working.


From the GAO:

OPM does not know the actual costs of the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts, including the deferred resignation program. One of the administration’s stated principles for current workforce reduction efforts is to trim the budget topline by reducing full-time equivalent positions. To support these efforts, federal agencies used millions of workdays of paid administrative leave. To calculate long-term savings, OPM needs to know short-term costs of paid administrative leave used for these efforts.

However, OPM cannot easily and accurately do this because the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts is reported with other types of general paid administrative leave. Without a mechanism to track paid administrative leave for workforce reduction efforts, federal leaders may not have the data needed to understand whether government-wide cost saving goals are being met.

You can understand why the headlines wrote themselves. Federal workers got paid billions not to work during a program associated with DOGE, which was created to cut waste and shrink government. One national headline simply announced that the government paid workers $9.5 billion “not to work.” Another framed the program as DOGE causing the government to spend billions while supposedly saving money.

There’s just one problem. The $6.7 billion figure is an estimated one-time cost of removing workers from the federal payroll. OPM Director Scott Kupor has said the Deferred Resignation Program is expected to save more than $20 billion every year because those salaries disappear after the employees leave. Spend $6.7 billion once to reduce annual spending by more than $20 billion, and suddenly the story sounds rather different.

Except that, Washington being Washington, there’s another concern. GAO says OPM can’t accurately determine the program’s actual net savings because it never established a separate payroll category to track administrative leave used for workforce reductions. Administrative leave for the resignation program was mixed together with other forms of administrative leave in the federal payroll system.

From OPM: “What They Got Wrong About the Deferred Resignation Program”. This week, a Senate Democrat report took aim at OPM’s Deferred Resignation Program (DRP) – a voluntary retirement program that provided government employees with eight months of paid leave. Their argument? Our efforts to modernize the federal workforce somehow reflect poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t have time to read the 54-page report, here’s the TLDR:

We should never reduce government spending because we might incur one-time separation costs in doing so; and” We should ignore the fact that in incurring those one-time costs we lower the ongoing run-rate of government spend, thus saving billions of dollars. So OPM has a large savings claim. GAO has a large cost estimate. And the federal government’s accounting system apparently looked at the whole arrangement and decided precision was optional.

GAO also found evidence suggesting the leave totals themselves may be overstated. Agencies reported 144% more administrative leave during pay periods containing public holidays before the resignation program began. Holidays aren’t supposed to be coded as administrative leave. GAO says historical errors will remain in some publicly released data.

GAO reviewed more than 18.5 million payroll records covering about 1.6 million employees and 76 agencies. Its analysis covered roughly 95% of the civilian federal workforce. Even after reviewing all that data, GAO concluded the government still doesn’t have the tracking system necessary to determine with confidence whether the workforce reductions are meeting their cost-saving goals.

This is where the story becomes more interesting than the headline. Critics are perfectly entitled to point at $6.7 billion and ask why taxpayers paid workers for months after they stopped working. The administration is equally entitled to answer that severance-style costs can be justified if they eliminate much larger recurring payroll expenses. Neither argument settles the accounting.

OPM’s more-than-$20-billion annual savings figure remains the administration’s projection. GAO isn’t endorsing it. GAO also isn’t saying the Deferred Resignation Program lost taxpayers $6.7 billion on balance. Its report says something more inconvenient: the federal government doesn’t yet have the data necessary to accurately calculate the answer. And somehow, “Government Accounting Is Too Messy to Know the Final Number Yet” didn’t make many headlines. The $6.7 billion is real enough to deserve scrutiny.

So is the part people keep leaving out.

Read more …

They don’t want the court to function well; they want it to decide in their favor.

• The Supreme Court Remains a Court of Consensus (Turley)

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.” Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect. It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.


Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court. The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year. When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%. In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions. While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases. Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term. However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases. Jackson even agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of the cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in half of the cases. The narrative also ignores major losses by the Trump administration in cases dealing with birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, tariffs, the Federal Reserve Board members and even Trump’s personal defamation case.

Just this week, the court issued a ruling that President Trump called “a big loss for Republicans” in rejecting a mail-in ballot change for the next election. Those cases saw conservatives voting with their liberal colleagues. Indeed, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Neil Gorsuch are generally viewed as “in play” in a variety of cases in creating mixed majorities. Critics aren’t just wrong that the court is biased, it’s incorrect that the Supremes are particularly unpopular.

A recent Marquette Law School poll shows that the court remains slightly underwater in popularity — with 47% favor, 53% disfavor. Not great, but those numbers are still more popular than Congress or the two major political parties. The unpopularity of Congress hit a whopping 86% this year. Gallup found that only 10% of the American people hold a favorable view of Congress. Trump’s popularity stands at around 40%. So the Supreme Court has the highest approval rate and is massively more popular than Congress. Yet, these members want to trash the most popular institution among the three branches.

Plenty of unanimity
This term is shaping up as another blockbuster, with major cases on gun rights, parental rights, immigration, climate change and other issues. Some cases will break along a 6-3 ideological divide, but many more will be decided by unanimity or mixed majorities, as in past years. The problem is that many in the media and politics will continue to demonize the court for those cases upon which they disagree and ignore the many cases upon which most of the justices agree. That includes exaggerated claims of the court “killing democracy.”

The move to pack the court is based on a long-standing radical agenda to change the constitutional system on the left. The court is standing in the way and these figures know that it is not easy to get a free people to give up on protections for those freedoms. They have to be very angry or very afraid. As a result, the court will resume hearing cases in an atmosphere of rage directed at its institution.

But make no mistake about it. This court continues to function as designed as a principled, independent institution. On our 250th anniversary, we should celebrate, not demonize, our highest court.

Read more …

If PCR would just tell us he wants Iran to have nukes, at least we’d know where he’s at.

• Israel Has the World on a Path to Destruction (Paul Craig Roberts)

Do you remember a few years ago–Trump’s first term–when the Democrats–increasingly known as DemoRats–concocted the “Russiagate” hoax that Trump with Russia’s help had stolen the 2016 US presidential election? The Democrats’ plot against Trump involved the highest reaches of the FBI and US Department of Justice and was supported by the CIA director. The hoax claimed that America’s elections were in the hands of Russia, a foreign power that was putting their agents in charge of the US government. The whore American media gave the baseless accusations many years of life, and you still meet people who believe every word of it.


All the time there really was foreign money controlling US elections, only it is anti-semitic to speak about it, because it is AIPAC money, the money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. $32 million, an unprecedented amount for a primary election of a House of Representatives candidate, was given by AIPAC and Jewish billionaires to remove Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, likely the most American member of the US House of Representatives. Being a strong supporter of Trump didn’t save Massie from AIPAC.

Another AIPAC victim was Marjorie Taylor Green, another strong Trump supporter abandoned, like Massie, by Trump on orders from AIPAC. She also did not approve of Israel’s genocide of Palestine paid for with American money, weapons, and diplomatic cover. Faced with Trump-supported AIPAC slander campaign against her in her primary election, she resigned, reasoning that supporting America as contrasted with supporting Israel was too expensive.

Now we have from Truthout a report that “The giant influx from American Israel Public Affairs Committee PACs is a case study in money distorting politics.” The author writes:

“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political races during the current election cycle, aiming to defeat progressive candidates who are critical of Israel and who express support for Palestinians. Many voters might not even be aware of this, because AIPAC-funded ads and mailers often omit any mention of Israel, even though fostering U.S. support for Israel and electing pro-Israel candidates are among the group’s driving aims.

“AIPAC’s lobbying and electoral network has so far spent $67.2 million during the current election cycle, up from $29.3 million during the 2021-2022 cycle. These huge amounts of spending have been dedicated to trying to defeat candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Aisha Wahab in California, Melat Kiros in Colorado, and many others.

“AIPAC has a range of affiliated and aligned Super PACs and other entities. Some of the most significant ones are AIPAC PAC, the group’s political action committee, which raises money to contribute directly to candidates; United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, which raises and spends much more money on elections independently; and Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) PAC, which is aligned with AIPAC and specifically focuses on Democratic races.”

Read more …

“To be sure, both the House and Senate are still in play, but the total number of competitive contests that could decide control is at an all time low…”

• Nearly 90% of Midterm Races Were Not Competitive: Analysis (Ben Whedon)

A combination of redistricting and increased political polarization has rendered the overwhelming majority of House and Senate races uncompetitive. And 2026 is shaping up to be the least competitive midterm cycle in recent history, according to an analysis from Unite America.


To be sure, the competition between Democrats and Republicans to control the House and Senate is still in play in November. But the total number of competitive contests that could decide control is at an all-time low. All 435 House seats are up for reelection, but Unite America’s analysis suggests that 383 (88%) will be so uncompetitive that they were effectively decided by the party primary.

On the Senate side, however, only 35 seats are up for reelection. The math is somewhat less of a shutout, with only 26 (74%) of races deemed uncompetitive. The vast majority of races being decided in the primaries effectively shuts out many voters from having a meaningful say, the analysis found. Overall, just 10.2% of voters cast ballots in Senate primaries for either major political party this cycle. That figure stood at 9.4% in House races. Perhaps best illustrating the lack of substantive choice in elections, Unite America suggested, were the 150 House races in which the nominee for a safe seat ran unopposed in the primary.

Some of this disparity is due to a combination of low primary turnout, voter satisfaction with their own, specific representative, and, of course, apathy. But the recent redistricting push from Republicans, and the counterefforts from Democrats, have effectively eliminated many formerly competitive districts.

After the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of part of the Voting Rights Act to disallow race-based congressional districts, states across the South redrew their maps in ways that favored the Republicans. Among the states whose redraws favored Republicans were Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas. Missouri attempted to redraw its districts, but has faced legal challenges. Only California and Utah altered their maps in ways that benefited Democrats.

Virginia also attempted to redraw its maps via a constitutional amendment, but the state Supreme Court found the process unconstitutional after voters had already backed the Democratic proposal. Accordingly, the state’s maps will sit at 6 Democratic and 5 Republican-leaning districts in November.

The result was to render less than 5% of House races as true toss-ups. The Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voting Index (PVI), currently regards only 21 of 435 districts as “toss ups.” A further 208 at least lean Republican, while 206 at least lean Democratic. But redistricting did not affect the Senate at all, and seven of the 35 races are “toss-ups” in the PVI.

Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics, meanwhile, paints a similar picture, with 203 seats leaning Republican and 210 leaning Democratic, with only 22 toss-ups. Sabato, however, views only five Senate contests as competitive. The RealClearPolitics polling average does not currently feature a House breakdown, but regards nine Senate races as competitive.

Read more …

Le Canard Enchaîne.

• French Soldiers Applaud Military Chaplain’s Warning Of ‘Great Replacement’ (RMX)

A leaked video of a French military chaplain addressing paratroopers in a cathedral has circulated widely on social media. In the clip, the chaplain makes disparaging remarks about leftists, tells soldiers to keep fighting for their national heritage, and warns of the risk that French values and culture could be displaced.


The clip, recorded during a Saint-Michel Mass on Oct. 7, 2025, shows Father Romain Ghandour speaking to soldiers of the 3rd Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (3e RPIMa) at Carcassonne’s Saint-Michel Cathedral. Soldiers can be heard laughing and applauding as he delivers his pointed remarks. The clip was leaked and published by Le Canard Enchaîne news outlet.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2100894085120749688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2100894085120749688%7Ctwgr%5E77997ba3f7742c60e9e15fe5029a90d5975fbdba%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frmx.news%2Farticle%2Fcalm-down-lefties-quiet-in-leaked-video-french-soldiers-clap-and-applaud-as-military-chaplain-slams-leftists-and-warns-of-replacement%2F


The video was released in mid-September 2026, nearly a year after the Mass.

Saint-Michel is the patron saint of paratroopers and airborne troops in the French army, which explains why the regiment was gathered in the cathedral. Christophe Barthès, then a municipal election candidate and later elected mayor of Carcassonne for the right-wing National Rally, was among those present. Ghandour begins by invoking the names and dates of men and women who died so that France would remain “a beautiful country,” one in which architects could continue building “basilicas, cathedrals, housing, and fortified castles.”

He contrasts that heritage with the present: instead of knights, he says, “we put incompetent people. We put people who eat seeds, people who lecture everyone, ideologues.” The phrase “people who eat seeds” is widely understood as a jab at what he presents as weak or overly ideological leftists. The line that has drawn the most attention comes next: “Calm down, lefties! Quiet! Breathe through your nose!” The assembled soldiers respond with laughter and applause. He then warns that if they lose courage and conviction, “we will be ridiculed” and “this beautiful country that is France will be mocked, and others will take our place.”

He continues: “In fact, after a while, when you’re thirsty, when you’re hungry, it’s the law of the strongest that reigns. And others will take the place of our values, of this freedom of speech, of action, of this equality between men, and of this fraternity, of this culture, of this society. Nature abhors a vacuum.”

While he never directly mentions the “Great Replacement,” many commentators have taken this remark to be a direct reference to the phenomenon, which is not only a reference to mass immigration, but also relates to the constant replacement of technology, culture, society, and peoples through all spheres of modern life at an ever accelerating pace. Ghandour closes by telling the soldiers to “keep fighting” and “continue to have the courage of your convictions, as I am trying to do at this Mass.”

As of the video’s release, there has been no detailed public statement from the army’s Catholic chaplaincy or the Ministry of the Armed Forces on whether the remarks violate rules on political neutrality for military clergy. French military chaplains of all recognized faiths operate under a framework that is supposed to respect both freedom of conscience and the state’s neutrality. The 3e RPIMa, based in Carcassonne since 1962 and part of the 11th Parachute Brigade, is an elite unit within the French military.

The left has often been skeptical, and even hostile to, the French military, which has been seen as a bastion of support for the right in the country.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 20 2026

Sep 202026
 
 September 20, 2026  Posted by at 8:53 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  14 Responses »


Thomas Cole Consummation of Empire 1836


• Trump Announces Permanent Security Deal with Denmark and Greenland (CTH)
• What Happens When Pacman Rescues the Princess (Scott Pinsker)
• Trump Just Dropped the Receipts on CNN, and It’s Brutal (Matt Margolis)
• Team Trump Releases the List CNN Wishes Didn’t Exist (Bob Hoge)
• AI Hallucinated Nuclear Weapons Components Aboard Chinese Vessel (ZH)
• Trump Just Located New Bases for 40,000 U.S. Military in Europe (CTH)
• President Trump Signs Yet Another Russian Sanctions Bill (CTH)
• Princeton Faculty Reach Perfect Zero in Support for Republicans (Turley)
• Canada Looks To Cash In On EU’s €90bn Ukraine Arms Scheme (RT)
• Von der Leyen Sends Zelensky €3.3bn After Phone Call (RT)
• Germany Should Profit From Ukraine Aid – Merz Ally (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2101041690186518857?s=20 https://twitter.com/JustTheNews/status/2101070404563402962?s=20

 

 


“President Donald Trump announces a permanent security deal between the USA, Denmark and Greenland establishing U.S. military bases on the arctic region. The government of Denmark confirms.”

• Trump Announces Permanent Security Deal with Denmark and Greenland (CTH)

(Via Truth Social) – BREAKING NEWS: I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!


At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America. Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.

For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation. This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end! We are very honored and proud of what has just taken place, and everything agreed to today will be cherished by the American People. We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction.”

“This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland, and all of our Allies. We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” ~ President Donald J Trump

The government of Denmark has confirmed the deal.

Official statement from the Prime Minister of Denmark’s office: Greenland, Denmark, and the USA expect to sign an agreement in the coming week.

“Anticipated agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and North Atlantic region

Greenland, Denmark, and the USA expect to sign an agreement in the coming week that strengthens security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic region. The three governments are expected to sign the agreement next week in connection with the UN General Assembly. Once signed, the agreement will have to undergo the necessary parliamentary procedures to enter into force. Premier of Greenland (Chair of Naalakkersuisut) Jens-Frederik Nielsen states:

“It is gratifying that we are on the verge of concluding an agreement that ensures and strengthens security for Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, the USA, and the Western alliance. The agreement recognizes Greenland’s interests and our place in international cooperation. It is to the benefit of us all.” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen states:

“I am pleased that there is a prospect of a good agreement for Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the USA. An agreement that strengthens our shared security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic region, and is thus also beneficial for NATO and Europe. And an agreement that simultaneously recognizes the Kingdom’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.”

No further comments will be available at this time.”

Read more …

“The Great Greenland Gaslight:..”

• What Happens When Pacman Rescues the Princess (Scott Pinsker)

They were shocked! That rude, disgraceful vulgarian did it again! Because in international diplomacy, negotiations aren’t really negotiations — they’re wish lists, performative art, and virtue signaling. The purpose, after all, isn’t to get results. It’s to express political sympathies while protecting the status quo. (And take a lovely photo-op at the cocktail party.) But that ain’t how it works in New York real estate: You come in high and hard, manufacture leverage, and negotiate from a position of strength. Boom, boom, boom. Sharks and minnows.


Because in New York real estate, the purpose is to sign the best possible deal. So when President Donald Trump started talking about seizing Greenland, diplomats all over Europe were aghast. “Why, sir! Have you no shame?” It was a dreadful breach of decorum! (Plus, it totally killed the vibe of the cocktail party.) But y’know what? It worked. Just as “peace through strength” worked for Ronald Reagan, “negotiating through strength” worked for Trump. Because human nature is constant; the common denominator is strength.

And in life, whoever projects the most strength usually wins. It demotivates aggression and wobbles knees in negotiations. Been that way since the dawn of time. It’s simply who we are. Yesterday, it led to a stunning diplomatic breakthrough: The U.S. just came within a whisker of annexing Greenland — and we did it without paying a dime or firing a single bullet. As PJ Media’s Matt Margolis wrote:

“The United States, Denmark, and Greenland signed a permanent agreement Friday that hands Washington lasting military rights across the island while permanently shutting out China, Russia, and every other non-NATO adversary. The deal gives the U.S. permanent access, basing, and overflight rights in Greenland, along with the authority to build new military installations there whenever it decides it needs to, according to a senior U.S. official who briefed Fox News Digital.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wasted no time celebrating. “This historic deal is a huge win for the United States and the American people,” he said. “This historic agreement permanently guarantees U.S. security interests in the Arctic at zero cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” President Trump crowed on social media:


Almost immediately, a media consensus emerged: Yawn. This is no big deal — it’s the same as before. And since Greenland isn’t “officially” part of America, Trump lost the negotiations.

• The Atlantic: The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End
• Washington Post: Trump Hails Greenland Security Deal That Falls Short of Takeover
• Daily Beast: Trump Suffers Humiliating Defeat of His Crackpot Plan to Own Greenland
• Reuters: Greenland, Denmark Say U.S. Deal Will Not Cede Sovereignty
• New York Times: ‘Nervous and Skeptical,’ Greenlanders Question the New Deal With Trump
• NBC News: After Greenland Threats, Trump Settles for a Deal That Avoids Further Angering Allies
• DW News: Greenland Deal Gives U.S. What It Already Had
• Times of India: Trump’s Greenland Dream FAILS! ‘Wanted to Buy’ Island, but Denmark Keeps Control Despite U.S. Deal

What kind of crazy, screwed-up world is this when we must turn to Al-freakin’-Jazeera for a less-biased spin? (It says something about the sad state of American media when President Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House for political bias — yet Al Jazeera remains.) But here we are:


It’s a four-minute (and change) clip, but the money quote is this: “[Trump] got pretty much everything he wanted except formal annexation.” We gained permanent rights, control, and access to Greenland, completely independent of NATO — and also independent of Greenland declaring itself a sovereign nation. It’s now de facto American territory. Additionally, Russia and China are frozen out. Forever. From the American point of view, it was a helluva victory. Best of all, it didn’t cost taxpayers a penny. In exchange for lifting the (completely manufactured!) leverage of annexing Greenland, Trump got EVERYTHING he wanted on a silver platter.

And that’s great news for the American people — and a much-needed break for the GOP with the midterms 45-ish days away. Because winning begets winning. The Greenland breakthrough won’t shift the midterms all on its own, but it can do something even more meaningful. It can signal the start of a new narrative: the great American winning streak! Too much of the midterms’ focus has been on what’s going wrong. From gas prices to groceries to the Iran War to AI doomerism, it’s been a season of discontent. But there’s so much positivity to report: The border is secure. Crime is at record lows. So is the poverty rate.

Yet the Republicans refuse to spike the damn football! I don’t know how else to say this, boys and girls: If we don’t forcefully — and passionately — tell voters our story, they’re not gonna hear it. ‘Cause the media sure as hell won’t tell them for us. If you’re a conservative, things don’t move on their own. We must proactively push them. The burden is ours. So sell the crime, border, and poverty stats. Add our Greenland victory. And now we have the beginning of a new political narrative. Which, one hopes, more positive news stories will bolster.

Which will then become part of this new, emerging narrative: The great American comeback is now underway — and if we want to keep the good times rollin’, we better keep those crazy communists out of Congress. Because, as a one-off, Greenland will be like a burp in a hurricane: It’ll come and go, gone and forgotten. Its staying power is nonexistent. Trump solved a problem that very few voters care about. Americans want high-paying jobs, dirt-cheap gas and groceries, affordable housing, and personal freedom and security. It’s not intuitive to them how Greenland fits into the equation.

Trump is kind of like Pacman — but instead of eating the dots and evading the ghosts, he’s crowing about saving Princess Peach from Bowser in Super Mario Bros: Great work bruh, but that’s not the game we’re playing. And that’s why the smartest PR play is to connect the Greenland victory — which was a real, honest-to-God victory — to something even greater. And for MAGA’s purposes, the best possible connection is to the MAGA mission itself. Making America Great Again! (In other words, winning.)

Don’t treat the Greenland deal as an independent story, but as a pivot point. An opportunity to shift the narrative — before it’s too late.Otherwise, the media’s Greenland gaslighting will turn our victory into another paragraph in the “Trump is distracted” narrative: Instead of lowering prices, he’s wasting time in the frozen Nordic tundra. (See? Trump doesn’t care about people like you and me. Vote for someone sane and grounded — y’know, like Abdul El-Sayed.)

Make no mistake, Greenland matters for America’s future — and leveraged correctly from a position of strength, it could reset the 2026 midterms. Its value isn’t just what it is, but what we can do with it. The rest is up to us.

Read more …

They’ve been saving them up..

• Trump Just Dropped the Receipts on CNN, and It’s Brutal (Matt Margolis)

On Friday, President Donald Trump banned CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House, effective immediately. In a Truth Social post, he said all three outlets are locked out over what he calls their fake and fictitious reporting, and he warned that more networks are coming.


“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them ‘alive,’” he wrote. “Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!”

CNN responded with a statement defending its White House team. “CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting,” the statement read. “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

That technically doesn’t entitle it to White House credentials. There are lots of media outlets that don’t get White House credentials. And let’s face it, whatever you think of this action by the White House, CNN is the same network that spent years manufacturing its own version of reality, which curiously benefits the Democrats every single time. Now, sure, legal challenges and First Amendment arguments are already expected from all three outlets, but it’s worth examining here if the White House has justification.

And boy, did the Trump team drop receipts. The White House Rapid Response account on X responded with a list cataloging years of the network’s own reporting failures and outright fabrications, nearly 50 examples in all. And I’m sure it’s not even everything. For example, CNN ran with the Russia collusion hoax for years, and it falsely claimed Trump once called for Liz Cheney to be executed. The network also pushed a story accusing Trump of trashing American troops, and another claiming he assaulted a Secret Service agent and grabbed the wheel of his own limousine. All bogus stories.

CNN’s sloppiness hasn’t been limited to Trump himself. It falsely reported that police officers were killed during the January 6 riot at the Capitol, and it described the violent 2020 Kenosha riots as “fiery but mostly peaceful” while buildings burned behind its own reporters. In 2019, the network promoted false accusations of racism against the Covington Catholic students and ran with Jussie Smollett’s obviously fabricated hate-crime story.

CNN also insisted Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack” long after his decline was obvious to anyone paying attention, and in 2024, it gave Kamala Harris cover by claiming she’d never actually served as the administration’s border czar. And let’s not forget the way CNN claimed that Elon Musk made a Nazi salute.

Whatever happens to Trump’s ban, no one can take CNN’s outrage over “accuracy” seriously.

Read more …

“A Staggering Tally of Failure and Deception..”

• Team Trump Releases the List CNN Wishes Didn’t Exist (Bob Hoge)

As our Ward Clark reported Friday, Donald Trump is fed up with the fake news mainstream media, and he took action by announcing that CNN, Politico, and MS NOW are no longer welcome to attend White House Press briefings or Oval Office Q&As. The president roasted the outlets on social media, saying they’re less trustworthy than Pinocchio and routinely inject immense bias into their stories.


“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” he wrote. Expect lawsuits and First Amendment arguments and plenty of hyperventilating drama from those outlets; they’re simply not used to facing consequences (except for the occasional legal settlement) for playing fast and loose with the facts.

As you’d expect, CNN’s feelings are hurt over Trump’s declaration, and they quickly put out a high-minded statement defending their incredibly brave, heroic reporters and pundits:

They laughably describe their reporters as “fair and accurate” in the post: “CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting. We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

We all know that’s a load of hooey, and I’m sure for many readers, several recollections of embarrassing CNN failures immediately came to mind. The outlet may have wished they hadn’t poked the bear, however, because Team Trump quickly reacted with a staggering list of their mistakes, deceptions, and outright dereliction of duty. I admit, even as someone who follows this stuff closely, my jaw fell to the ground. There are so many examples that I’d started to forget some of them.

If I wrote up every one, I’d be at my keyboard for days, but even amidst that epic record of failure, a few incidents stand out as exceptionally egregious. Perhaps the most famous is the 2020 “mostly peaceful” riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin, which followed the shooting of a suspect named Jacob Blake who resisted arrest when police were investigating a domestic call. The conflagration came in August during the summer of the George Floyd riots that rocked the country:

The mostly peaceful violence led to an estimated $50 million in damage in Kenosha, and teenager Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, two of them fatally, in an act that was later determined to be self-defense. The Summer of Love’s mostly peaceful yet somehow riots led to an estimated $2 billion in damage and 31 deaths when all was said and done.

There are so many other false narratives the network pushed that it’s hard to process, but the other falsehoods that jump out at me are the 2019 Nick Sandman/Covington Catholic kids BS white supremacy allegations, the laughable Jussie Smollett fake claim of assault by racist MAGA dudes (also in 2019), which CNN bought hook, line, and sinker, and more recently, the network’s endless efforts to convince us that Joe Biden was “sharp as a tack” despite mounds of evidence proving otherwise.

Even worse, anchor Jake Tapper, a top media leader of the Great American Cover-Up, then did an about-face by writing a book that pretended he was part of the solution. Absolutely no shame in that guy. Don’t get me started on their COVID coverage, where they endlessly cheered on the Draconian Biden-Fauci regime, or I might explode in rage. Who knows if Trump will follow through with his threat or if it will even withstand legal challenges, but this embarrassing list should be tacked to the wall of every newsroom, courthouse, and college classroom in the country.

As we like to say around these parts, “You can’t hate the media enough.”

Read more …

Can you program it to hallucinate? Can it program itself to?

• AI Hallucinated Nuclear Weapons Components Aboard Chinese Vessel (ZH)

Could runaway artificial intelligence (AI) spark a future WW3? We don’t need movies like Terminator 2 and its SkyNet to help us imagine this, it’s 2026 and there is already a terrifying real-world precedent that could have kicked off a shooting war with nuclear-armed China. A human analyst within the US intelligence community utilized data gathered by AI for a report that was later widely circulated across classified Pentagon channels, except that the chatbot which was relied upon in effect hallucinated nuclear weapons components being transported aboard a Chinese vessel bound for Iran.


Naturally this set off the highest alerts in Washington in the middle of an active hot war which President Trump launched ostensibly to prevent this very thing – Iran obtaining a nuke and atomic weapons components. From there military planning kicked into high gear, with a special forces boarding operation imminent. Supposedly elite assets were already airborne, ready to descend on the Chinese ship in question.

But then, “the operation was halted only after officials took a closer look at the intelligence report and discovered that it had been produced with assistance from an AI chatbot,” CNN reports in a bombshell Friday exclusive. The episode reportedly happened last spring. The severe error was realized with barely enough time to call off what could have been the geopolitical blunder and disaster of the century, “The chatbot had incorrectly identified the material the vessel was carrying.”

In essence the United States found itself based on completely manufactured ‘intel’ potentially headed for conflict with China. As if to to preempt anyone who might be tempted to think the account is merely being hyperbolic or needlessly sensational, one official (unnamed) source told CNN that the intelligence assessment, which was “entirely false” – in the end “almost started a war.” While Pentagon leadership, including US Special Operations Command Pacific, has yet to respond to CNN’s queries, the outlet pieces together the alleged chain of events and how this could have possibly happened in the following:

In this particular instance, the analyst queried a chatbot about some intelligence reporting on the ship’s manifest that originated with US Special Operations Command Pacific, based in Hawaii. It was not clear whether the chatbot was a commercially available one or a US government product. “The internal tools are mostly just copies of the commercial stuff wearing lipstick,” a former senior US official familiar with the AI systems used by military and intelligence analysts.

The bot fused together open-source intelligence with secret signals intelligence in government holdings and reached its fateful conclusion about the material the ship was carrying. The analyst then used AI again to package the findings into a standard intelligence report — the kind that is trusted by military officials — and disseminated it. The report seems to be suggesting that the unknown AI tool that was utilized would be deemed substandard and weak for such an important assessment in the first place.

Further “comforting” for readers is that given heavy AI-integration seems the “irreversible” trend of the day across the DoD/Depart of War and IC, similar near-misses in the near and distant future are bound to happen. CNN underscores, “Across the US military and the intelligence community, officials are pushing to weave AI into nearly every facet of their work, from analyzing the huge volumes of raw intelligence the US collects and selecting targets for strikes, to more mundane applications like managing budgeting, logistics and supply chains.”

Meanwhile, another botched AI job perhaps?…

Read more …

New bases in Greenland?!

• Trump Just Located New Bases for 40,000 U.S. Military in Europe (CTH)

Toward Latin America there are multiple options, but it’s likely a significant U.S. military footprint is destined for Greenland. If you read President Trump’s earlier announcement you might note: …”We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction.”


This announcement comes directly after President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a review of NATO forces in Europe with the expressed intention of drawing down the U.S. footprint. The Pentagon announced a six-month review of US forces in Europe in June, directing US Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, the head of US European Command, to assess future force requirements.

According to media, “The proposed reduction could involve around 25,000 troops, which is roughly one-third of the approximately 80,000 US service members currently stationed in Europe. Some officials involved in the discussions have indicated that the figure could be considerably higher, potentially reaching 40,000, or about half of the American military presence on the continent, according to NBC News.”

Germany is the largest American military hub on the continent, with around 36,000 US troops. Italy hosts about 12,000 US troops and several major air bases. Spain, meanwhile, provides important air and naval facilities in the country’s south. These would be the bases most likely to see significant withdrawal. All three nations are a hot mess of political manipulation, economic turmoil, internal friction and opposition to the U.S. national security framework.

Revisit President Trump and Marco Rubio’s National Security Strategy: [President Trump] – […] The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.

[…] The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes. This is strategically important to the] United States precisely because European states cannot reform themselves if they are trapped in political crisis.

[…] Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European. As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter. {SOURCE}

Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio wrote that outline.

So, North American military bases will essentially look like this:


How about them elbows!

Read more …

What?

“President Trump Signs Russian Sanctions Bill that Grants Him Massive Tariff Authority Over U.S. Imports from Countries Doing Business With Russia “

Trump wants Russian oil back in the world markets. It can win him both the Iran and Ukraine wars.

• President Trump Signs Yet Another Russian Sanctions Bill (CTH)

After a careful review of HR5334, the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Bill [pdf HERE], I can certainly see why President Trump would happily sign it.= The bill has several elements that are immensely useful for President Trump, beginning with the fact that the baseline of the bill sits upon the cornerstone of current U.S. sanctions against Russia. This is a critical aspect to understand, because if you take away the originating Russian sanctions, HR5334 disappears.


Secondly, the bill grants President Trump the ability to place 100% tariffs on the top five trading partners of Russia, but the bill also grants wide latitude as to how those top five are determined. Top five oil, top five gas, top five financial, top five sector specific (energy, grain, oil, minerals etc.) the actual parameters or definitions of the “top five” are undetermined except by monetary value.

Some have just realized what this bill empowers. Others have yet to catch on. Additionally, The bill gives President Trump the ability to impose tariffs of up to 100% within 30 days on all goods imported into the US from the five largest importers of Russian crude oil or gas as well as any country that knowingly made new purchases of oil or gas 30 days after the law was enacted or was among the top five countries helping Russia evade sanctions.

But there’s the key, again the authority is based on the pre-existing “sanctions.” So, who determines sanction relief? [interim, temporary, or strategic, in coordination with the policy objectives of the President] That would be U.S. Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent.

Remember the previous 30-day interim sanction relief that Bessent and Trump provided for Russian oil/gas “on the water’? In that scenario, the legislatively authorized tariff authority becomes entirely subject to the application determination of President Trump. Ex. give a 30-day waiver and suddenly oil/gas are no longer the largest monetary trade issues. Instead, it could be as simple as who buys the most Russian caviar; maybe it’s Italy or Spain, or even Canada.

Reuters – […] critics say the legislation, which imposes tariffs on Russia’s biggest trading partners, has broad language that could herald trouble for other countries as well if they find themselves in Trump’s crosshairs in the future. The bill requires Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100% within 30 days on all goods imported into the US from the five largest importers of Russian crude oil or gas as well as any country that knowingly made new purchases of oil or gas 30 days after the law was enacted or was among the top five countries helping Russia evade sanctions.

China and India are among the biggest buyers of Russian oil, but critics say the law gives US officials enough leeway to name a range of targets since it does not name any country or spell out how the top-five lists would be calculated. “Given the discretionary authority that the president has, it is likely to be abused,” said Laura Brank, a lawyer at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner who focuses on cross-border transactions.

[…] Challenging the latest tariffs in court could be difficult since the law specifically calls for the duties, while previous challenges to tariffs have successfully argued that the Trump administration misapplied laws from decades earlier. (more)

Congress was very upset at the horrible Trump for his tariff approach.

Congress has just given Trump a golden tariff pen.

Read more …

The US education system is dying.

• Princeton Faculty Reach Perfect Zero in Support for Republicans (Turley)

We recently discussed how Yale faculty reached academic nirvana after years of purging departments of conservatives and Republicans. The university finally showed zero political donations to Republicans. Now Princeton can claim that it has succeeded in a similar cleansing, according to a new study by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The study shows that 98% of political donations went to Democrats or Democrat-affiliated groups and 0% went to Republicans or affiliated groups.


Political contributions are one measure that helps gauge the degree of ideological orthodoxy and intolerance in higher education. While some academics simply do not make contributions and may still hold conservative views, the study still offers another insight into the political preferences of those who do make such contributions. The study does not mean that we can assume that the number of academics with conservative or libertarian values is zero. (There are obvious outliers such as Robby George). However, few would dispute that it reaffirms the extreme imbalance of ideological views at this and other universities.

Professors often express shock at the thought that there would be any political or ideological litmus test for hiring. I have also opposed such measures. However, the hypocrisy is crushing. Today’s faculty are responsible for a near-complete ideological purging of their ranks. They have created a hostile environment for anyone with conservative or libertarian viewpoints, including students who rarely have the opportunity to hear from a professor from a center-right perspective at most schools.

Most recently, forty percent of college faculty admitted that they would vote against any Trump supporter seeking an academic position regardless of their scholarship or teaching ability. Keep in mind that this is only the professors willing to admit to such bias. Some are more open than others. I had dinner with a Harvard Law Professor, who expressed disbelief that I expected him to vote for any faculty applicants who held views he considered wrong. When I noted that I regularly vote for faculty candidates who hold opposing views, he just shrugged and said that, if he rejects their views, he cannot vote for those views to be taught to students.

There are few remaining conservatives or libertarians on law school faculties, which have been purged of dissenting voices through a biased hiring and promotion system. Despite years of complaints and declining public trust in higher education, faculty members continue to reinforce bias and orthodoxy in our schools. Is wrote about the rise of this new McCarthyism on the left seven years ago.

Recently, I discussed the example of Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff, who called for “repercussions” for professors who do not “recant” their view that the 14th Amendment does not protect birthright citizenship. Not long ago, I debated Professor Randall Kennedy at Harvard Law School about the school’s lack of ideological diversity. I respect Kennedy, and I do not view him as anti-free speech or intolerant. Yet when I noted the statistics on the vanishing number of conservative students and faculty in comparison to the nation, Kennedy responded that Harvard “is an elite university” and does not have to “look like America.”

Of course, the problem is that Harvard does not even look like Massachusetts, which is nearly 30 percent Republican. At schools like Yale and Princeton, they have achieved near 100% for Democrats (with only a couple of percent going for independent or socialist causes). Yet, if you ask faculty about the purging of their ranks, they will often shrug and say that they just cannot find a conservative or libertarian who is intellectually worthy of an appointment to their schools. It was the same absurd rationalization that was once used to justify not hiring minorities or women.

I just had a debate with a William & Mary law professor who admitted there is no other rational explanation for the virtual absence of conservatives and libertarians than systemic bias. Indeed, if a company were to go to court to say that there was nothing intentional in a virtual absence of minority employees, it would be laughed out of court.

Of course, nothing is laughable about the state of higher education. This generation of administrators and faculty are destroying our educational institutions because they cannot set aside their political bias and intolerance for the benefit of their schools. Higher education has reached record lows in public trust. Yet, these professors and deans are insulated from such public opinion. They are often financially insulated from the economic impact of such isolation. In higher education, the echo chamber works to their personal benefit, increasing their opportunities for writing and conferences. They also do not face opposing views of their scholarship or viewpoints.

Recently, I participated in a debate with the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). He doubled down on his call for universities to pursue more political agendas and activism. AAUP later broke its long-standing apolitical tradition and endorsed Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. This is why I have advised university presidents who want to restore intellectual diversity that they cannot rely on faculty members. With enough donor and faculty pressure, deans may add a single conservative, but they have shown they are unwilling to make real changes to the academic echo chamber they have created.

Read more …

Riddle me this: The “loan” will never be paid back. but Canada is very eager to join.

• Canada Looks To Cash In On EU’s €90bn Ukraine Arms Scheme (RT)

Canada is seeking to join the EU’s €90 billion loan program for Ukraine, a European Commission spokesman said on Friday, in a move that would allow Canadian arms manufacturers to compete for contracts financed by the scheme. Ottawa has been discussing participation with Brussels for some time and would have to contribute toward the EU’s borrowing costs in return for access to the procurement scheme. The UK joined the mechanism under a similar arrangement in July.


“I can confirm that Canada has expressed an interest in joining the 90 billion Ukraine support loan,” European Commission spokesman Balazs Ujvari told journalists in Brussels. “Technical exchanges have been ongoing with Canada for some time, and they are still ongoing,” he added. Canadian participation would not increase the €90 billion available to Kiev. Instead, it would allow Ukraine to use the funds to buy weapons from Canadian manufacturers without requiring a special exemption from the scheme’s procurement rules.

The talks come as Kiev faces mounting financial pressure. The EU loan is intended to cover much of Ukraine’s budgetary and military financing needs for 2026 and 2027, which remain heavily dependent on foreign aid. Of the €90 billion, €60 billion is earmarked for military assistance and €30 billion for general budget support. Despite the outside funding, Ukraine faces a $27 billion budget shortfall. Vladimir Zelensky announced in August that Kiev had already spent funds originally intended to cover its needs through the end of 2026.

The financial crunch has coincided with a series of high-profile corruption and embezzlement scandals in sectors heavily supported by Ukraine’s foreign backers. The most prominent involved state nuclear operator Energoatom and implicated figures close to Zelensky, prompting a senior-level reshuffle. An escalation in long-range strikes between Russia and Ukraine targeting critical infrastructure has further strained Kiev’s economic outlook.

The intensified exchanges followed Zelensky’s failed 40-day pressure campaign against Russia, which included Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure and warehouses belonging to major e-commerce retailers. Moscow subsequently intensified strikes on Ukrainian ports and vessels it said were carrying military supplies, severely disrupting Kiev’s Black Sea exports, previously the country’s main export route.

Read more …

€3.3bn is peanuts

• Von der Leyen Sends Zelensky €3.3bn After Phone Call (RT)

The EU has released another €3.3 billion ($3.8 billion) to Ukraine following a phone call between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, as Kiev faces fresh corruption cases and a surprise $27 billion hole in its defense budget. Von der Leyen announced the payment on Thursday immediately after speaking with Zelensky. She said the EU had already provided Kiev with nearly €15 billion this year and promised that “more is coming.”


At the same time, she acknowledged that Ukraine’s parliament has yet to pass anti-corruption, judicial, fiscal and green energy reforms required to unlock further EU funding. The European Commission confirmed on Friday that the €3.3 billion had been disbursed. The payment marks the fourth defense tranche under the EU’s €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan. The EU and its member states say they have provided a total of €224.5 billion in support to Ukraine since 2022.

The latest payout comes as Kiev seeks billions more from its Western backers to cover an unexpectedly large defense funding gap. Zelensky told European officials last month that Ukraine needed another $27 billion to make it through the year, according to the New York Times. The request reportedly “surprised and unsettled” officials, with some privately questioning whether existing funds were being spent efficiently or whether Kiev was overstating its needs.

The fresh funding also comes amid a series of corruption investigations involving public funds, military procurement and senior Ukrainian officials.Over the past year, scandals have reached into the energy sector, military procurement and the upper levels of government. The sprawling Midas probe uncovered an alleged $100 million kickback and money-laundering network around state nuclear operator Energoatom. Separate investigations have targeted inflated drone contracts, the alleged theft of foreign donations and senior officials accused of illicit enrichment.

Ukraine’s Western-backed anti-corruption agencies have themselves raised concerns about graft risks surrounding defense procurement. NABU Director Semyon Krivonos said last month that major arms suppliers can have powerful beneficiaries among lawmakers, senior law-enforcement officials and other branches of government. Russia has repeatedly argued that continued Western financing only prolongs the conflict and has cited Ukraine’s corruption scandals in criticizing foreign support for Kiev. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that the “laundering” of Western money had become a “form of existence” for the Ukrainian authorities.

Read more …

Use German money to buy German arms..

“Bavarian premier Markus Soeder has demanded that Kiev buy more German arms and provide access to raw materials..”

• Germany Should Profit From Ukraine Aid – Merz Ally (RT)

Germany should demand greater economic benefits from the billions it spends supporting Ukraine, including more arms orders and access to raw materials, Bavarian Minister-President Markus Soeder said on Friday. Since beginning his second term, US President Donald Trump has pushed European NATO members to shoulder more of the cost of supporting Kiev. He has also touted European-funded purchases of US weapons and Washington’s minerals deal with Ukraine as ways for the US to recoup some of its spending on the conflict.


“Overall, Ukraine should also use the many German aid funds to buy more technology from Germany,” said Soeder, who leads the Bavarian CSU, the sister party of Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU. “And we too, not just the US, should also discuss access to raw materials with Ukraine.” Rare earths and other critical minerals covered by Washington’s deal with Kiev are used in a wide range of military and high-tech applications. Soeder’s view echoes recent comments by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who has argued that Berlin’s support for Kiev should translate into more orders for German arms manufacturers.

Germany has earmarked around €11.5 billion ($13.2 billion) in military aid for Ukraine this year. “It must naturally be the case that the German defense industry benefits,” Wadephul said in a podcast last week. The push for more Ukrainian arms orders comes as Germany sharply expands its own military procurement. Berlin ordered around €85 billion ($97.4 billion) worth of military equipment in 2025, dominating European arms procurement, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Moscow has portrayed Germany’s military buildup, along with broader rearmament across the EU and UK, as evidence that Western governments are preparing for a possible direct confrontation with Russia. It has long described the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war against Russia. “The statements Merz made about making Germany the leading military power in Europe again are being put into practice. He is, in effect, setting out to declare war on us,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this month.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

“It won’t even look like a robot. It’ll look like a human in a superhero suit.” https://twitter.com/XRoboHub/status/2100973961299509489?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle September 4 2026

Sep 042026
 
 September 4, 2026  Posted by at 8:07 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  30 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Etude Pour Mercure 1924


• Trump Rages Against ‘Treasonous Scum’ In Media For Iran War Coverage (ZH) f
• Russian Experts Respond To Zelensky’s Threats To Attack Civil Aviation (RT)
• Moscow Has Stopped Calling Britain ‘Great.’ Here’s why (Alexander Bobrov)
• President Trump Was Just Asked About Harry and Meghan (Victoria Taft)
• Multiculturalism, Diversity and the Destruction of Western Civilization (PCR)
• Democrats Seek to Reform Institution More Popular Than They Are (Turley)
• Democratic Socialism: A Limited Appeal to Voters (Karnick)
• The Left Is Dragging America Back to the Dark Ages (Victor Davis Hanson)

 


 

https://twitter.com/AsFoundX/status/2095252307340361896?s=20

 


 


They are Americans who want America to lose. Because Trump.

• Trump Rages Against ‘Treasonous Scum’ In Media For Iran War Coverage (ZH)

President Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday to rage against US media coverage of the Iran war (not for the first time), following Treasury Scott Bessent giving similar scathing remarks earlier this week. Trump particularly singled out recent and ongoing reports of US missile and interceptor shortages, which he has slammed as false. He called out the “treasonous SCUM” in the media for issuing supposedly inaccurate reports on “our Military Operation in Iran” – claiming that the US has “virtually unlimited amounts of Mid to High Grade Ammunition”.


But also notably, and in a seeming implicit contradiction, he said the USA is not at the moment “selling them to others” but is producing and stockpiling at “levels never seen before.” This is amid an ongoing scramble for Europe to find an avenue to transfer more Patriots to Ukraine, as Zelensky is essentially betting for more missiles.

Trump once again further blamed the prior Biden administration for handing “hundreds of Billions of Dollars” to Ukraine and NATO “free of charge” in connection with the war with Russia. From think tanks to NY Times to Wall Street Journal to independent media, pundits, journalists and officials have been raising the alarm on the issue. This also comes after Trump told journalists in the Oval Office on Monday that the “older stuff” can always be used, when he was pressed over whether the United States is running out of standoff munitions:

Q: Several military leaders have reportedly told Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation in Iran weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard that?

TRUMP: We’re very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it… We have unlimited amounts of… older stuff.

And then on Wednesday in formal remarks Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blasted the media for its recent coverage. He went so far as to scold the media for being the best allies that the Iranians have. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has over the past months made similar remarks, invoking themes of ‘treason’. “One of the best allies that the Iranians have on this is the media because the media immediately publishes all the lies that they say,” Bessent had proclaimed at the G20 meeting in Asheville. “Everyone in this audience and every news outlet should be ashamed for publishing that, taking a lying regime at face value,” Bessent added.

Bessent has given other statements this week advancing Bush-style “you are either with us or against us” talking points related to the Iran war. The Iran war this week reached the six-month mark, after White House officials initially repeatedly sought to ‘assure’ Americans it would be a four to six week operation.

All the way back in May, Trump rebuked a well-known NY Times reporter for a line of questioning that the president framed as “treasonous” coverage of the “victory” accomplished by the United States. “I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You’re a fake guy. We had a total military victory. I actually think it’s sort of treasonous what you write. You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it’s treason,” Trump had told David Sanger at the time aboard Air Force One.

Read more …

“Never before has there been a case of the head of one state threatening civilian aircraft in the skies of another.”

• Russian Experts Respond To Zelensky’s Threats To Attack Civil Aviation (RT)

On the first day of September, Vladimir Zelensky declared that Russian civil aviation is under threat because of Ukrainian drone attacks.


Russian authorities and diplomats saw clear signs of terrorism in this barely concealed threat and stressed that this is not the first time Ukraine has demonstrated its commitment to the cruelest and most inhumane methods of warfare. Former president and current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev called for retribution and even hinted at strikes against the sponsors of this terrorism – the leaders of Western countries.

This article presents comments by leading Russian military and aviation experts, analysts, and publicists reacting to this latest escalation by Kiev.

Roman Gusarov, aviation expert, Editor-in-Chief of aviaru.net
Any sane person can interpret this only as a direct threat to civil aviation, to aircraft in the sky, and to ground infrastructure. This is simply beyond the pale. Never before has there been a case of the head of one state threatening civilian aircraft in the skies of another.

And here, unfortunately, what depresses me even more is the silence of Western public organizations and human rights groups. I am not even talking about aviation organizations like the International Civil Aviation Organization. Zelensky’s threat is a violation of all international conventions. There should have been an immediate reaction. These are threats to the safety of civilian flights. What more is needed? Yet there is no reaction at all. And in essence, this is silent consent. Or perhaps even approval. It is simply very sad.

The world has been turned upside down. Until recently, we could not even imagine that something like this could be said – and then met with silence. Still, behind such a statement I see not so much a real threat as a certain act of desperation. I believe that after a week of massive strikes on Ukraine’s infrastructure – its ports, energy facilities, storage depots, warehouses, and everything else – Zelensky is looking for at least some way to stop all of this, but can find no other means than to resort to direct threats and intimidation.

The purpose of this statement is not so much actual strikes and the possibility of carrying them out, as intimidation in the hope that foreign jurisdictions and airlines will be frightened and stop flying to Russia. In other words, the main target was not really Russia, but our partners, in order to provoke fear and a reaction from them.

Because if we look at the practical possibility of carrying out these plans, I do not see it. We have had massive raids, for example against the Moscow region, with more than a thousand drones in a single day. And here it does not matter whether they are flying to strike a particular airport or simply in the direction of Moscow. Our air defense system and our security system work preemptively, cleanly, and in coordination.

As soon as it becomes clear that drones are moving toward a given region – that is, once there is information from air defense systems – the airspace is immediately closed, all aircraft leave that air zone for alternate airfields. Aircraft do not take off, do not climb, airports are shut down. And during all the years of the Special Military Operation, thankfully, there has not been a single dangerous encounter between a civilian aircraft and a drone. Precisely because this system works. And it will continue to work in exactly the same way. Therefore, I do not see any particular danger here for aircraft in the air.

I do not rule out the possibility of deliberately damaging ground infrastructure, specifically strikes on airports. Theoretically, such a thing may be possible to carry out somehow. But hardly in the Moscow area, because it is completely secured – and that accounts for 80% of flights in the country, the lion’s share. Somewhere in the regions they may try to do something like that. But given that foreign airlines mostly fly to Moscow, I also do not see any reason for them to panic and cancel flights or stop operations.

Viktor Litovkin, retired colonel and military commentator
This can only be viewed as an act of state terrorism. When the towers in New York were struck in 2001, only afterward did we learn who had claimed responsibility. But this underdeveloped clown is announcing in advance that he and his clique will carry out terrorist acts against aviation flying over Russia and around the world. This is a serious statement that should, of course, attract the attention of the international community. I think Western countries will simply turn a deaf ear to all this, because they believe Zelensky and his accomplices are unlikely to dare carry out some strike that would harm Western companies.

But for Russian aircraft and other aircraft over Russia, this threat exists, and it can be countered in only one way – by destroying the criminal terrorist regime that exists in Kiev. There is no other way, because with terrorists the conversation is short: they must be exterminated like cockroaches, there can be no other outcome.

Western authorities aren’t interested in international law in this case – anything that is done against Russia, they will support all of it. They should remember that Russia is a nuclear power. This bear is very patient, very calm for the time being, and then suddenly it swings a paw – and half your head is gone. That is how a bear behaves when it is provoked. So if they continue – they may only have themselves to blame later.

Dmitry Kornev, military expert, founder of the Military Russia project
First of all: Zelensky says that the number of Ukrainian drones striking targets deep inside Russian territory will be so great that civilian air traffic will become impossible. That is, he is not speaking of striking civilian airfields, he is not speaking of striking civilian aircraft; he is speaking of such a high intensity of Ukrainian drone raids that, during such raids, civilian airports would cease operations and civilian air service across the entire European part of the Russian Federation would be shut down.

Question number one: where will Ukraine get so many drones to organize such a large-scale attack? It may well be that they have built up certain reserves. In the coming weeks we will see, we will find out whether that is the case or not. God willing, I may be wrong. The second point is that they may deliberately send drones specifically toward civilian airports so that the mere appearance of a drone would halt airport operations. In that case, for dozens of civilian airports in the European part of the country, Kiev could probably find dozens of drones. Unfortunately, this is possible.

Where do these drones even come from, given the systematic strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces and missile troops against facilities on Ukrainian territory, including those linked to drone production? This can be explained in only one way: they have succeeded in creating such a distributed drone production system that knocking out individual or even dozens of facilities does not lead to the cessation of output. Theoretically this is possible – if they have learned to scale production across hundreds of production sites, then yes, it is expensive, yes, it entails additional costs, but it ensures the uninterrupted assembly of drones even if some links in that production chain are taken out.

It is quite likely that, if over several years we have not been able to destroy and stop drone production in Ukraine, then even massive strikes over several days or even weeks will not produce such a result. And one must understand that Kiev has been preparing for this; Kiev has been preparing for distributed production capable of withstanding prolonged Russian missile raids. Whether it works or not, we will find out in the coming weeks.

Read more …

“The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that the quality of relations is already at an all-time low due to London’s conduct..”

• Moscow Has Stopped Calling Britain ‘Great.’ Here’s why (Alexander Bobrov)

Recently, Russian officials and state media have been deliberately using the toponym ‘Britain’ instead of ‘Great Britain’ and ‘United Kingdom’ to refer to the nation that, just a few decades ago, was known as ‘the empire on which the sun never sets’. Speaking at a press conference dedicated to reviewing the results of Russian diplomacy in 2025, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on this rhetorical innovation. “No offense meant, but I think that this is what it should be called, because Great Britain is the only example when a country calls itself great. Another example was the Great Libyan Jamahiriya, but that country is no more,” Lavrov said.


Although the prefix ‘great’ was not originally intended as a symbol of significance, but was adopted for geographical reasons – to distinguish the nation of Britain from the French region of Brittany – it is clear that the choice of wording is not simply a diplomatic ploy reflecting the subjective opinion of the Russian Foreign Ministry, but a paradigmatic shift in Russia’s perception of the country.

Taking into account the completion of the diplomatic mission of Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin and the lack of an immediate successor, the Times has spread rumors about a possible downgrade in diplomatic relations between Moscow and London. The Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized that the quality of relations is already at an all-time low due to London’s conduct, and British Ambassador to Russia Nigel Casey expressed hope for the current status quo to be maintained; however, it is absolutely clear that the dialogue between the two nuclear powers is on the brink of collapse.

A possible downgrade in diplomatic relations doesn’t simply mean recalling the ambassador and entrusting the mission to a lower-ranking diplomat known as ‘chargé d’affaires’; it is a calculated political signal of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy of the other side that reduces relations to a bare minimum. Worse still, this could be followed by a complete rupture of diplomatic relations, which typically occurs at the start of a direct military confrontation.

Therefore, to understand whether a further deterioration of the situation, fraught with the most serious consequences for global politics, should be expected, it seems logical to ask two classic questions found in both British and Russian literature: “Who is to blame?” and “What is to be done?”

“Who is to blame?” Back in the mid-19th century, British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, attempting to convey the idea that the country’s foreign policy should be based not on personal sympathies but on the cynical defense of its own national interests, formulated London’s subsequent foreign policy doctrine, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” This formula most accurately captures the essence of British policy in regard to Russia.

Despite ad hoc agreements between the two countries in the 16th century (e.g., Richard Chancellor’s expedition in 1553) and a military alliance during the First and Second World Wars (the Northern Convoys are usually considered the apogee of this military brotherhood), relations between the two countries were never truly allied, as the British monarchy viewed Russia (regardless of its political system) as a geopolitical adversary. This sentiment was reflected in the popular Russian saying, “The Englishwoman is up to no good!”

At the time of the Russian Empire, Great Britain was the leading world power, and was responsible for assembling a hostile anti-Russia coalition during the Crimean War (1853-1855) and systematically pursuing a policy of weakening Russian influence in Central Asia (which birthed the geopolitical term ‘The Great Game’). In the period between the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, London did everything in its power to deepen the political crisis in Russia.

First, King George V refused to fulfill the request of his relative, Nicholas II, for political asylum, which resulted in the execution of the Russian royal family; and then he took a direct part in the military intervention during the Russian Civil War. As a result, British forces were present in various corners of Russia: in the north (Murmansk and Arkhangelsk), in the Black Sea region (Odessa, Crimea, and Novorossiysk), in the Caucasus (from Batumi to Baku), and even in Central Asia (in Turkmenistan and along the Central Asian Railway).

Finally, during the Soviet era, then-British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered his famous Fulton Speech, marking the beginning of the Cold War following his government’s failure to implement Operation Unthinkable, which envisioned a massive attack on the Soviet armed forces.

It’s hardly surprising that today, London plays a key role in supporting Ukraine in its quest to inflict a so-called ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia. Having signed a critical minerals agreement with Ukraine and acting as the informal leader of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, the British authorities are doing everything they can to prevent reconciliation between Kiev and Moscow. They have the simple goal of ensuring that Ukraine continues to serve as a springboard for attacks on Russia, enabling the UK to rapidly militarize its own economy and rearm in preparation for a future military conflict.

It would suffice to recall how in April 2022, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on Russia to withdraw its troops from Kiev, giving Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky the opportunity to both preserve his shaky power and regroup forces with the goal of transforming the Special Military Operation into a protracted military conflict. Current British Prime Minister Andy Burnham continues his predecessor’s work.

Despite initially promising to focus on resolving the country’s many domestic problems, he is spending his time and money lobbying for more military aid for Kiev and coordinating the illegal detention of the vessels of the so-called ‘shadow fleet’ in international waters.

Read more …

Trump likes the British Royals.

• President Trump Was Just Asked About Harry and Meghan (Victoria Taft)

President Donald Trump says that he, for one, is “happy” that the boorish Prince Harry and Meghan self-deported from the United States, at least temporarily. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex fled California to put their children in proper British schools where children learn things about Western Civilization — and how to count.


The two, who quit the royal family, were loaned a Cotswold manse by a British billionaire hedge fund manager who’s been a friend of both Prince William and Harry for years. Ian Wace’s financial help is why Harry and Meghan didn’t have to give up their Montecito manse or their Portugal vacation home when they wanted a house to live in while they came back to Britain.

Of course, Harry and Meghan were gifted a royal house, Frogmore Cottage, by the Queen when they were first married, but they gave it up when they quit working for the royal family. Had they stayed in The Firm, as the royals call the family business, they would have had a house and free schooling, and would have been earning money from a titled property by now, but oh, well.

During an Oval Office gaggle, the president, who might have Iran, the bond market, and more important things on his mind, was asked by a British reporter about the Sussexes leaving the States. Without hesitation, President Trump blurted out, “I’m happy about it! I was NOT a fan.”

Trump and Harry and Meghan have traded barbs before. In fact, the Sussexes indicated that Trump was one of the reasons they were leaving the U.S., but nobody actually believes that after they chose to jump back into public life in Britain, which they previously found too daunting.

But even people with titles must bow to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. A girl’s gotta eat, you know. The president said of the two royal ingrates that “They treated the royal family with great disrespect. I didn’t like it. I didn’t like the way she acted.” He wasn’t done yet, however, because he’s Donald Trump and can’t stop himself. “I have a very good relationship with the Queen. Really good,” he said.

“I have a really good relationship with King Charles — when he was Prince Charles and King Charles,” he continued. “I’ve known him for a very long time. Great guy.” Only Donald Trump can characterize a monarch by talking about what a “great guy” he is. But here was the kill shot, as only Trump could deliver it. “I thought she was terribly disrespectful to the Queen, to King Charles. I don’t know. Maybe I’m different. I wouldn’t have taken them back,” he said.

It’s unclear and probably unlikely that the royal family has “taken them back.” The royals have as little to do with the messy Sussexes as possible. Harry and Meghan have spilled tea about the family — some of it may actually be true — and burned bridges via their Oprah interview and Harry’s memoir. They’ve proven to be untrustworthy and grifting. They’ve been cut off.

In July, however, Harry and Meghan visited King Charles at Highgrove, which is in the Cotswolds, when they were in the neighborhood, staying at their billionaire buddy’s house. It could be their final family trip with the royals. Charles has an unknown form of cancer, and he’s getting his affairs in order. And the guy who will succeed to the throne is completely disgusted by his brother’s antics. I predict the Sussexes will sell their Montecito house in the next year or so, and Meghan will have begun doing her lifestyle brand videos and TV shows from her Cotswolds estate.

Read more …

No more US-Canada?

• USMCA Termination Announcement Looming? (CTH)

For those waiting patiently for the USMCA termination announcement, this is a potential indication and/or signal of pendency. When President Trump and USTR Jamieson Greer send the official notification, a six-month countdown clock begins running. As of right now there are no official statements that indicate the likely triggering, it’s a guess. However, there are datapoints aligning in that direction.


No one outside our assembly has contemplated the termination of the USMCA (CUSMA) or what would occur in the aftermath; however, the Bank of Canada has gamed out the financial consequences, briefly in their forward guidance. The ramifications are significant, perhaps more significant than any other global trade announcement. […] “it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystalize at once. If this were to happen, these vulnerabilities could interact and reinforce each other.

A cascading series of events could cause a sharp loss of investor confidence and lead to a spike in demand for liquidity or rapid asset sales. Funding markets could come under pressure, and stress could spread more broadly.” I suggest we keep a close eye on all U.S-Mexico discussions, as well as geopolitical leverage points that might surface in the U.S-Mexico relationship. My best guess is that once the U.S. and Mexico come to renewed terms on the ‘USMCA’ as a potential bilateral free trade agreement, that will be the moment when the planets are aligned for the termination notification.

The financial markets in Canada are tied directly to the independent strength of the Canadian economy. Which is to say, the financial system in Canada is dependent on historic ties to the United States. Pull out all of the dependencies within the economy, a result of a fracturing of the “geopolitical relationship,” and suddenly the Bank of Canada faces a “cascading series of events” they have not previously had to entertain.

A significant number of multinational corporations within Canada are geographically centered due to American proximity and the dependency that has historically been considered a partnership. That relationship has now changed, and despite Mark Carney saying that Canada can be stronger standing alone, there is no economic model for Canada to retain its wealth position without the inherent subsidy that proximity to America provides.

There is no ‘partnership’ with Europe and/or China, or a combination of partnerships, that can replace the one-way nature of the subsidies from the U.S. economy that Canada enjoys. If the Canadian people, workers and companies therein, have to rely on their own domestic economic activity to fund their GDP, their lifestyle will have to modify in very significant ways. Now, I want you to think about the Bank of Canada’s previous statement against the backdrop of this announcement yesterday:

The Dutch central bank (DNB) has transferred approximately 86 metric tons of gold out of the U.S. and Canada to the U.K., seeking to shore up its contingency planning in view of “increasing geopolitical unrest.”Just over one-quarter of the central bank’s gold reserves held in New York and Ottawa had been shifted to London between March and August, DNB said Wednesday.

Prepare your affairs accordingly.

Read more …

Paul Craig Roberts

• Multiculturalism, Diversity and the Destruction of Western Civilization (PCR)

Multiculturalism’s advocates present their agenda in terms of enhancing diversity. By diversity they mean more variety, not what the DEI advocates mean by the word–replacement of merit by some definition of privilege, such as race, gender, sexual preference.


The goal of multiculturalism is miscegenation. The result is the disappearance of diversity into a mixture born naked of a history, mores, a language, and a religion. The abstract universalism of multiculturalism is at odds with the multifaceted reality of different cultures. A people are rooted in an original genus. There is a common soul that endures, and whatever the adaption through time, there is continuity. A common history, beliefs, language unites them. Many peoples means much diversity. Miscegenation destroys diversity. In its place are new people without a history.

The agenda of miscegenation has been institutionalized in corporate advertising, in entertainment, and in literature. White women are shown with black men. White men are shown with Asian and Hispanic women. What are the children?

Continuity, a sense of connectedness, is essential to society and to human happiness. Americans have expressed unease, sadness, and a sense of violation when returning to hometowns to find them occupied territories, inhabited by people of whom they know nothing. The same sense of loss is felt when returning to grandparents’ farm where one spent summers playing in creeks and picking blackberries, scuppernongs and muscadines and finding in its place a subdivision.

The same kinds of sadness and sense of loss has been brought to us by the white liberals’ social engineering schemes. Congressional authority has been eroded by being turned over to regulatory agencies who in turn are in the hands of the corporate interests they are supposed to regulate. Constitutional protections have been lost in pursuit of liberal “good intentioned” agendas and “national security.” American sovereignty has been compromised by international agreements serving utopian or misguided agendas or simply serving monied interests.

Moral character has been lowered by the acceptance of pornography, sexual perversion, coarse language replete with the F-word even among young girls. Older women report that one consequence of feminism is that today dating and marriage is not what it used to be, but about finding a sexual partner who delivers orgasms. People no longer have any pride in their appearance and appear in public dressed in ways that would have embarrassed their forebears. Over my life I have seen America’s goodness shrivel. What is claimed as progress is often at the expense of the Constitution. Child Protective Services, which did not exist during my earlier decades, has substituted itself for parental authority. Twelve-year old American girls are on contraceptive pills.

We can say that technology has brought degeneracy, which would be an admission that technology is the enemy of moral conscience, which in some ways it is. Today’s AI technology is eliminating human interaction. Imagine the sense of loss of connectivity and alienation that comes from having to converse with robotic voices with whom no empathy and no understanding can be established.

As a longtime friend of libertarianism because of its defense of liberty, and a longtime defender of capitalism because of its former efficiency in allocating resources, I acknowledge that the pursuit of profit has produced an anti-human technology that will aid and abet Multicultural severance of peoples from their roots and leave a rootless undefined mass in place of human societies. The AI technology is alien to human society. It is being imposed on us by fools who believe that their profits will rise by eliminating human labor. The fools need to ask themselves who among the unemployed whose labor is not needed is going to buy the products of their machines?

This question is not being asked, just as the question where are the better jobs that allegedly took the place of US manufacturing jobs. Academic economists are too occupied debating the properties of abstract models to even notice. The important question is: Who is looking at the cost of an anti-human technology, of the cost of humans living in a world in which they have no purpose? Another question: How did short-term greed–the next quarter’s profits–take over the economic organization of the American economy? What an enormous failure this indicates of our leaders’ inability to think beyond the next quarter’s profits.

The same failure permeates our political theorists, sociologists, philosophers. Why is American society content to be dominated by an anti-human technology such as AI? Anyone inclined to investigate such a question would not be able to get funding. Just as the US government is unable to extricate itself from its illegal, immoral assistance to Israel’s war against Iran and the Muslim Middle East, it is unable to contain an anti-human technology that is substituting robotic for human contact. Several years ago we already had Japanese men marrying their robotic sex dolls.

Today history is taught as white ethnicities oppressing peoples of color. It was once taught as the formation of a people, their development, the evolution of their language and beliefs that made them a people, their successes and failures, their rise and fall, their contributions to the continuing rise of humanity out of barbarism. Today the Western world descends into a barbarism ever more honored by Trump, the NY Times, CNN, NPR, and morally corrupt political parties throughout the once civilized Western world. Formerly “civilized” had a large meaning. Today it means nothing but a high technology society, regardless of whether it is civilized.

As I watch the totality of Western Civilization’s collapse, I am thankful that at my age I will not have to experience the final collapse as did, in The Camp of the Saints, the elderly French professor Calgues, as he watched the arrival of one million Indians in decrepit ships approach the undefended Mediterranean coast of France. Collapse can come from within as well as from outside. Western civilization is undergoing both kinds of collapse. To discuss it is considered racist.

Read more …

“Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority.”

• Democrats Seek to Reform Institution More Popular Than They Are (Turley)

Supreme Irony: The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress. Congress is still wallowing at 34 percent approval among the American people. Both parties are equally disliked, with 55% disapproval of the GOP and 53% disapproval of the Democratic Party.


Conversely, the Supreme Court continues to enjoy far greater approval from the public, currently at 49% at “very favorable” or “favorable.” So which institution is being targeted for elimination or radical reform? Of course, it is the more popular Supreme Court. Packing the court and other measures are unpopular with the public. Instead, Democrats hope to achieve these reforms through legislation. However, it must then pass judicial review.

Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

There are now calls for a litmus test for Democratic candidates to pack the Court or get the sack. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) wants to take over the Court to reverse rulings against racial gerrymandering while other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings. They join a growing list of figures demanding the hostile takeover of the Court from Kamala Harris to Pete Buttigieg.

At its base is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Court’s role. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” However, the court was meant to be counter-majoritarian to protect minority groups and viewpoints from the majority will. Notably, this effort is not even popular with the majority. It is a power play to force major institutional changes through Congress, including radically changing a Court that is more popular than Congress itself.

Read more …

“The democratic socialist approach relies on one central idea: tearing down all the nation’s existing institutions and replacing them with a system that eliminates inequality by redistributing wealth and status.”

• Democratic Socialism: A Limited Appeal to Voters (Karnick)

The defeat of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member Francesca Hong in Wisconsin’s Democratic primary arrives as good news for the vast majority of Americans who are not among the DSA’s 120,000 members. It was, however, a very close race. Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who was endorsed by Gov. Tony Evers (a fellow Democrat), received 39.8 percent of the vote, to Hong’s 39.3 percent. Hong was a weak candidate and a poor standard-bearer for the DSA agenda, possessing none of the charisma and political talent of DSA superstar New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.


Hong’s charisma shortage limited her appeal to voters and led to the refusal of prominent DSA favorites Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to endorse her. The missing endorsements were probably dispositive in such a close race. I think Hong’s failure to get past the post in the Democrat primary illustrates a greater problem for the collectivist “democratic socialist” movement. The democratic socialist approach relies on one central idea: tearing down all the nation’s existing institutions and replacing them with a system that eliminates inequality by redistributing wealth and status to those who have allegedly been unfairly denied these things.

The movement necessarily relies on coercion, which it justifies through the fomenting of grievances against anyone who can be characterized as having done well for themselves under what the democratic socialists characterize as a fundamentally corrupt society built on racism, sexism, classism, imperialism, and other cruel isms that toxically masculine Euro-trash imposed on stolen land originally occupied by noble, ecologically conscious people of peace and universal benevolence who were cruelly eliminated by massacres, deliberately infected smallpox blankets, and truly awful real estate swindles.

Armed with the premise that freedom is the root cause of people’s suffering today and always, and intent on imposing universal equality (except for themselves, the pigs who are always more equal than others), the democratic socialists’ progressive predecessors (whom the media laughably call moderates) imposed collectivist remedies that inevitably backfired, making conditions steadily worse for decades.

High crime rates, mass homelessness, unaffordable housing, single-parent households, education decline, increasing economic inequality, and the like have all been caused by government policies ostensibly intended to help the needy. The proponents of these disastrous measures then use the increasingly dire resulting conditions to call for more power for themselves to solve the problems they created.

To deflect attention from their own culpability for these evils, the politicians and the media place the blame on people not on their team, such as “the wealthy.” They isolate and demonize these alleged enemies of all that is good and right, to delegitimize their unpleasant, embarrassing questions about causes and effects. That is how leftist politicians thrive even though their proposed solutions make things much worse. The greater the decline in economic and social conditions, the more blame and hatred they can heap on the out groups.

There is, however, an obvious problem with this type of scapegoating. If the out groups you are demonizing are too big, you won’t be able to gain a political majority, even with the help of a lot of cheating. Clearly, that is the real reason the DSA bigwigs refused to support Hong’s candidacy. In addition to calling for eliminating all police and prisons and claiming that “Police exist to uphold white supremacy,” Hong has a long history of Twitter/X statements targeting white people and “whiteness,” especially “old white dudes.”

Most notoriously, Hong wrote in 2019 of leaving a beloved Wisconsin fast-food restaurant because she was “on the verge of a [sic] anxiety attack” due to the presence of “to [sic] many old white people who didn’t think we spoke English.”

Four out of five people living in Wisconsin are white. The median age in the state is 40, above the national average, and 18.5 percent of Wisconsinites are 65 or older. Sixty-one percent self-identify as Christians. Donald Trump won the state’s presidential race with 49.6 percent of the vote in 2024. Just under half of Wisconsin’s population is male, of course. That is a lot of people to eliminate from your potential election coalition.

Hong’s defeat thus indicates a fundamental weakness of the DSA’s strategy and of collectivism in general. The necessary demonization of opponents eliminates ever-greater numbers of potential supporters. The party’s tent shrinks steadily as the list of scapegoated out-groups lengthens. This can work in places such as New York City and Chicago, at least for a while, as there are enough self-described victims (many of them very wealthy) to create majorities. In less-cosmopolitan locales like Wisconsin, aspiring autocrats must be much more careful about which voting groups they are willing to put publicly on the chopping block.

If DSA-affiliated candidates in those places speak too openly about their obsessions, their excessive zeal and candor could reduce the movement’s appeal significantly below its outlier status.It seems undeniable that the DSA and its political sympathizers agree with Hong on the issues. Where they evidently differ deeply is on the political viability of their agenda when its innate hostility to the great majority of Americans is honestly presented.

Clearly, leaders on the left believe concealment of the movement’s real foundations and extensive hatreds is far more important than the very small policy distance between Hong and Crowley. Similarly, suppression of the truth about democratic socialism is the obvious reason behind Ocasio-Cortez’s recent attempt to pretend she now believes “Woke One was crazy.” It’s all part of a strategy of hiding the full extent of the democratic socialists’ enemies list, not any change of policy, ideology, or the targets of their ire.

Read more …

“..we are in a modern medieval world.”

• The Left Is Dragging America Back to the Dark Ages (Victor Davis Hanson)

The more you look around us today, I think a good description of 2026, culturally, economically, socially, politically, is that we are in a modern medieval world.


Maybe we’re progressive regressives, and I don’t mean that just in the sense that progressives are regressive, and they are, but that one part of our society is advancing at lightning speed to the future and progressing. But the other part is regressing, and regressing at a phenomenal pace back to what I would call the medieval period.

Remember, the medieval period was roughly that area in time after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, roughly AD 500 to around AD 1300 to 1400, the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. In medievalism, we often talk about primitivism after the destruction of the classical world during the Dark Ages, the early medieval period, and it’s characterized by epidemics, bubonic plague, typhus, typhoid, smallpox, terrible sanitation in urban centers. They had forgotten the Roman use of sewage and aqueducts.

There were open borders. National states popped up that couldn’t defend themselves, so you saw castles and walls pop up all over the European countryside in a way you had not during the Roman period. In cities, they were walled, towns even, and the gates closed at dusk to prevent gratuitous crime.

But at the same time that this was happening, you had some of the greatest works of literature in the Western world. You had Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales,” Dante’s “Inferno,” St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica.” And if you look at the architectural expertise and scientific knowledge of architecture, it was progressing at a geometric rate when you look at the huge cathedrals at Seville or Cologne.

I should remind everybody that around 536, Santa Sofia was created, the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople. It would be the largest church in Christendom for a thousand years. And everything from the mass production of crossbows to eyeglasses was a product of the medieval period, even if, as I said, the daily lives of most people were wretched.

Now let’s switch to the modern period. All of us now can call anywhere in the world in seconds on our iPhones. Anything you want to know, past, present, future, you can just get on a cheap computer and ask an artificial intelligence program from the many free platforms. You can watch movies, you can watch entertainment on satellites. Anything you want is at your fingertips.

The nation itself is exploring space. We’re getting close to conquering cancer. I can attest to that. Computers allow you to write without even speaking. You can, unfortunately, compose a whole term paper or a book with AI. You can make a movie with AI.

Yet at the same time that’s happening, look at what’s going on in Berkeley here in California or Los Angeles. We’re seeing outbreaks of medieval diseases that we thought had been conquered years ago, given our sophisticated knowledge of sewage and water treatment. We had a typhus breakout in Los Angeles. We had leptospirosis, a rat disease, in Berkeley. You look at the homeless camps all over our major cities. People are just out in the open fornicating, urinating, defecating, injecting drugs. There’s tons of feces that has to be removed, and it’s so strange in this modern medievalism.

We have sophisticated researchers who go into a hospital in Chicago or go to a cancer center in San Francisco and have to check the bottoms of their shoes to make sure they don’t have feces as they go into their space-age laboratories. It’s really funny. In the medieval period, public hangings and beheadings were sort of public events that people flocked out to see. Is that any different than our glorification of murderers?

And there is a difference. Luigi Mangione, they named an opera after him in California. The killer of Charlie Kirk brought people jubilation. I won’t even get into Lindsay Clancy, who strangled her three children and became every woman to the feminist left. At least in the medieval period, they knew that the murderer had done something wrong and was being punished. In the post-medieval period, we are glorifying that murderer, and that’s really striking.

And so, what I’m getting at is we are the most regulated, the most advanced, the most modern, the most scientific society in history, even as we can’t solve problems that were solvable, and the medieval period would have died to know the solutions that we have in our hands to make sure we have clean water, to make sure there is no crime, to make sure there is no disease, to make sure that people don’t defecate on the street. But we don’t do it. We willingly don’t do it.

Now, the question to finish is why? We have an elite that has embraced a very toxic ideology throughout history, and that is mandated, government-sanctioned equality of result. And they have divided, therefore, to further that ideology, the world into victims and victimizers, an arbitrary classification, sometimes based on class, but increasingly on race.

And once they identify someone as a victim who’s not responsible for his plight, then it’s the duty of the society to allow him to express himself. If you have a lot of teenagers who want to loot a jewelry store, then you say they were hungry and they needed food. If you see homeless people living on the street, then it was because of something the majority culture did to them. And the result of that is when people engage in very dangerous antisocial behavior, an elite will tell the rest of us that they’re not subject to law enforcement or they’re not subject to the laws that apply to the rest of us. But there are two really pernicious addenda here.

No. 1, the people who do this on the left, who believe in this mandated equality and a binary of victim and victimizer, are never subject to the consequences of their own ideology. Nancy Pelosi‘s home is not surrounded by homeless people. Jane Fonda doesn’t have to trip over people injecting drugs when she walks outside her door. The Hollywood stars in Malibu who champion the homeless have very clear security. You can’t get near their homes.

In other words, we, the lab rats, are those upon whom they experiment. And there’s another reason as well. It’s not just that they experiment on us. and this ideology is not applicable to itself, but more importantly, they believe that they are morally superior because most of them are agnostics or atheists. They have lost their God, but they have found it in a post-Enlightenment caring, abstract though it may be, for victims.

And when you put this religious element to it, because it makes no sense to allow medieval diseases and medievalism to dominate your cities in crime, filth and homelessness, but they do it. They feel morally superior, and it gives them meaning in their life in a way that we, the majority, find not morally superior, but morally repugnant.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 27 2026

Aug 272026
 
 August 27, 2026  Posted by at 9:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  46 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Self portrait with palette 1906


• Hormuz And The Law Of Diminishing Returns: When Leverage Burns (ET)
• Talk of Ukrainian Victory Like ‘Groundhog Day’ – ex-US Official (RT)
• Ukraine Is Definitely Losing In Conflict — Kremlin (TASS)
• EU Buries Plan To Steal Russian Assets For Ukraine – EurActiv (RT)
• Ukraine a Western-Backed ‘Zelensky Concentration Camp’ – Moscow (RT)
• Zelensky Continues To Oppose Wartime Democracy (Weeks)
• CIA Director John Ratcliffe Visited Moscow (CTH)
• White House Press Release: “Ending Canada’s Free Ride” (CTH)
• Canada Trade Minister LeBlanc Makes Mark Carney Look Like an Idiot (CTH)
• China’s Data Center Psyop and the 100,000% Rounding Error (Stephen Green)
• Remembering Dolly Through the Song I Loved First (Chris Queen)
• Meta’s $18bn Reckoning For Social Media On Child Safety (BBC)
• James Carville Releases His Signature Uncut Product (Turley)

 


 

https://twitter.com/AdamMoczar/status/2092357395536359572?s=20 https://twitter.com/BasilTheGreat/status/2092526537526374759?s=20 https://twitter.com/NaomiSeibt/status/2092292533137101071?s=20

 


 


“The story of Iranian success and American failure fit expectations many already held. Contradictory evidence produced cognitive dissonance.”

• Hormuz And The Law Of Diminishing Returns: When Leverage Burns (ET)

For months, the assumption that the Strait of Hormuz was Tehran’s ultimate card dominated commentary on the war.


As a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas had historically passed, it appeared to be a chokepoint Iran could close or severely disrupt at will. It did not need to destroy every tanker. Hitting a small percentage with drones, cruise missiles, speedboats, or mines would spike insurance rates, deter crews and companies, and effectively shut the strait without continuous physical control.

This idea was not new for 2026. It had long been a feature of the Iranian strategic posture, treated as both a military instrument and a political myth-proof that even under pressure Tehran retained a decisive lever over the global energy system. Parts of the Western media and independent analysts amplified the same narrative.Relying on incomplete open-source shipping data, especially once vessels began sailing dark, many concluded that the United States had been caught unprepared and lacked a realistic path to reopen the waterway. Hormuz, they argued, was effectively closed or closable at Iran’s discretion. That framing was powerful, but also incomplete.

How the Threat Has Been Eroded
The assumption that Iran’s detection and targeting system could not be dismantled without dramatic escalation proved wrong. Under the U.S. Central Command, also known as CENTCOM, and with significant involvement from the Fifth Fleet and Air Force components, the United States ran a sustained effort to degrade the sensors Iran needed to find and hit ships. Iran relied on mobile truck-mounted radars, drones, cruise missiles, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) speedboats, and naval mines. Inside the narrow strait, ships move in relatively predictable lanes. Iran combined active radars with passive electro-optical and infrared cameras on elevated terrain and islands such as Qeshm, Larak, and Abu Musa.

Mobile radars would radiate briefly to locate shipping, then shut down and move before anti-radiation missiles could arrive. Once a ship’s approximate position was known, strike systems could be sent to search. The vulnerability was that every radar emission could be detected. American aircraft responded systematically with anti-radiation missiles while visual and intelligence efforts located the passive sensors. This was the core of what some involved called “draining the swamp.” Iran had redundancy, but the number of sensors was finite. Hundreds of precision strikes gradually reduced Iran’s ability to see traffic in the strait. As the detection layer thinned, the effectiveness of the strike systems declined with it.

Parallel efforts neutralized mines with unmanned vessels and declared the southern lane near Oman largely clear. Convoys moved under escort, often at night with the automated information system (AIS) off. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with Aegis radars and standard missile (SM)-family interceptors formed the backbone; drones and Apache helicopters armed with laser-guided rockets provided additional cover. American ships also engaged IRGC speedboats that closed on the convoys.

On the commercial side, the United States addressed insurance barriers. In early March, President Donald Trump directed the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide political risk insurance and guarantees for maritime trade. The DFC, working with the Treasury and CENTCOM, established a revolving reinsurance facility of roughly $20 billion-later expanded with private partners including Chubb-focused on hull, machinery, and cargo cover. Early uptake was limited. As Iranian success rates fell, more vessels joined.

Results have been significant. CENTCOM has reported assisting well over a thousand commercial vessels and moving hundreds of millions of barrels since the spring. Independent trackers often showed lower numbers because much of the traffic sailed dark. Pre-war throughput was 20 million to 21 million barrels per day. Flows through Hormuz remain below that, but combined with the Abu Dhabi-Fujairah pipeline and Saudi Arabia’s pipeline to Yanbu in the Red Sea, volumes recovered enough to keep oil prices in the $85 to $95 range-elevated, but far from the predicted catastrophe.

Not Seeing the True Picture
Public data lagged for both technical and psychological reasons. Ships that went dark during transit normally turned their AIS trackers back on afterward, so theoretically they could have been tracked and counted, yet matching was imperfect amid overlapping night movements, incomplete satellite reception, intermittent signals, and ship-to-ship transfers. Commercial trackers attempt corrections using imagery and other data, but confidence thresholds still produce undercounts relative to what escorting forces could see.

There was also a narrative reason. The story of Iranian success and American failure fit expectations many already held. Contradictory evidence produced cognitive dissonance. The common response was to protect the original frame-by applying greater skepticism to inconvenient details and treating quieter progress as temporary. In a contested information environment, narratives that confirm prior expectations often outlast those that require revision.

Read more …

“..Fyodorov stated in particular, “it seems that we are gradually, slowly, losing [in the conflict].”

• Ukraine Is Definitely Losing In Conflict — Kremlin (TASS)

Dmitry Peskov
The dynamics at the frontline clearly show that Ukraine is losing the conflict, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday. “The fact that Ukraine is losing the conflict is unequivocal and the dynamics in all frontline areas clearly demonstrate this,” Peskov said at a press briefing. His statement comes after Ukrainian ex-Defense Minister Mikhail Fyodorov’s interview with Reuters on Tuesday. Fyodorov stated in particular, “it seems that we are gradually, slowly, losing [in the conflict].”.
Read more …

“.. it is the same cycle of promise and despair, promise and failure that, again, has done nothing but cost the lives of both Russian and Ukrainian men and increasingly women,”

• Talk of Ukrainian Victory Like ‘Groundhog Day’ – ex-US Official (RT)


Steve Gill
Repeated claims that Ukraine is about to turn the tide against Russia and achieve a military victory are like being trapped in a time loop, a former White House official has told RT. The latest wave of media reports predicting a breakthrough in Kiev’s military campaign came on the heels of an escalation in Ukrainian long-range drone strikes on Russian oil refineries, retail warehouses, and cargo ships. Ukrainian officials claimed the attacks would pressure Moscow into accepting Kiev’s terms for a peace settlement.


Russia instead intensified its own strikes, virtually paralyzing crucial Ukrainian trade through Black Sea ports and inflicting other damage. On Sunday, President Vladimir Putin said Kiev was the one that “opened Pandora’s box.” “I feel like the old American movie ‘Groundhog Day’,” conservative media host Steve Gill, who served in the office of the US Trade Representative under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, told RT.

“How many times do we have to hear, ‘oh, it’s the spring offensive, the fall offensive, the summer offensive, the winter offensive that is going to win things for Ukraine? And it is the same cycle of promise and despair, promise and failure that, again, has done nothing but cost the lives of both Russian and Ukrainian men and increasingly women,” he added. Gill also suggested that Ukrainians who want to end the hostilities are in no position to do so because the country does not determine its own foreign policy.

“The ones who are making the decisions in Western Europe – and some in the United States, some who have the ear of President [Donald] Trump – are feeding misinformation and disinformation both through media and through the policymakers that is continuing the violence, continuing the death, and continuing this folly of Ukraine thinking that they’re somehow winning on the battlefield when nothing could be further from the truth,” he explained.

Read more …

“Obstacles to Brussels’ plan – including Belgium’s fierce opposition – remain the same ..”

• EU Buries Plan To Steal Russian Assets For Ukraine – EurActiv (RT)

The EU is highly reluctant to revive plans to steal more than $200 billion in frozen Russian sovereign reserves and hand them over to cash-strapped Ukraine, EurActiv reported on Tuesday, citing sources.


On Monday, European leaders flocked to Kiev in a show of solidarity for Ukraine, which marked its 35th Independence Day, but the talks quickly turned to the country’s numerous issues, including a substantial budgetary deficit. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky told European officials that his government still faces a €23.5 billion ($27.4 billion) shortfall on top of EU funding already promised and urged Brussels to accelerate the next instalment of its €90 billion support loan.

According to EurActiv, while the EU’s attention once again pivoted to the idea of confiscating around €210 billion of Russian funds immobilized in EU institutions, mostly in the Belgian-based Euroclear, “there is little sign the issue is about to return to the table in Brussels.” “The obstacles and the reservations by a number of member states haven’t changed,” a senior EU official told the outlet.

Last year, EU officials proposed a scheme to leverage the frozen Russian assets as collateral to issue a loan to Kiev, which it would repay only after receiving reparations from Moscow. Separately, the EU had already agreed to redirect net windfall profits generated by the immobilized assets to Ukraine.Russia has condemned the asset freeze as “theft,” ruled out paying any reparations to Ukraine, and has warned the EU of harsh retaliation if it confiscates the funds one way or another.

However, the scheme – which was championed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – met fierce opposition from a number of EU members, most notably Belgium. Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever argued that the plan would leave it uniquely exposed to legal and financial pushback from Russia. “

Taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s money and leaving the risks with [Belgium]. That’s not going to happen,” he said last year. Euroclear also vehemently opposed the seizure plot, at one point warning that it could sue the EU if the bloc tries to confiscate the assets. Several other EU leaders also raised concerns that confiscating Russian assets would erode international law and tarnish the bloc’s reputation and standing among investors.

Read more …

Kiev has descended into complete repression at home and “outright terror” against Russian civilians, the UN envoy has said ..

• Ukraine a Western-Backed ‘Zelensky Concentration Camp’ – Moscow (RT)

Ukraine has been transformed into a “Zelensky concentration camp” with Western assistance, Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said, accusing Kiev of suppressing dissent at home and increasingly resorting to attacks on civilians in Russia.


Nebenzia made the remarks at a UN Security Council meeting on Monday marking the 35th anniversary of Ukraine’s declaration of independence. The session was requested by the council’s five European members – Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, and the UK – which reiterated their full support for Kiev. The Russian diplomat questioned whether Ukraine has anything to celebrate, arguing that successive governments have run the country “into the ground” and that Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky accelerated the process.

“With the most active involvement of the countries of the collective West, which claim to be ‘civilized’ and ‘democratic,’ Ukraine has morphed into a ‘Zelensky concentration camp,’ where any dissent or opposition is completely prohibited and those who find the courage to voice an alternative point of view are thrown behind bars without trial or due process, or physically eliminated,” he said.

Nebenzia described the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the glorification of Nazi collaborators, and the suppression of shared history and the Russian language – including a ban on a popular Russian cartoon – as a “vivid illustration of the sheer wretchedness of Kiev’s rulers.”Amid a growing crackdown on dissent and a deteriorating battlefield situation, Kiev has now slipped into “outright terror against Russia’s civilian population,” Nebenzia said.

“Terror has become the last resort for Kiev in its attempt to reverse the situation that is not currently in its favor,” he added. “At the same time, Zelensky continues to beg his Western patrons for new shipments of weapons and ammunition, which are then used to hit Russian cities, residential areas, and civilian infrastructure.”The envoy said at least 475 Russian civilians were killed or injured in Ukrainian attacks from August 10 to 16 alone, with 69 fatalities, including children. He highlighted a strike on Nizhnekamsk that killed 13 people and wounded 78, as well as attacks in Novorossiysk, Rostov Region, and a number of towns in Donbass, which Kiev claims as its territory.

“It appears that Ukraine’s Western patrons, not to mention Zelensky himself, still harbor the dangerous illusion that further escalation, strikes deep inside our territory and terror against civilians will somehow force us to accept an ultimatum that is being pushed under the guise of peace.” Nebenzia said Russia retains the battlefield initiative and rejected calls for a temporary ceasefire that would give Kiev time to regroup and its Western sponsors time to rearm it. He warned that there would be no meaningful diplomatic process as long as Russia is confronted with ultimatums and threats while the reality on the ground is ignored.

Read more …

The nazis have total control now, including financially. they won’t give that up voluntarily.

• Zelensky Continues To Oppose Wartime Democracy (Weeks)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is facing mounting pressure to hold elections. The Ukrainian leader was elected to a five-year term in 2019, which expired in May 2024. Last week, Ukraine’s former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov publicly called for elections, breaking what has been characterized as a “wartime taboo” within the nation’s elite. He continued to demand elections over the weekend and also directly accused the Defense Ministry of corruption.


Fedorov is not the first high-profile Ukrainian figure to call for elections. Back in 2024, Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko denounced Zelensky and called him an “autocrat” for refusing to hold elections. But Fedorov is the first figure to have served within the upper echelons of the national government to publicly endorse the restoration of democracy. On Sunday, Zelensky released comments slamming Fedorov’s recommendation as a threat to Ukrainian national security. “I believe that if we want to destroy the country, then during such a war we can move in the selection of elections,” Zelensky said.

While Zelensky has portrayed wartime elections as an existential threat to all of Ukraine, he also said he would be open to elections if the nation’s allies secured “specific conditions” that would allow all military personnel and displaced civilians, millions of people, to participate. This pledge undid the myth that Ukraine is forbidden to hold wartime elections by its own constitution under material law. It is also such an unlikely scenario; Zelensky appears open to democracy while safely shielded from it. If elections were held, he would lose.

The challenge from Fedorov is significant because the 35-year-old was the youngest minister of defense in Ukraine’s history, and his firing last month triggered protests throughout the country. Despite having no military experience, the former tech entrepreneur was viewed as revolutionizing Ukraine’s drone warfare. He only served for a few months before a rift with Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander of Ukraine’s armed forces at the time, prompted Zelensky to fire him.

After protests broke out following Fedorov’s sacking, Zelensky tried to placate the people by firing Syrskyi as well. This has not turned down the temperature, as protestors want Fedorov reinstated. The anger is understandable. Zelensky and his administration are keeping the nation at war, and there is no end in sight. The war has been the justification for martial law, and the martial law has been the justification for the temporary, indefinite suspension of democracy.

Read more …

“.. the direction points to intelligence sharing or notification.”

• CIA Director John Ratcliffe Visited Moscow (CTH)

CIA Director John Ratcliffe made an unexpected visit to Moscow, Russia, today. According to flight data and new media reporting Director Ratcliffe flew into Latvia and from Latvia into Russia on a C-17 military transport plane.


VIA CBS – CIA Director John Ratcliffe is in Moscow, Russia, for meetings, sources familiar with the situation told CBS News on Tuesday. News of his trip comes after a U.S. Air Force Boeing C-17A Globemaster III transport plane was spotted at a Moscow airport, along with a U.S. diplomatic motorcade. Neither the U.S. nor Russian governments has commented on the identity of the U.S. official in Russia or the purpose of the visit. The CIA did not immediately comment. It appears to be Ratcliffe’s first known trip to Russia as CIA director, though he has maintained contact with Russian intelligence counterparts. (more)

VIA AXIOS – CIA director John Ratcliffe is visiting Moscow on Tuesday for talks with Russian officials, two U.S. officials said. Why it matters: This is Ratcliffe’s first trip to Moscow since he took office and the highest-level visit by a Trump administration official to Russia since January. Ahead of Ratcliffe’s trip, the U.S. told Ukraine that a senior delegation was traveling to Moscow and asked it to suspend strikes until it leaves, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. (link) We shall not speculate too much on the purpose and intent of the visit; however, overall, the direction points to intelligence sharing or notification.

Recently the British announced they would be sharing “storm shadow missile” technology with Ukraine in order for Ukraine to build them for themselves. The Storm Shadow (also known as SCALP-EG in France) is a Franco-British, long-range, air-launched cruise missile used for precision deep-strike attacks against high-value targets. Essentially, the Storm Shadow missile is the U.K version of the Tomahawk cruise missile.

Ukraine would be building those missiles with money provided by the EU from the confiscated Russian sovereign wealth fund. Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin likely doesn’t appreciate that very much. According to Visegrad, “President Putin had a major event scheduled for today, with hundreds of people preparing for it. The event was canceled due to the visit of the CIA director, according to Kremlin pool journalists.” CIA Director John Ratcliffe is now returning home from Moscow.

Read more …

Trudeau and Carney are girls dressed as guys. Trump has no time for that. If they were just normal people, he’d be very nice to them.

• White House Press Release: “Ending Canada’s Free Ride” (CTH)

Hopefully CTH readers have followed this story close enough to be able to predict where it ends. The White House has released an official and scathing press release outlining the lengthy and long-term issues with Canada and trade disputes.


WHITE HOUSE – Canada has been ripping off the United States for decades — and President Donald J. Trump is done letting them get away with it. Last week, the U.S. offered Canada the most preferential market access of any country on Earth, with deep cuts on steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and more. Instead of partnership, Canada chose unreasonable demands, walk-backs, and flat-out rejection.

The record of Canadian abuse is clear and deliberate:

• FACT: Canada is joined only by the People’s Republic of China in choosing retaliation over negotiation. Their continued discriminatory treatment of U.S. commerce has burdened American workers, farmers, and businesses.

• FACT: Canada alone imposed discriminatory 25% tariffs and company-specific quotas on U.S. motor vehicles — measures applied to no other country. As a result, U.S. vehicle exports to Canada crashed 22% over the last year.

• FACT: Canada banned American wine, beer, and spirits in nearly every province and territory — while other countries have faced no such restrictions. As a result, U.S. alcohol exports to Canada collapsed 81% in a single year.

• FACT: Canada locks out U.S. dairy with tariff-rate quotas far more restrictive than those given to Europe, plus over-quota tariffs of nearly 300% — rates so extreme they function as a near-total ban and rank among the highest agricultural tariffs in the developed world.

• FACT: Canada has extracted a persistent average annual goods trade deficit of roughly $50 billion from the U.S. over the last decade — while refusing reciprocal access. FACT: Canada targeted American aerospace manufacturer Gulfstream for years. They effectively prohibited the sale of its G500, G600, G700, and G800 models while shielding its own competitor — until President Trump intervened.

• FACT: Canada’s protectionist barriers — discriminatory auto quotas, alcohol bans, and dairy lockouts — have hammered American companies. This has cost U.S. producers billions in lost sales, forced layoffs, and driven market share to foreign competitors who face none of the same restrictions.

• FACT: Without the United States, Canada could not survive. Canada sends roughly three-quarters of all its goods exports to America — and the U.S. market is where Canada gets the overwhelming majority of its money and economic oxygen.

• FACT: Canada’s failed trade policies are driving its own manufacturers south. A recent survey found 42% of Canadian manufacturers have already moved or are planning to move production to the U.S.

• FACT: Canada is doubling down on tariffs targeting American workers. Canada just announced an additional $27.6 billion in tariffs on American businesses — including a 50% tariff on American steel and aluminum, a 25% tariff on American fish, and a 25% tariff on American tools.

• FACT: The U.S. economy is approximately 13 times larger than the Canadian economy and home to over eight times as many people. The United States has the clear leverage. President Trump said it best: “Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable. They feel entitled, but they are not a State and will be entitled no longer!” Canadian leadership chose retaliation over partnership — and America is no longer willing to carry them.

Read more …

D’oh Canada

“..,Outlines the Fracture Points and ..”:

• Canada Trade Minister LeBlanc Makes Mark Carney Look Like an Idiot (CTH)

–There are many people in Canada demanding to see the rough draft proposals of the U.S-Canada trade agreement so they can judge for themselves the issues that Carney claimed were irreconcilable. For those people this interview today by Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc will only embolden those requests.

Trade Emissary LeBlanc outlined the major fracture points that drove Prime Minister Mark to reject the deal. I’ll put the full interview below which everyone should watch because what LeBlanc outlined is rather funny. Carney was obviously looking for a reason to walk away, because the fracture points were ridiculously small.

Essentially, it boils down to four issues. !1) Removal of tariffs on Canadian assembled Semi-Trucks. (2) U.S. streaming services writing code for “search engines” in the French language. (3) Canada demanding 5% of gross revenues from U.S. tech platforms, and the last one is silly because it already exists: (4) the U.S. having a right to reject a trade deal made by Canada with a non-market economy, ie. CHINA.

Taking the issues one by one we start with

• U.S. tariffs on Canadian Semi Trucks. Canada wanted tariffs on Big Rigs removed. The U.S. said no. The reason is simple. Big Rigs assembled/built in Canada are falling apart in the USA. Why? Because they are full of cheap Chinese component goods and parts that wear out quickly. The U.S. wants two things on this issue. Either: (1) Make them in the USA, or (2) stop using cheap Chinese component parts. The parts that Canada are using are not even available in the USA because we tariff and reject them, so why should we accept them when Canada installs them? Either quit using Chinese parts (hence, the trade alignment against Chinese imports), or accept a tariff equal to the rate we would apply if the product was coming directly from China.

• U.S. tariffs on Canadian Semi Trucks. Canada wanted tariffs on Big Rigs removed. The U.S. said no. The reason is simple. Big Rigs assembled/built in Canada are falling apart in the USA. Why? Because they are full of cheap Chinese component goods and parts that wear out quickly. The U.S. wants two things on this issue. Either: (1) Make them in the USA, or (2) stop using cheap Chinese component parts. The parts that Canada are using are not even available in the USA because we tariff and reject them, so why should we accept them when Canada installs them? Either quit using Chinese parts (hence, the trade alignment against Chinese imports), or accept a tariff equal to the rate we would apply if the product was coming directly from China.

• Intellectual Property. Canada was demanding 5% of U.S. tech platform gross revenue (not profit, gross), they call it a tax. Canada then uses the “tax revenue” to subsidize Canadian media and information platforms that promote the approved government message. In essence, Canada demands that information providers pay them 5% of their revenue so that Canada can subsidize information providers they approve of. This is what the Canadian government calls “cultural protection.” In reality it is state-run media using a financial system that would make Vladimir Putin blush.

• U.S. Right to Limit Canadian Trade Deals. This point is exponentially ridiculous for Canada to be upset about because the current USMCA/CUSMA already has that clause. The U.S (or Mexico) can exit the USMCA if Canada enters into a trade agreement with a “non-market” economy, ie China. [USMCA Sec 32:10]

Canada was already in violation of the USMCA/CUSMA when they entered into a trade agreement with China and agreed to import Chinese EVs. This action triggered the U.S. to become more focused on the stuff Canada was going to import; hence, the renewed emphasis on the clause.

That’s it. Prime Minister Mark Carney blew up the trade discussion based on his demand that: Canada should be allowed to make any deal they want with China; that Chinese component parts be allowed in Canadian assembled Semi Trucks; that streaming services install a French language search engine; and that tech platforms pay him to censor information and subsidize official narratives.

In other words, Mark Carney was looking for an excuse/justification not to make a trade deal, and make a political statement that would appeal to the uber leftist French Québécois and his partners in Beijing.

Clear enough?

Here’s Dominic LeBlanc:

Read more …

“.. a teensy little 100,000% rounding error, about how much water data centers require ”

• China’s Data Center Psyop and the 100,000% Rounding Error (Stephen Green)

When I take a particularly cute photo of my 14-week-old puppy, I click the little heart button right there in my camera app. Without me doing anything else, the next time a screensaver comes up — on my laptop, my desktop, or even on the massive living room TV — the new pic joins the older photos scrolling by. Thank you, data centers.


Earlier this year, my wife was delayed by weather bringing our sons home from the airport after their first No Parents! trip together, so she hit the Share ETA button on the CarPlay screen in her Jeep. Virtually instantaneously, I got an alert on my phone letting me know they’d be late and not to worry. Thank you very much for that one, data centers. Sure, the internet is a “series of tubes,” as everyone must be aware by now, but the data doesn’t flow through them on its own.

Yes, AI requires bigger and more energy-hungry data centers — and we can’t seem to get enough AI. AI is either going to evolve itself into Skynet to kill us all, or deliver enough productivity growth to eliminate the deficit and make our accumulated debt look puny. I’m somewhere in the middle. I fully expect someday that my domestic help robot will somehow manage to kneecap me, but will then prove invaluable in nursing me back to health while still keeping the house tidy.

But none of it — not our messaging apps, not our GPS apps, not the website you’re reading right now — none of it works without data centers. To a surprising degree, data centers are the internet. And this country’s embrace of the internet is perhaps the most important among several reasons we left Europe in the economic dust. I’d also add that the reputable messaging apps are generally encrypted end-to-end, so for the first time in history, the general public’s default way of talking to one another, sharing photos, locations, and the like, is secure from prying eyes.

So why all the data center hate? While nearly all of it is ginned up, in my opinion, much of it rests on a “mistake,” a teensy little 100,000% rounding error, about how much water data centers require in Karen Hao’s purportedly nonfiction book, Empire of AI. Here you go:

As it turns out, data centers — all data centers; not just the ones dedicated to AI — use less water than golf courses do. In fact, they use a fraction of 1% so small compared to golf courses that it actually could be a rounding error. And yet I can’t log into X without seeing everyone from Bernie Sanders (CPUSA-Vt. Oblast) to low-follower randos calling for a moratorium on data center construction. Remember when 5G radio waves were going to melt our brains and sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids? This is that, but even more important to combat.

But here’s where it really gets weird. I follow this stuff professionally, yet even I had to have a colleague share a link on X — no mainstream media source, naturally — to learn about Hao and her little tiny error. Even though she “discovered” her mistake in November of 2025, the whole data center controversy didn’t gain steam until the summer of 2026. Something stinks — and here is Blume Industries to explain: “Just gonna remind you the journo who produced the bogus water data for data centers now lives in Hong Kong. I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure it out from there.”

So yeah, I’m completely comfortable calling the sprang-up-outta-nowhere data center “debate” a Communist Chinese psyop to kneecap our high-tech edge over the People’s Republic.

Read more …

“That’s part of the God-given talent you’re born with. It’s not something you can teach.”

• Remembering Dolly Through the Song I Loved First (Chris Queen)

I’ve written extensively here and on my Substack about the musical influences on my life. My mom and aunts were the primary agents of my musical exposure. My mom was a massive fan of The Carpenters and early Beatles, and she had the radio on all the time in the car. My aunts opened my ears to what we now call “classic rock.”


My dad was a different story. His musical tastes were much narrower in the ‘70s. I remember that he had a sticker advertising WPLO, a country station, on his Jeep, but I remember him listening to WBIE (I can still hear the jingle: “WBIE! Georgia’s! Country! Giant!”). He also had two 8-tracks: One was a greatest-hits compilation from Porter Wagoner and Dolly Parton, and the other was what was then Dolly’s current album, Here You Come Again.

The title track connected my parents’ distinct musical worlds. Since it was Dolly’s first hit to crossover to the pop music marketplace, I heard it on the radio in our apartment or in the car with my mom, and I also heard it on the 8-track when I was riding with my dad. I might be wrong, but I think “Here You Come Again” was the first radio song that I learned all the lyrics to. My mom also had the sheet music, and I remember her playing it as I sang along. It was one of my favorite songs on the radio at the time, and it remains my favorite Dolly track.

The album was part of a calculated move on the part of Dolly and her management team to expand her horizons beyond country radio. Her previous album, 1977’s self-produced New Harvest … First Gathering, deliberately incorporated pop and R&B elements but made no splash outside the country marketplace.

For Here You Come Again, Parton turned to Los Angeles-based producer Gary Klein, who enlisted top-notch studio musicians, including keyboardist (and later ultra-pop producer) David Foster and drummer Jim Keltner, to play on the album. The title track, which was also to serve as the first single, wasn’t one of Dolly’s compositions. Instead, “Here You Come Again” came from the pens of Brill Building stalwarts Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil.

Side note: I was precocious enough at age five to be able to read the lyrics and credits on the sheet music. I saw those names, and I couldn’t believe that people would sing songs that other people wrote unless they were in a movie! Even though the album — and especially its title cut — was part of a specific strategy to launch Dolly to pop stardom, Dolly wasn’t about to leave country behind. She talked Klein into adding subtle steel guitar to “Here You Come Again,” and that small detail helped ground the song in both stylistic camps.

Listeners could tell that this song was something different from the intro. Mix Online explains: The rhythm section on the track included Dean Parks (guitar), David Foster (keyboards), David Hungate (bass) and Jim Keltner (drums). The track opens with Foster’s Fender Rhodes. He recalls the session as fairly groundbreaking:

“I played the Fender Rhodes on the basic track,” Foster says. “Then I came up with the idea of duplicating exactly the same part on the acoustic piano, something I—or to my knowledge, no one—had ever done before. It became an interesting sound that years later became a stock ‘push of a button’ sound on many synthesizers, which some even called ‘Fosterized.’ “Also, I remember that while waiting to overdub the acoustic piano, no music was playing in my headphones and the tape op [second engineer] suddenly realized that he still had every track In Record and he ended up erasing about the first 20 seconds of the master,” Foster continues. “They had to go to an earlier take, splice them together and then I did my overdub acoustic piano part.”

Keltner and engineer Armin Steiner said that Dolly’s scratch vocals, which she recorded live with the band, were so good that some of them made the finished record. The arrangement proved that even though “Here You Come Again” was tailor-made for both country and pop radio, it wasn’t a simple track. The song crosses five keys throughout its journey, which made the song even more effective. If you’re not musically inclined, you may think I’m geeking out a bit; if so, skip a paragraph or two. ChatGPT helped me chart out those key changes.

“Here You Come Again” key changes
The key changes get Mann and Weil’s point across: Whenever Dolly (as the protagonist) thinks she’s gotten it all together, here comes that old flame back into her life to knock her off her equilibrium. Each time she thinks she has regained her footing, the song returns in a new key, familiar but no longer quite where she left it. Even before I was better versed in music, I knew that there was something about the sound of the song that was interesting and different.

The crossover gamble paid off. “Here You Come Again” hit number three on the Billboard Hot 100 and number two on the easy listening charts, but it also spent five weeks atop the country charts and won her a Grammy for Best Country Vocal Performance, Female — her first. Better still, it launched her career into the stratosphere. The band and crew recognized something special in Dolly. Her talent and personality dovetailed to make her more than just an ordinary entertainer.

“As a human being—forget about her great gifts as an entertainer— this is the one of the most delightful people we’ve ever had in the entertainment industry,” Steiner told Mix Online. “As a human being, she’s extraordinary. And she has such a beautiful voice, an incredibly identifiable sound, identifiable diction; she’s a fine writer and a great interpreter of lyrics. You believed what she sang. It’s all part of the talent and part of the human being. That’s part of the God-given talent you’re born with. It’s not something you can teach.”


Nearly half a century later, I can appreciate the craftsmanship that I couldn’t have understood at five: Foster’s layered keyboards, the subtle steel guitar, the improbable sequence of key changes, and Dolly’s effortless vocal holding it all together. But when I hear “Here You Come Again,” I still hear my mom playing it on the piano, the radio in her car, and that 8-track in my dad’s Jeep.

Dolly made a record that she intended to cross musical boundaries without leaving its country identity behind, and in our family, it did exactly that. It brought my parents’ different musical worlds together and gave me a song that has followed me for most of my life. Now, whenever those opening notes begin, here she comes again — and for three minutes, I’m five years old all over again.

Read more …

Too big to fail.

“The worst-case scenario [..] was $1.4tn [..] up to $18bn (over a period of 10 years) is significantly smaller. Meta is not admitting to any wrongdoing…

“Instagram and Facebook’s billions of users provide the company with a goldmine of data, and the data of adults can be used to sell ads.”

• Meta’s $18bn Reckoning For Social Media On Child Safety (BBC)

Meta’s decision to agree to an $18bn (£13.3bn) settlement on Wednesday, to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children, came as a surprise. I was expecting weeks of courtroom drama as 29 states – almost two-thirds of North America – took on one US tech giant.Technically, the trial was about children’s online privacy. It was based on a US law called the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is nearly 30 years old and predates all of today’s biggest social platforms. It centred around Meta’s historic gathering and use of data belonging to children under the age of 13 over a period of several years.


In reality, it was a co-ordinated attack on the firm’s online safety credentials.Meta, alongside other social media apps, is under fire around the world as 2026 is shaping up to be a year of reckoning for the entire industry – perhaps our days of doomscrolling are numbered. Meta has fought hard, over multiple lawsuits spanning many months and at great expense, to defend its commitment to protecting children on its platforms. More than once, I’ve been invited to detailed presentations at Meta’s London HQ, where senior executives have walked journalists like me through the many safety tools the company has launched over the years designed to give children better protection on its apps.

I have also met the parents of young people who have come to harm on those same platforms, and others who admit to being totally overwhelmed by the sheer number of safety tools that require their oversight – at the last count Meta had more than 60 of them, and that was just on Instagram. The trial went on for just five days, and came to an end before CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the stand. But it was rough for Meta. Whistleblower Arturo Bejar, who once worked at Instagram, claimed that in the past he had told bosses that harmful stuff was happening to children on the platform, and no action was taken.

Another executive said he didn’t remember writing on a slide deck that sometimes Meta chose to pay fines for violating regulations rather than make changes. Internal memos suggested that the firm knew opt-in tools tended to have low adoption rates, and yet it still launched safety features that were not switched on by default. There had been intense speculation that Meta would have faced hundreds of billions of dollars in fines if it had lost. The worst-case scenario, which would have been the maximum penalty imposed for every single child who used one of its platforms for more than half an hour a day during a 12-year window, was $1.4tn (£1tn) – roughly the same as the company’s entire value.

That of course was never going to happen, but a more realistic figure was still in the hundreds of billions. By comparison, up to $18bn (over a period of 10 years) is significantly smaller. Meta is not admitting to any wrongdoing. You could argue that settling protects its core business – social networks are still the way in which it makes most of its money. Instagram and Facebook’s billions of users provide the company with a goldmine of data, and the data of adults can be used to sell ads. Meta may say it is now laser-focused on AI, but it still needs the vast revenue generated by its social apps.

What is Meta changing?
As part of the settlement, the social media giant has agreed to make a number of changes to the way Instagram and Facebook operate for its youngest users. Some experts say it is long overdue. The new safety barriers include a two-hour time limit across both platforms, which will be a default setting for known teen users. But direct messaging on the platforms will not count towards the daily use limit.Notifications will be muted between midnight and 06:00 and on school days between 08:00 and 15:00.Likes on posts and content will also be entirely hidden on the platforms for teens.

Most of these new features will be made either default or an option for teens within six months. However, new efforts by Meta to better identify which users on its platforms are children will take up to a year to be rolled out. I would be surprised if these measures remain within the confines of the US for very long, as other countries will almost certainly be keen to adopt them too. Meta also says the new features will only truly help children if all of its rivals adopt them as well. It’s a highly competitive industry, but given the global backlash against social media and its impact on children, perhaps others like TikTok and Snapchat may have to follow suit.

The question then is whether children will still bother with them, once they are deliberately toned down into a much blander offering. And perhaps that would bring the social media era to a natural end, as existing adults gradually aged out of it. Arturo Bejar, the ex-Instagram engineer turned whistleblower, says the proof of the pudding will be in whether the new teen safety features are effective. “At the end of the day, Meta needs to be held accountable for results, not efforts,” he told me.

Read more …

“Do you really wanna live in a world without Coca-Cola?”

• James Carville Releases His Signature Uncut Product (Turley)

In Breaking Bad, the character Walter White explains to a major drug dealer why cheaper knockoffs of his signature Blue Sky methamphetamine are just not enough: “So… it’s grade-school tee-ball vs. the New York Yankees. Yours is just some tepid… off-brand, generic cola. What I’m making is classic Coke.”


This week, James Carville released his own uncut, undiluted classic product to a nation of rage addicts. Blue Sky rage. What set off Carville was telling. He and others were outraged that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries met with Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser Jared Kushner to discuss areas of common ground. Such dialogue “with the enemy” is unthinkable in an “age of rage,” particularly for someone like Carville who previously threatened that, once Democrats are back in power, Trump supporters would be treated the same way as Nazi collaborators after World War II.

Carville went into his signature berserker trance on his podcast appropriately called the “Politics War Room”: “These people are a pack of felons and traitors, and you do not meet with them! You do not meet with them. There’s only one thing you can do with people that you genuinely believe deep inside of every fabric of your body are a pack of thieves and a pack of traitors.” As usual, Carville delivers the line with the intensity of a man seconds away from a self-induced stroke. The message, however, is clear. Anyone seeking a middle ground or compromise is a traitor and will be dealt with the same way as collaborators once Democrats regain power.

What is really on display is rage politics. When you feed this addiction, you have to keep your product pure to avoid the pain of rage withdrawal. Carville is asking Democrats the same question as Walter White: “Do you really wanna live in a world without Coca-Cola?” Go with the classic. Go with the rage. Over on the social media safe space for liberals, BlueSky, Carville is being heralded as a prophet of furor. It was a perfect combination. BlueSky was created for liberals to remove themselves, particularly from X, because of conservatives returning to social media after years of censorship.

The media billed BlueSky as the future, as many predicted the rapid death of X. It did not exactly work out that way. Many liberal influencers proclaiming their abandonment of X never actually left and many others have returned. BlueSky is now little more than a progressive boutique in comparison to X. It has an estimated 43 million users as opposed to as many as 600 million for X. (Monthly active users drop to around 27 million versus more than 300 million). Yet, the business model of BlueSky is to offer a protected zone for liberals to rave amongst themselves without the distraction of as many opposing views or voices.

It is a social platform that is premised on the same “you do not meet with them” screed of Carville.Recently, Carville has lashed out at the far left of his party, such as Democratic Socialists, over their radical agenda. However, he and other establishment figures are primarily objecting to the fact that these radical policies will not succeed in the election and return them to power.

Carville has no problem trashing the system to secure and maintain power. He previously called for packing the Supreme Court, but notably told Democrats not to actually talk about it: “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F—k it. Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

Other Democratic leaders continue to try to co-opt the mob for their own uses. Senate Minority Leader dismissed questions about the DSA platform in eliminating the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Senate. These are small differences, according to Schumer, compared with the need to win elections: “Not everyone has the same exact view on every single issue.”

One of those small disagreements is the very existence of the institution that Schumer so desperately wants to lead.Carville and Schumer, however, appear to agree on the key element of the political strategy in keeping the rage alive. The greatest threat to that strategy is any dialogue of Democrats with their Republican neighbors. If reason were to break out before the elections, all could be lost.

The effort reflects the fact that the rage in an age of rage eventually burns off. People look into a mirror on both sides and realize that we have become grotesque like Carville by yielding (indeed enjoying) the anger and hate. Once people start to talk again, it is harder to hate so completely and blindly that hate traffickers need.So Blue Sky rage is hitting the streets. The Classic coke of hate to be injected directly into the veins of a nation of rage addicts. After all, as Walter White asked his fellow traffickers, “Do you really wanna live in a world without Coca-Cola?”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2092344675533561922?s=20 https://twitter.com/AmericaPartyX/status/2092345401512718753?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 13 2026

Aug 132026
 
 August 13, 2026  Posted by at 9:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  32 Responses »


Pable Picasso Le Pengouin 1907


• Trump: US Controls Hormuz Strait, ‘I Think We Will Keep It’ (ZH)
• Why We Fight (Kenneth R. Timmerman)
• How Zelensky Misread Donald Trump (Ryumshin)
• The US Is Facing A New Red Menace – From Within (Robert Bridge)
• Patriots Won’t Let Communists Take America (J.B. Shurk)
• The Mohammunist Manifesto – ‘Transitional Phase’ Slaughter (Milli Sands)
• Swedish PM Calls Spanish Illegal Immigrant Amnesty ‘Very Bad Idea’ (ET)
• President Trump Announces Release of Robert Gilman from Russian Jail (CTH)
• The Spendthrift State (Thomas Kolbe)
• Mike Lindell Gets Crushed in Minnesota Primary (CTH)
• Gavin Newsom, the DSA, and the Danton Delusion (Turley)
• Police and Federal Govt Use of Flock Cameras Under Scrutiny (CTH)
• Karoline Leavitt Resigns as White House Press Secretary (Sarah Anderson)

 


 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2086895440008765531?s=20 https://twitter.com/Q_TheStormRider/status/2087196480754880591?s=20

 


 


The boa constrictor squeezing its prey:

” Tehran is rationing scarce goods, limiting access to foreign currency, slashing investment and shifting more of the burden onto households while preserving strategic imports and the essential machinery of the state, analysts say. The result will be a deepening economic malaise that leads to rising poverty and dysfunction, but also more room for Iran’s leaders to stall talks with the U.S.”

• Trump: US Controls Hormuz Strait, ‘I Think We Will Keep It’ (ZH)

In his latest Wednesday Truth Social post, Trump issues a familiar refrain (one that will likely be on repeat up to the November midterms), claiming that the USA has “total control” over the Strait of Hormuz and “I think we will keep it”. It’s also yet more confirmation that he’s opting for economic siege warfare as the US military campaign is on halt. He also did his bizarre “Praise be to Allah!” sign off…


Iran’s Military Leadership: ‘Victory is on Our Side’
It has become beyond obvious that there is no broader peace process and that things are in a stalemated situation amid what’s broadly seen as a Washington retreat from military confrontation, leaving Iran to press its own vision of management over the Strait of Hormuz with Oman. While President Trump has settled into a waiting game which once again bets on sanctions and economic warfare to eventually force Tehran to bend, Iranian military leaders are declaring that “victory is on our side”.


The Wall Street Journal has noted that the Islamic Republic has entered a ‘survival economy’ with the country’s rulers “taking time-tested steps to keep their chronically battered economy functioning just enough to resist a drawn-out campaign.” There’s no doubt that infrastructure along with various key industries and the Iranian currency has been severely tested and battered, but the WSJ outlines strategies of this survival mode as follows: Tehran is rationing scarce goods, limiting access to foreign currency, slashing investment and shifting more of the burden onto households while preserving strategic imports and the essential machinery of the state, analysts say. The result will be a deepening economic malaise that leads to rising poverty and dysfunction, but also more room for Iran’s leaders to stall talks with the U.S.

That leaves Trump’s strategy resting on a risky assumption that Iran will crack before Washington does. Mediators have warned their U.S. counterparts that Iran has been living under sanctions for years and betting that Tehran will compromise because of economic pressure won’t likely yield results. Instead, Iran will likely continue to escalate attacks to raise the price for Washington and its allies. Such a ‘risky assumption’ was on display from even the very start of Operation Epic Fury nearly six months ago and nothing has fundamentally changed in terms of the Iranian system ‘cracking’. Within merely the first two weeks of war back in early March, we highlighted some of Washington’s persisting false assumptions in: Escalation Trap: Misreading Iran’s Internal Power Dynamics.

Stalled Talks, Maximum Conditions
Meanwhile, Gulf and regional mediators are still clinging to hope that some form of ceasefire can limp along and be put back in full force, also with efforts to get the US and Iran talking again. As a Wednesday, per Bloomberg: Pakistan said the 60-day deadline for a US-Iran MoU may be extended, but the larger peace process has stalled. Earlier, Donald Trump said the US “totally” controls the Strait of Hormuz. Oil wavered. Neither of these things are true – at this point the MoU is dead with Iran weeks ago having already pulled out while declaring in null. Also, if the US military ‘totally’ controlled the strait then there would be no crisis that must be ‘resolved’ and global oil would be transiting at full tilt again. https://twitter.com/DropSiteNews/status/2087365843621441538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2087365843621441538%7Ctwgr%5E0f2dd7c340b2d70ae43831ddb04b47bed613fa07%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Firan-rejects-us-pressure-enters-survival-economy-mediators-desperate-restored-mou

Read more …

If anyone has any doubts as to why we are fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work on Iran. His latest work of non-fiction, The Iran House: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue, is available from Bombardier Books.

• Why We Fight (Kenneth R. Timmerman)

If it weren’t for the support that Russia and China have been providing Iran, the United States could have gone to the United Nations and invoked Chapter VII of the UN charter that authorizes member nations to use “all necessary measures” — including military action — to restore international peace and security, just as we did twice in wars against Saddam Hussein. We actually tried that in May, with the predictable result that both the Chinese and the Russians threatened to veto any resolution against Iran.


Since then, both the Brits and the French have said they would join an international mine-sweeping force, and then promptly backed out when it became obvious that mines were not only still present in the Strait but that the IRGC was going to attack any ships trying to remove them. So much for the international “order.” And so much for our allies.That leaves President Trump with the course he has followed in recent weeks: apply just enough force to keep the IRGC on its heels, while not triggering a massive spike in oil prices or spooking international markets. He has succeeded on all three counts, extremely significant accomplishments.

But the United States cannot just “walk away and go home” if our diplomacy fails, as Vice President JD Vance suggested recently in his very unfortunate three-hour appearance on the Joe Rogan show. There is that pesky second demand that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, reports from Israel resurfaced an earlier claim by the current IRGC Chief, Ahmad Vahidi, that Iran would continue to develop nuclear weapons as long as the United States and Israel possessed them. “If they disarm, we will disarm,” he reportedly said.

There has been some parsing of that quote in recent days. One Iranian commentator claimed that the correct quote was this: “As long as the United States and Israel possess nuclear weapons, activities related to national security will not cease.” Sorry, but in IRGC-speak, that means exactly the same thing.In the end, whether Vahidi made those public comments or not makes little difference. There is no other explanation for the massive expenditures on uranium enrichment, buried nuclear sites, the Iranian regime’s absolute refusal to discuss its nuclear programs, or the recent revelations about Mount Kalang (aka “Pickaxe Mountain”).

The Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons, and thank God they don’t yet have them, or they would have already used them on Israel or on us, either in direct attacks or in EMP mode to destroy our electric power grid and send us back to the 1880s, when the United States could support a population of between 80 to 90 million. This is a regime that has already acted out its intentions to wipe Israel off the map, and has shown its willingness to destroy the entire civilian infrastructure of its Persian Gulf neighbors, including their desalination plants. If anyone has any doubts as to why we are fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.

Read more …

“Why the carefully planned White House visit was doomed from the start..”

• How Zelensky Misread Donald Trump (Ryumshin)

Another season of the ‘win over Donald Trump’ game has begun, and this time it was Vladimir Zelensky’s turn. Last week, the Ukrainian leader made his first visit to the United States this year, a trip widely billed as potentially decisive. The atmosphere could hardly have been more different from his visits in 2025, when Zelensky travelled to Washington like a man walking toward a firing squad. This time he arrived projecting confidence, buoyed by promises from supporters that a diplomatic breakthrough was within reach.


The build-up reflected those expectations, and a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign accompanied the visit as much of the Western mainstream media greeted Zelensky with glowing coverage. Several MAGA-aligned bloggers, previously hostile to Kiev, unexpectedly adopted a friendlier tone, while Republican senators added pressure by reviving Lindsey Graham’s proposed “hellish sanctions” bill after the lawmaker’s death and the EU dispatched Finnish President Alexander Stubb as a visible show of support.

Zelensky also tried to strengthen his hand by raising tensions with Iran to reinforce the image of a common threat, reportedly bringing what was described as valuable intelligence on America’s adversaries to the White House and, for good measure, even abandoning his usual military-style clothing in favor of something closer to a suit.

One can only imagine how much political capital and money Kiev and its allies invested in preparing this visit, but the problem is that the returns appear remarkably modest. The immediate objective may have been achieved, given there was no repeat of the disastrous Oval Office confrontation of February 2025, when Zelensky left Washington after a public clash with US President Donald Trump, but avoiding disaster isn’t the same as achieving success.

The Ukrainian had two principal goals, securing additional American military assistance and persuading Trump to adopt a tougher position towards Russia, but behind those broad aims lay countless practical issues, from Patriot missile production licenses to future weapons deliveries. However, the entire conversation reportedly lasted less than an hour.

That matters, because anyone familiar with Donald Trump understands that formal meeting times can be deceptive, and those who have worked with him have long remarked that discussions often revolve around his own stories and observations, leaving surprisingly little time to address detailed policy questions. Whether or not that characterization is entirely fair, an hour was plainly insufficient to tackle the wide range of issues Zelensky had hoped to resolve, and there was not any meaningful change in Trump’s public position afterwards.

There were no new military aid packages. There was no dramatic escalation of pressure on Moscow and no particularly enthusiastic endorsement of Zelensky himself. Trump simply described the meeting as having gone “very well,” the same formula he routinely applies to almost every high-level conversation.

The impression was that his attention remained focused elsewhere, as on that particular day, the funeral of Lindsey Graham appeared to occupy far more of his emotional and political attention than the war in Ukraine. The only concrete outcome seems to have been an agreement for Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to visit Kiev, and for a trip presented as strategically important, this was a rather modest result.

So why did Zelensky once again fail to persuade Trump? Well, the answer, in my view, lies in the assumptions underpinning the entire strategy. Many in Kiev, and across the Western political establishment, continue to believe that Trump can be manipulated simply by presenting him with carefully selected information. According to this logic, persuade him of the right facts and his policy will change accordingly, but this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the man.

Trump has never been regarded as an intellectual, but he isn’t politically unpredictable in the way his critics often suggest. On many of the issues that matter most to him, his views have remained remarkably consistent for decades. As early as 1987, Trump criticized America’s allies for relying excessively on US military protection and claimed they should pay far more for their own defense, while he also advocated a confrontational policy towards Iran. Nearly forty years later, those positions remain largely unchanged. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in compelling Trump to attack Iran because it aligned with instincts the American president already possessed, but Ukraine is different.

Trump’s view of Ukraine has always been shaped by domestic American politics as much as by international affairs and, in his eyes, modern Ukraine remains closely associated with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, two political rivals he has spent years attacking. That perception was formed long before the current diplomatic efforts began and cannot simply be erased through a well-managed public relations campaign. There’s also a far more practical obstacle, in that Zelensky is asking Washington to provide resources that America may be increasingly reluctant, or even unable, to supply.

US weapons stockpiles have been depleted by multiple conflicts and expanding production of systems such as Patriot missiles will take years rather than months. Meanwhile, with the United States carrying almost $40 trillion in national debt, further large-scale financial commitments to Ukraine face growing political resistance and Trump also lacks many of the instruments that Kiev hopes he will use against Moscow. For example, additional sanctions may generate headlines, but they cannot by themselves deliver the military or diplomatic breakthrough Ukraine seeks.

Taken together, these realities meant Zelensky entered negotiations seeking outcomes that had always been unlikely to materialize. From Kiev’s perspective, the visit was designed to transform the political landscape, but instead, it produced little more than polite photographs and another promise that dialogue would continue.The battle Zelensky travelled to Washington to win had, in reality, already been lost before his plane landed.

Read more …

“’A few socialist militants are poisoning the Democratic Party..”

• The US Is Facing A New Red Menace – From Within (Robert Bridge)

Moderate Democrats are damaging their brand by campaigning alongside crazy leftist radicals who openly call for the destruction of the West, White people, and the United States. Democrats are quietly expressing concern that the entire Democratic Party is about to go up in flames as increasingly radical voices are going mainstream. As ZeroHedge put it: “Radical leftists and Islamist activists are increasingly converging inside the Democratic Party as Democratic Socialists of America, forming what can only be described as a ‘red-green alliance.’”


The face of the Democratic Socialists of America radicalization belongs to unofficial spokesperson Turkish-American Hasan Piker, 35, who has called on his followers to “kill capitalists.” “Yeah kill them! Kill those motherf**kers and murder those motherf**kers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their f**king red capitalist blood, dude,” Piker said in a recent live podcast. On another occasion, the revolutionary socialist called for the opening of the border and the extermination of the White race. “We want more immigrants to come into your countries and then they’re gonna f**k your sisters and then your daughters. We’re here to destroy the White Race, b**ch.”

This is the same guy who socialists Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and newly nominated Democrat Senator Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed want fronting the Democrat Party. Scary stuff. Shockingly, instead of denouncing his crude message, Democrats are taking to the campaign trail with this young man. Needless to say, that is a political strategy that only promises disaster. Even Hillary Clinton warned that her party is playing with fire by its affiliation with this man and others like him, and risks opening itself up to devastating attacks by the Republican Party. “The Republican messaging is communist, socialist,” Clinton said.

“It’s going to be a VERY effective attack… All I know is that is the attack that Trump is leading with… They are trying to bring back scare tactics about our followers and candidates.” With individuals like Piker, whose favorite flag is not the American flag but the flag of Hezbollah (with a clenched fist hoisting an AK-47 in the air), it won’t be necessary for the Republicans to employ scare tactics. Individuals like Piker are political gifts from heaven that keep on giving. All they need to do is replay his heinous comments for average Americans to hear.

Even the Democrats will start to ask themselves if this is really the sort of person they want to associate with. It could be enough to make thousands of Democrats switch their political allegiance to the Republicans. At this point, in order to help end the confusion over terms, it might be helpful to define the various arms of the Democratic Party, which can be roughly divided into five groupings.

On the Neoliberal left you have three such groups.
1. The democrats. These are the establishment, focused on incremental reform within capitalism. Mostly corporate-aligned.
2. The liberals. They think the government should solve inequality through policy, not systemic overhaul. Morally driven.
3. The progressives. Want structural reform: Medicare for all, Green New Deal, debt cancellation. They flirt with socialism but don’t want to overthrow capitalism.

Now on the Far Left you have two more.
4. The reformist socialists. These want to overthrow capitalism through electoral politics by getting into the system and making small changes over time. Their goal is post-capitalist society.
5. The revolutionary socialists. They believe capitalism must be overthrown entirely. They reject elections and reformism, advocates for revolution, abolition, and radical restructuring of society.

In addition to Mr. Piker, there is another individual on the left, the progressive Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, who is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 US Senate election in Michigan. On April 7, 2026, El-Sayed held campaign events on several university campuses in Michigan with Piker sharing the stage with him. El Sayed has drawn scrutiny for his questionable affiliations.

Kyle Shideler, the director at the Center for Security Policy, exposed during congressional testimony that El Sayed is connected to terrorists and the Muslim brotherhood. “I look at the connections that his father-in-law, Jukaku Tayeb, and he has affiliations with two brotherhood-linked groups,” Shideler told the hushed assembly.

Socialists have been in the Democratic Party for years, but it is only now that violent radicals are entering the mainstream spotlight. Coming on the heels of Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America. AOC, who is the face of ‘The Squad,’ an informal group of progressive Democratic members in the US House of Representatives, brought to the United States a tame version of socialism that many Americans could readily relate to. At least she was not calling for the destruction of the country.

She advocates a peaceful progressive platform that includes support for worker cooperatives, Medicare for All, tuition-free public colleges, a jobs guarantee, and a Green New Deal. These are initiatives that do not send shivers down the voters’ spines. Her political program is a vast difference from the deranged world of Mr. Piker and others, who literally want to destroy the United States as we know it. The Democratic Party must be far more selective in who it chooses to align itself with. Their hard-fought for reputation is on the line.

Read more …

Meet at the Liberty Tree.

• Patriots Won’t Let Communists Take America (J.B. Shurk)

This chapter in American history could be titled, “The Bad Guys Keep Winning Because They Suffer No Consequences for Their Treachery.”


Islamo-fascists and communists have taken over the Democrat Party and threaten to take over the U.S. Congress. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has been brought to justice for conspiring with parts of the Intelligence Community to frame President Trump as a Russian spy. The same Ukrainian and British Intelligence agents who helped orchestrate the first ridiculous impeachment against Trump (ostensibly set in motion because the president asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy why Joe Biden’s son was making tens of thousands of dollars each month as a board member of a Ukrainian energy company) continue trying to instigate an all-out war between the Russian Federation and the United States.

The mainstream media and globalist politicians want us all to forget that they used COVID as an excuse to roll out totalitarianism around the planet — justifying widespread censorship, lockdowns, mass surveillance, deadly chemical injections, and the abrogation of God-given rights in the name of “public health.” Our scientific institutions refuse to say clearly that COVID was most likely engineered in a Chinese bio-lab with funding from U.S. taxpayers that Dr. Anthony Fauci had redirected to assist his friends and business associates overseas. Nobody has been prosecuted for any of these crimes, just as nobody was prosecuted when President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder used the ATF to arm Mexican drug cartels, the IRS to target conservatives, and the USA PATRIOT Act to spy on political enemies (including all of the Republican presidential candidates for the 2016 election).

During the Obama and Biden administrations, Christians were prosecuted for being faithful servants of Christ. Parents were put on domestic terror watchlists for objecting to radical infusions of “transgenderism,” pornography, and race-based discrimination in their children’s public school curricula. The Democrat Party nationalized healthcare, used USAID budgets to subvert foreign elections, and redirected trillions of taxpayer dollars into “climate change” slush funds for domestic and foreign political allies. The Obama-Biden regime defamed police officers as inherently racist and disparaged all white Americans as inherently “privileged.” Decades of solid improvement in race relations in the United States were thrown out the window, as Democrats told their voters that white, heterosexual males deserve to be vilified and attacked.

For fifteen years, Antifa goons, BLM rioters, Islamic supremacists, and other violent left-wingers have burned down neighborhoods, destroyed churches, looted businesses, terrorized motorists, and harassed, threatened, and murdered ideological adversaries. Instead of reporting on years of leftist domestic terrorism, corporate news talking heads still pretend that President Trump’s MAGA voters are the biggest threat to the United States. It is easy to list the long train of abuses that have been committed against us and lose hope for the future. Particularly because nobody has been held accountable for any of the serious crimes listed above, a lot of American patriots have begun to wonder whether our country can even be saved.

It can be saved. But doing so will require Americans to get their minds right about the struggles ahead. I often ask American patriots who express premature defeat whether they would give up so easily if this were 1776, rather than 2026. My point is two-fold: First, we are most definitely living through a critical period of American history when, just as was true during the time of our Founding Fathers, the fate of our country rests in our hands. Second, the odds that we shall succeed in saving America today are at least as high as they were two-hundred-fifty years ago.

Sometimes the people who are most proud of America’s past accomplishments are too quick to throw in the towel when it comes to America’s future. But the origin story of the United States is epic because it was so unlikely. The Boston Massacre was in 1770. The Boston Tea Party occurred three years later. By the time the Second Continental Congress declared Independence from Great Britain in ’76, American colonists were still sharply divided over the merits of war. The Revolutionary War continued until ’83. The Articles of Confederation, ratified in ’81, was superseded by ’89.

When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution, they effectively tabled the peculiar institution of slavery, knowing that the issue would collapse the Union. During the 1790s, the heavily indebted United States endured severe economic troubles, and many members of Great Britain’s Parliament expected to reacquire their former colonies just as soon as interstate squabbles and economic calamity doomed the young nation. When the British captured and burned much of Washington, D.C., in 1814, they nearly succeeded.

Read more …

“Both systems promise that a slaughter is necessary but also promise its end. Both systems invariably keep the first promise and violate the second.”

• The Mohammunist Manifesto – ‘Transitional Phase’ Slaughter (Milli Sands)

Image created using AI.

In revealing the commonalities of the Reds and the Greens in the Red-Green Axis, we have elucidated their shared goals of violence, wealth redistribution, inequality before the law, a binary world, monopoly rule by the elites, and controlling the totality of society. Here we explore the promise of transitional phase slaughter. bBoth Islamic political systems and Marxist-Leninist communism make two promises about the violent neutralization of internal rivals. The first is that it will happen: a transitional phase, necessary to secure the new order. The second is that it will end: temporary by design, giving way once the order is secure.


Both systems keep the first promise and break the second. Marxism states both explicitly. Islamic political theory implies them structurally. Neither system’s own history shows the second promise kept. In both, what was authorized as a passing emergency became, in practice, a standing condition, reopened by each generation against a new list of names.

Marx and Engels wrote that between capitalist and communist society lies a transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin, in The State and Revolution, built an entire argument on the promise attached to that dictatorship: it is temporary by definition because the state itself will “wither away” once class antagonism is eliminated and coercion becomes unnecessary. This is not a minor clause. It is the doctrine’s central justification for tolerating the dictatorship at all.

The Bolsheviks began implementing their slaughter within a year of taking power: the September 5, 1918, Decree on Red Terror, which ordered class enemies isolated in concentration camps and authorized summary execution, was issued after the assassination attempt on Lenin and the killing of the Petrograd Cheka chief.

The promised withering away did not follow. Nineteen years later, NKVD Order No. 00447, signed by Nikolai Yezhov on July 30, 1937, launched a fresh purge against former kulaks, clergy, and members of long-banned opposition parties, with an initial quota of 75,950 executions that regional officials repeatedly petitioned Moscow to raise.

Archival research puts executions under this order specifically at roughly 387,000; combined with parallel operations against national minorities and other categories, the wider Great Terror killed roughly 681,000 by the time it wound down in November 1938. Yezhov himself was arrested within a year of signing the order and executed in February 1940.

Mao’s party, founded in 1921 with Comintern backing and built on the same Leninist premise, reached the identical point on its own: three decades after Russia’s promised transition began, the Cultural Revolution reopened the same category of internal enemy under a different flag. The state did not wither.

Read more …

How much more globalism can the EU take?

• Swedish PM Calls Spanish Illegal Immigrant Amnesty ‘Very Bad Idea’ (ET)

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has called the Spanish government’s amnesty for illegal immigrants a “very bad idea,” warning that it could spark another migrant crisis akin to the one that beset the continent in 2015. The center-right politician, who is running for reelection next month, told the Financial Times in an interview published on Aug. 11 that the Spanish amnesty for more than a million illegal immigrants had caused a “pretty big outcry” at the last summit of EU leaders.


Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government granted a royal decree on April 14, launching the regularization of people living illegally in the country. The proposal was first presented on Jan. 27 to allow about 500,000 illegal immigrants already living and working in Spain to obtain legal status through an accelerated process. According to figures from the Spanish government, almost 1.2 million applications for regularization were received. The move was controversial, but the migrant surge in Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the North African side of the Mediterranean at the end of July, compounded concerns.

Kristersson said a knock-on effect from Madrid’s move could pose a serious threat to the European Union’s free movement zone, known as the Schengen Area.”It symbolizes that we still have to be very, very careful not to act in a way that could even come close to what happened in 2015,” Kristersson said. “I think Spain got the message … but it shows the vulnerability.”He said he had told Sánchez that he disapproved of the move. “Having [the amnesty] also creates a possibility for you to use European territory. That is specifically damaging for us because we know from experience that many people coming to Europe prefer to go north. Exactly that happened in 2015,” Kristersson said.

“It is not the time to get relaxed on this … there is a huge majority in Sweden saying they cannot go back to an uncontrolled situation. … Doing things that could jeopardize a stable situation would be a very bad idea.”In 2015, 1.3 million people, mostly fleeing war in Syria and Iraq, sought refuge in Europe, causing the EU’s asylum system to collapse; reception centers were overwhelmed in Greece and Italy, with countries further north erecting barriers to stop illegal immigrants from entering.

The unprecedented influx into Ceuta began on July 30, when an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 people entered the exclave from Morocco by land and sea. Many swam around a border breakwater after social media posts claimed that Spain had opened its border. More than 80 people died on both sides of the border, according to figures released by Spanish and Moroccan authorities. Some drowned while attempting to swim to Ceuta, while others were crushed or trampled during chaotic efforts to climb a breakwater and border fence.

In the wake of that incident, multiple leaders around Europe issued sharp criticism of Sánchez’s government, with Italy temporarily suspending its Schengen Area agreement with Spain. The one-month suspension of border-free travel between Italy and Spain was announced on July 31 by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Deputy Prime Ministers Antonio Tajani and Matteo Salvini, who described the move as necessary for security. France, which shares a land border with the Spanish mainland, also announced an intensification of controls along the border.

Italy’s move was supported by a number of EU member states, including Finland, Denmark, and the Czech Republic, with the governments of all three saying that Brussels should consider closing the Schengen Area to Spain. On Aug. 4, EU interior ministers called for stronger borders, faster returns, and expanded efforts to dismantle migrant-smuggling networks as a result of the Ceuta surge. Kristersson faces an election on Sept. 13, having led the Scandinavian nation since 2022 as head of a coalition comprising his Moderate Party, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals with additional support from the Sweden Democrats.

Swedish polling company Novus’s poll of 5,726 eligible voters, conducted 6-9 July, gave the Social Democrats 32 percent, the Sweden Democrats 20 percent, and Moderates 17 percent. Sweden tightened its previously liberal immigration and citizenship policies earlier this year because of the vast numbers of immigrants it has taken in over the past two decades.In November, Stockholm launched an inquiry to investigate “parallel social structures” that had emerged in the country.

Read more …

“Mr. Gilman joins over 100 Americans whom President Trump has freed during his second term in office.”

• President Trump Announces Release of Robert Gilman from Russian Jail (CTH)

Robert Gilman, an English teacher and Marine Corps veteran, was detained by Russian police while traveling to the U.S. embassy in Moscow in January 2022 and charged with disorderly conduct, drunkenness and assaulting a police officer, which his advocates strongly denied.


Via Truth Social – “I am proud to announce that American Citizen Robert Gilman, a former United States Marine, is coming HOME! In a well known Media story, Robert was imprisoned in Russia in 2022, during the Biden Administration. After my discussions with President Vladimir Putin, Russia has agreed to release him, very much on a Humanitarian Basis. We appreciate this decision, and the fact that Russia asked for no one in return — No exchange took place. Robert will land at Andrews Air Force Base, in Washington, D.C., tonight, where my Representatives, some of whom are on the plane with him, will welcome Robert back to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

I just spoke to him, and he had one request — A GREAT cheeseburger when he lands. I will take care of that! During my Administration, we have prioritized bringing home Americans Detained Abroad, and have done so at a level never seen before, returning hundreds of people to their families. We have also freed many non Americans who were under capture in different countries throughout the World. Robert Gilman has been reunited with his wonderful mother, Nancy, who is also on the plane with him, and will soon get to see all of his loved ones.

Thank you to my incredible Team, including Special Envoy for Peace Missions, Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy for Hostage Response, Adam Boehler, Senior Director for Counterterrorism, Sebastian Gorka, Jared Kushner, and the many others who made this possible. GOD BLESS AMERICA!” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP.


Via Marco Rubio – “Today, after more than four years of detention in Russia, Robert Gilman is on his way home to be reunited with his family. Mr. Gilman joins over 100 Americans whom President Trump has freed during his second term in office. We thank Russia for working with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to release Mr. Gilman and allowing him to receive the necessary medical treatment here in the United States.

While we appreciate this positive step, we are still seeking the immediate return of all other unjustly detained Americans, including wrongful detainee Stephen Hubbard. The President will not stop until all unjustly detained Americans are home.” [citation]

Read more …

“Germany has fallen into the socialists’ trap once again.”

• The Spendthrift State (Thomas Kolbe)

Germany’s new experiment in socialism requires the use of every remaining resource available to its citizens. That there would be no real relief should have been obvious for quite some time to anyone taking a realistic view of the reform. Meanwhile, Klingbeil’s troops are working to keep bleeding the citizenry — with small pinpricks carried out beneath the radar of public attention.


The government has promised us €10 billion in tax relief. That would amount to almost exactly one percent of the total tax revenue of the German state apparatus — a sham, a joke, indeed, if not an outright insult to those who grit their teeth and endure the ideological grand experiment of eco-socialism. And even this meager relief, which would not constitute genuine relief in the first place because it would be offset by a higher top tax rate and possible increases in VAT, is now quietly being clawed back elsewhere. The latest move by the Klingbeil camp: tax allowances for associations and certain types of corporate gains are to be abolished.

For example, the existing €5,000 tax allowance for taxable corporations, associations of persons and pools of assets is to be reduced to a €1,000 exemption threshold from next year onward. The distinction between a tax allowance and an exemption threshold is by no means a mere technicality of tax law. With a tax allowance, the amount remains tax-free up to the defined threshold. With an exemption threshold, by contrast, the entire tax benefit disappears as soon as the threshold is exceeded.

In addition, the existing €45,000 allowance for gains from the sale or closure of businesses is to be abolished entirely. The allowance for gains from the sale of shares in corporations is also to disappear. The finance minister expects these measures to generate around €350 million in additional revenue.

A laughable sum, really. But, as the saying goes, even little streams add up. And the Merz government has plenty of them to offer. A growing number of small tax-policy measures are now accumulating in the slipstream of the grand raid, almost escaping notice. Everyone is talking about the CO2 tax, rising social-security contributions, and the looming reform of inheritance and wealth taxation. That is understandable, but it appears to be only half the truth, because the smaller fiscal abuses are being overlooked. And one thing is certain: The raid on the middle class is only now really gathering pace, because the Merz-Klingbeil duo has released the debt handbrake.

Generally speaking, we have to recognize the following: When it comes to the postmodern state of German EU design, the rule is clear: More can never be enough. Officially, 52.5 percent of German economic output flows through the channels of the German state apparatus. Everyone knows that this figure is an outright lie. If we include the bureaucratic burdens imposed on businesses and private households, as well as statistical tricks involving state-owned enterprises, the state share of the economy is likely to be comfortably above 60 percent.

Once again, one has to ask: When, finally, is more enough? State-worshipping naives would probably say: Where is growth and prosperity supposed to come from if the state does not take matters into its own hands? Just remember: It is the very same state that is supposed to perform an economic miracle, the same state that created the migration chaos. The same state that destroyed billions in wealth by shutting down nuclear power and has driven the German economy to the sidelines with its centrally planned energy transition.

This exorbitant achievement is now being confirmed and accelerated in its destructive effect by new borrowing of more than 5 percent and spending increases of 6 percent this year under the aegis of the federal chancellor. As I said: More can never be enough. It is the same state, led by Green-socialist hardliners, that has built a subsidy machine through which around €321 billion in funds flow. Money that is missing from the real economy, where investments, production capacity and innovation are being fought for in the interests of consumers.

Read more …

“:After Advocating for Illegal Alien Leniency and Amnesty..”

• Mike Lindell Gets Crushed in Minnesota Primary (CTH)

Hopefully this will be a lesson to multiple people, including President Donald Trump. There is no room for softness on the topic of deporting illegal aliens. In one of the biggest examples of a mistake in Republican campaigning, three weeks before the primary election Minnesota Governor candidate Mike Lindell made the fatal mistake of advocating for greater leniency for illegal aliens, with inferred amnesty in his immigration platform. The backlash was fierce, righteous and directly targeted. Lindell was blasted.

https://twitter.com/AlphaNews/status/2080011880735846463?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2080011880735846463%7Ctwgr%5Ed5c5b2f1a1a82a8e982ce3ba66df36bab338d80c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F08%2F12%2Fafter-advocating-for-illegal-alien-leniency-and-amnesty-mike-lindell-gets-crushed-in-minnesota-primary%2F https://twitter.com/proamericapol/status/2081179873092284682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2081179873092284682%7Ctwgr%5Ed5c5b2f1a1a82a8e982ce3ba66df36bab338d80c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2026%2F08%2F12%2Fafter-advocating-for-illegal-alien-leniency-and-amnesty-mike-lindell-gets-crushed-in-minnesota-primary%2F

Last night, despite the support and endorsement from President Trump, Lindell was resoundingly defeated by Lisa Demuth, the speaker of the Minnesota House.

Read more …

“Voters can spot the real thing; AOC is authentically bananas. That is better than a Newsom banana split that is part establishment and part insurgency.”

• Gavin Newsom, the DSA, and the Danton Delusion (Turley)

This week, Gavin Newsom made his latest pitch to the mob by proclaiming himself “an established insurgent.” It was vintage Newsom in trying to be everything to everyone, part of the establishment and part of the revolution. Like a violent pacifist or a preservation arsonist, it makes no sense to anyone else. However, with the victory of radicals across the country, Newsom is trying to join other armchair revolutionaries in seeking to lead the far-left mob. He believes that he can use a class war that will spare him while destroying his enemies. Call it the Danton delusion.


In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the French Revolution and its decline into what the Framers called a mobocracy. What became known as “The Terror” was started not by the working class, but by educated lawyers, journalists, and even aristocrats as part of the Jacobin movement. One of the central figures was a lawyer named Georges Jacques Danton, a gifted orator and writer.

Danton would become the Justice Minister and later a member of the infamous Committee of Public Safety. The more he facilitated the rage, the more he found himself captured by it. Achieving power at the head of a mob, Danton fed the bloodlust of revolution, sending thousands to the guillotine and allegedly masterminding atrocities such as the September Massacres. Danton secured power by declaring others to be dangerous reactionaries, declaring, “The bell we are about to ring . . . sounds the charge on the enemies of our country.”

Danton struggled to stay ahead of the mob by feeding victims into the grinder of a class war. Eventually, however, the mob had finished off the aristocrats, clergy, and merchants. The most radical Jacobins, led by his ally Maximilien Robespierre, then turned on their fellow Jacobins, including Danton. Before his fall, it was dawning on Danton that there would be no end to the killings. When one supporter excitedly told him of more executions of moderates as guilty of “factionalism,” Danton remarks, “We’re all factious. If they deserve to be guillotined, we all deserve so. Those men in Paris will guillotine the entire Republic.”

And so they did. Danton himself would stand before the “national razor” on April 5, 1794. Notably, the radicals today are also calling for purges of the Democratic Party of moderates and denouncing dissenters as “factionalism.” Yet, Newsom still hopes that he can use the mob for his own ambitions, ignoring Danton’s warning, “Woe betide those who would provoke revolutions.”

Newsom wants to be one of the red aristocrats of the new Democratic Party. By calling for radical changes to our constitutional system, he is hoping that the socialists will ignore his own wealth and privilege. The same is true for Ro Khanna, who is also offering to trash our institutions. He hopes to secure the socialist vote despite being reportedly worth roughly half a billion dollars thanks to his wife’s inheritance.

In Newsom’s case, the proletarian pitch still comes off as more French Laundry than French Revolution. He is trailing in the polls, with some showing him falling behind former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has been promising his own radical changes to our system while campaigning with controversial figures such as Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

The loss of DSA candidate Francesca Hong this week will not change the calculation for Newsom. What he saw was an extremist who came within less than one percentage point of winning the nomination for Wisconsin governor. The far-left gubernatorial candidate Peggy Flanagan did win the primary handily in Minnesota. Other leaders like Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (who previously praised the violent group Antifa) celebrated the infusion of socialists into the party.

After the Hong defeat, socialist influencer and virulent anti-Semite Hasan Piker lashed out against the establishment Democrats and the media, declaring that “The knives will be out.” Newsom believes that there is a pocket of delusional free-market Marxists who are longing for his leadership. If so, they do not live in New Hampshire, where Newsom is being trounced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Voters can spot the real thing; AOC is authentically bananas. That is better than a Newsom banana split that is part establishment and part insurgency.

As Harris and Buttigieg make their own plays for the radical wing, Newsom will likely need to find another institution to offer up other than the Supreme Court. Packing the Supreme Court has become the mere starting ante in the game. Radicals are looking for bona fides of true believers with some calling for the scrapping of the Constitution entirely.

Newsom — “the established insurgent” — is desperately trying to be the next leader rather than the next trophy of the mob. History is not on their side. Well-coiffed hair and a hip podcast are not likely to be enough to keep the mob at bay. From New York to Colorado, the far left is taking establishment heads. In the end, Danton yielded one last time to feed the desire of the mob. When he was finally taken to the guillotine, Danton told the executioner, “Show the people my head. It is well worth seeing.”

Read more …

“A Flock camera is an automated license plate reader (ALPR) made by Flock Safety. Placed on streets and near neighborhoods, they use AI to log passing cars, recording the license plate, make, model, color, and time. Police and neighborhoods use them to track stolen cars or suspects, but privacy groups worry about mass tracking.”:

• Police and Federal Govt Use of Flock Cameras Under Scrutiny (CTH)

Back in 2013 and 2014 we shared the story of a man returning to Florida was stopped by police in Maryland who asked him for his firearm. When the Floridian asked the Maryland police how they knew he owned a firearm, things got sketchy.The event kicked off a constitutional discussion. A few years later in 2015 the Wall Street Journal reported on a national federal database that was using Automatic License Plate Readers (APLRs) to capture and store the travel of millions of Americans {SOURCE}.


Now we fast-forward a decade and that federal database is now being exploited by local police around the nation to keep track of ordinary persons of interest to their community who travel outside their jurisdiction. This is where the Flock Cameras come into the discussion. The same government interests who dismiss our concerns about privacy are the same govt interests who point out how horrible China and Iran are for monitoring their citizens on CCTV systems.

Read more …

She’s so young! Hubby’s twice her age.

• Karoline Leavitt Resigns as White House Press Secretary (Sarah Anderson)

President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that one of the most popular and visible faces of his administration is stepping down. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt will leave her post at the end of August to spend more time with her “beautiful children.” However, Trump says she will continue to be one of his “top outside advisors” and an “influential voice within the Republican Party.” The president did not mention who might replace her. Here is his announcement in full, which he posted on Truth Social:


“Our wonderful White House Press Secretary, and one of my most trusted aides, Karoline Leavitt, will be departing her role at the end of the month so she can spend more time with her beautiful young children and family, a decision I totally understand and respect! Karoline will now be one of my top outside advisors, and an influential voice within the Republican Party, as we work to defy History, and conclusively win the Midterm Elections. Karoline has been a real leader in the White House, and has done a phenomenal job fighting for Justice, Liberty, and Freedom, since 2018, including our Historic Re-Election Campaign of 2024. Karoline has been one of the best White House Press Secretaries in the History of the Office. Thank you, Karoline, for a job well done!” President DONALD J. TRUMP

Leavitt responded to Trump’s announcement with her own lengthy social media post, which says in part: “Being a mother and welcoming a new baby while working in one of the most demanding jobs in the world has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least. The truth is since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary — and that is why I have ultimately made the bittersweet decision to depart the White House and embark on a new chapter in my life.” You can read her entire message here:

Leavitt announced in December of last year that she was expecting a baby girl. On May 1, she welcomed Viviana “Vivi” Riccio with her husband, Nicholas Riccio. The couple already had a son, Nicholas “Niko” Riccio, who was born in July 2024. With a newborn and toddler at home, it makes sense that Leavitt would want to step back from her work and spend more time with her young family, even though she has long talked about how friendly the Trump White House is toward working moms. In May 2025, a photo of Leavitt feeding a bottle to her son with one hand, while typing on a computer in her office with the other, went viral. Margo Martin, special assistant to the president and communications advisor, posted the picture on X with the caption “Super Mom!”

https://twitter.com/MargoMartin47/status/1920565558388416938?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1920565558388416938%7Ctwgr%5E6d9cbe160632d6b950ec25853a61109a7242bf52%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fsarah-anderson%2F2026%2F08%2F12%2Fkaroline-leavitt-is-resigning-as-white-house-press-secretary-n4956080

Leavitt is still young — she turns 29 years old later this month — so if she wants to return to politics, she should have plenty of time when her children are older. Of course, we wish her the best and will miss watching her take down the fake news media reporters every week from the White House Press Briefing Room.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2087308220465582114?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle August 2 2026

Aug 022026
 
 August 2, 2026  Posted by at 10:17 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  25 Responses »


Willem de Kooning Gotham News 1955


• Trump Orders Heavy Attack On Energy-Related Targets In Iran (ZH)
• Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez Calls EU Opposition to Mass Migration “Selfish” (CTH)
• 22 EU Leaders Demand “Immediate Action” To Ceuta and Melilla Invasion (ZH)
• Trump Warns US Faces Spain-style Migrant Invasion (RT)
• Zelensky Flew To A Funeral And Buried His Last Big Hope (Evgeny Balakin)
• Kiev’s Dirty War Goes Global (Sadygzade)
• Why Western Europe Needs The Ukraine Conflict To Continue (Lukyanov)
• US Not In Dispute With EU Over Ukraine, But Still Key Player — Diplomat (TASS)
• US Sees Profits As Key Foreign Policy Goal, Russian Diplomat Says (TASS)
• The Socialist Monster Awakens (Victor Davis Hanson)
• Trump’s Damage To US Diplomacy Could Last A Generation (McGlinchey)
• Seattle Is in Free Fall (Victoria Taft)

 


 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2083221063689785720?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2083568244074369480?s=20 https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2083272023422418989?s=20

 


 


Does it feel like a swamp yet?

• Trump Orders Heavy Attack On Energy-Related Targets In Iran (ZH)

The Wall Street Journal and CBS are reporting that major US strikes – perhaps harder than anything of the last two weeks – are set to imminently commence. The attacks could be initiated at any point this weekend, after Trump gave the ‘order’ – it’s being reported: President Trump has ordered a fresh attack on Iran aimed at getting Tehran to surrender that could begin as soon as this weekend and would last a few days, U.S. officials said.


Earlier on Friday, he told reporters that he planned to resume heavy military strikes to force the regime to come to the negotiating table. He predicted that if the U.S. hit Iran hard enough, the hard-line regime would eventually “peter out.” Trump made clear earlier at Camp David that the Iranians can’t be trusted, are ‘dishonorable’ – and so he’s not pursuing talks. The late afternoon Friday CBS report is more alarming, given that “The United States and Israel are planning what would be one of the harshest bombing campaigns to date against energy infrastructure targets in Iran, multiple sources told CBS News, with strikes possible throughout the weekend.”

It adds, “There was some discussion about trying to conclude by the time financial markets open Monday because of concern about how the bombings will affect the U.S. and global economy, but an end point wasn’t locked in.” Earlier this week there were reports of Trump exploding at his own advisors amid ongoing debates about how the crisis should be handled, and finding an exit strategy. “Well, they always want to talk, but they break their words so often,” Trump said Friday at Camp David, putting his frustration on display later adding: “All they do is make me angry.”

A key line from WSJ point to where things are likely headed: “Some U.S. officials believe Iran will continue to drag out negotiations, banking that Trump will abandon his war efforts in the long term in the face of mounting domestic political opposition.”

Keep Hitting Them: Trump
Trump is holding a Cabinet meeting on Friday at Camp David. He claimed that the fight against Iran is “going well” and stated that American forces are “hitting them very hard” – adding that “eventually” Iran will have no choice but to “come home” – meaning full surrender. “

It’s going well. Everything we can do is keep winning,” Trump also told Fox News. “But we are hitting them hard, shaking them up, and we’re just continuing to win.” He suggested there will still be strikes ongoing in coming weeks, and that he’s losing faith in the idea of talks with “dishonest” Iran “because they lie”.Additionally, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is claiming that Iran is unable to pay its troops – though without offering specific evidence to back this, and that the US continues searching for Iranian assets to seize “all around the world”. This is after Thursday Washington rolled out yet more sanctions.

Read more …

Yeah, yeah, open borders have been great for Europe…

• Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez Calls EU Opposition to Mass Migration “Selfish” (CTH)

Standing against what he calls “selfish” motives of European leadership, Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez says tolerance for mass illegal migration must win over the loud voices of short-sighted nationalism. According to Sanchez, these EU regulations and rules against the dreams of sub-Saharan Africans are polarizing and stopping migrants from fulfilling their greatest aspirations.


Telegraph – via MSM – Pedro Sánchez has criticised “selfish” EU leaders after 22 European prime ministers and presidents attacked him for the sudden migrant surge in Ceuta. Spain’s prime minister wrote a letter to the heads of the EU institutions after Italy and France ramped up border controls in response to the 60,000 Moroccan migrants who stormed the Spanish enclave in North Africa.

[…] “In the current international context, the European Union cannot afford this kind of selfish, polarising and unlawful reaction,” wrote Mr Sánchez, one of the few remaining socialist leaders in the EU, as he called for an emergency meeting. He criticised those who “have chosen to attack Spain and to call for its temporary exclusion from the Schengen Area”. But Mr Sánchez was isolated after 22 EU leaders, including Ms Meloni and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, wrote their own letter to Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president; António Costa, the European Council president; and Micheál Martin, the Irish prime minister, whose country holds the presidency of the EU.

The letter addressing the “serious concern” over the threat to the EU border was signed by the leaders of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. They singled out Mr Sánchez’s migrant amnesty for criticism. In early July, some 609,737 of the 1.17 million migrants in Spain who applied for legal status obtained temporary work permits, making it the largest regularisation of black market workers in European history. (read more)

On Saturday, Spain said it had returned “almost everyone” to Morocco and that it was not possible to travel from Ceuta or Melilla to mainland Spain without presenting identification at a police checkpoint, guaranteeing the “integrity of the Schengen area”. Mr Sánchez, who rushed to Ceuta on Friday and faces elections next year, accused people-smuggling gangs of trying to exploit a recent ruling made by the Spanish supreme court, which decided migrants stopped at sea while trying to reach Ceuta or Melilla could not be summarily returned to Morocco.

Read more …

Not enclaves, but exclaves.

• 22 EU Leaders Demand “Immediate Action” To Ceuta and Melilla Invasion (ZH)

European leaders criticized Madrid’s socialist government as its open-border policies unraveled for the world to see. The invasion of the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla by 50,000 military-aged men from Morocco exposed the dire consequences of nation-killing mass-migration policies promoted by socialist regimes, which have long eroded national sovereignty across the entire continent. For Europe, the latest border breach represents one of the clearest warnings yet that uncontrolled mass migration has evolved from a political dispute into a full-blown national security crisis.


Hours after the invasion, Italy’s Interior Ministry suspended Schengen free-movement rules with Spain and ordered the closure of air and maritime borders between the two countries, citing national security concerns. The list of European leaders criticizing Spanish Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is growing on Saturday, as 22 EU leaders have now signed on to a demand for an “immediate and coordinated European response” to the invasion into Ceuta and Melilla.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2083545235678781812?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2083545235678781812%7Ctwgr%5E61c124c705d0db5197f30d574d09eab838c3462a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fcrazy-footage-shows-migrants-rampaging-breaking-homes-after-invading-spain

“We cannot allow uncontrolled mass crossings, the instrumentalization of migration or other hybrid threats to create the perception that illegal entry into the European Union is possible,” EU leaders, including Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Germany’s Friedrich Merz, wrote in a letter published on X by Denmark’s Ministry of State.

Sánchez and Spain’s socialists are already feeling the impact of a negative information campaign that has spread across the West. The Trump administration is using the crisis as a warning to American voters ahead of the midterms that socialists gaining power would risk reopening the US border crisis. Political pressure on Sánchez will intensify further if illegal crossings resume or illegals reach mainland Europe.

The most likely pathway is, therefore, containment followed by political blowback against socialist parties in Madrid and across the bloc, rather than an immediate collapse of Schengen. Any second mass surge, however, would only suggest the weaponization of migration against Europe; in other words, asymmetric warfare. The open-ended question is who, if anyone, on the Moroccan side financed, organized, and facilitated the invasion.

Read more …

“The president used the migration crisis in the EU to claim America was overrun by illegals under his predecessor”

• Trump Warns US Faces Spain-style Migrant Invasion (RT)

The surge of migrants across the border from Morocco into Spain is an example of what could happen to the US if Republicans aren’t elected, US President Donald Trump has claimed. Trump has repeatedly attacked his political opponents over immigration, blaming his predecessor Joe Biden for illegal border crossings. An estimated 50,000 migrants, mostly young men, swam from Morocco and crossed into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta earlier this week in an unprecedented influx that triggered a humanitarian crisis in the city. The Spanish Interior Ministry has reported that around 48,000 had voluntarily returned by Friday evening.


“What’s happening with Spain, with tens of thousands of Illegal Immigrants invading it, happened in the United States during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, and it will happen again, only worse, if the Dumocrats ever again gain power,” Trump said late on Friday in a brief post on Truth Social, urging Americans to vote Republican in the midterm elections.The remarks come ahead of US midterm elections scheduled for November as Trump faces slipping approval ratings. A recent poll found that most US adults believe he has not focused enough on the everyday concerns of ordinary Americans, that his economic policies have worsened conditions, and that his military decisions in Iran have harmed the US.

White House principal deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said on Friday that Trump “has long warned Europe what would happen if they continue to implement far-left, globalist policies, including enabling mass migration.” Trump and his administration have consistently criticized both the previous US government and European leaders over their handling of illegal migration. The president has claimed that it was “killing” Europe, urging its leaders to act immediately before they lose control of the continent.

Domestically, Trump has pursued an unprecedented immigration crackdown. Since returning to office in January 2025, he has launched a sweeping enforcement campaign involving mass deportations and expanded detention efforts, pledging to carry out the largest migrant removal operation in US history despite widespread criticism and protests. Trump’s latest remarks also come amid strained ties with Madrid. The two countries clashed during the recent conflict with Iran after Spain refused to allow the US to use its bases for strikes, while Trump has repeatedly criticized the country over what he believes is its insufficient defense spending.

Migration has remained one of the EU’s defining political issues since the 2015 refugee crisis. Brussels recently agreed on a sweeping overhaul of its migration system aimed at speeding up deportations, while many member states have tightened national immigration laws. Spain has, meanwhile, taken a different approach to migration. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has argued immigration is essential to address labor shortages and demographic decline, while his government has expanded pathways for undocumented migrants to obtain legal status and work permits.

Read more …

“His wish list included Patriots, PAC-3 licenses, and more military support. None of them materialized..”

• Zelensky Flew To A Funeral And Buried His Last Big Hope (Evgeny Balakin)

Washington DC, July 29, 2026. On this day, a city accustomed to protocol visits and carefully orchestrated diplomatic spectacles welcomed a rather unexpected guest. Vladimir Zelensky’s unofficial visit to the US took place under the pretext of attending the funeral of former Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters in the US Senate. A private, closed-casket funeral was held. Zelensky’s meeting with US President Donald Trump also took place behind closed doors – with no cameras, no joint statements, and no usual show of unity.


Trump, however, found time to meet with the head of the Kiev regime. Soon after the private meeting, a social media post appeared along with two images – a color photograph and a black and white one. The photos show Trump patting Zelensky on the shoulder with a patronizing expression. According to American political tradition, black-and-white photographs are often published in memory of the deceased. According to military expert Aleksey Leonkov, the photograph seems to send a clear message: “Well, man, hang in there as long as you can. We’ve got no Patriot missiles for you, but hang on.”

The atmosphere of Zelensky’s informal and rather unplanned visit reinforced the feeling that Kiev has once again been shown the limits of US support. Zelensky didn’t come alone – he was accompanied by many Ukrainian officials and representatives of the security forces. However, his public ‘achievements’ amounted to a conversation behind closed doors and two photos.

The closed casket
Lindsey Graham was one of the most ardent supporters of Ukraine in the US Senate for many years. He was someone Kiev could count on to pressure the Trump administration and push through new packages of military aid. That’s why Zelensky used his funeral as an excuse to travel to the US. The fact that Graham was buried in a closed casket gave rise to many theories. The official version is that his death was the result of a “sudden and brief illness.” The unofficial version is that, as military expert Aleksey Leonkov puts it, the senator was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He recalled that while Graham was in Kiev, the Russian army carried out one of its most powerful strikes on military targets in the city.

Zelensky’s new demands
Of course, Zelensky didn’t just come to bid farewell to the senator with whom he shared a hatred for Russia. Behind closed doors, he hoped to utter his usual “Gimme!” and hand Trump a specific ‘wish list’. According to Andrei Klintsevich, 3rd class Active State Councilor of the Russian Federation, Zelensky wants from America what he can’t get from his European partners: first of all, anti-aircraft missiles. “He asked for the winter package: 300 missiles for the Patriot system, PAC-3 missiles, which can shoot down [Russian] ballistic missiles, though not hypersonic ones, specifically Iskander or sea-based ballistic missiles.” Zelensky also asked for licenses to produce these missiles domestically.

Klintsevich notes that the Kiev government’s desire to obtain these licenses has come up against hard reality. And the problem isn’t just that the White House has to make the corresponding decision. Manufacturing these missiles involves a complex technological chain. RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other companies are involved in assembling Patriot missiles. Some make the seeker heads, others the engines. Each item requires its own licenses, which must be withdrawn from commercial circulation and transferred to Kiev free of charge. “Of course, no one will agree to this,” Klintsevich says.

PAC-3 missile licenses are more than just a set of documents. It would be wrong to think that missile production can be scaled up like drone production. Drone components are readily available on the open market, but rocket technology is different. “Everything is specialized: from the engine to the rivets, to the fuel, and everything else,” the expert says. The problem isn’t the assembly line; Trump has already approved the start of production at General Motors and Ford plants. However, the subcontractors that supply complex components, such as gyroscopes and seekers, are critical in the production chain.

Production volumes don’t look impressive either: Lockheed Martin produces about 600 missiles per year for all systems worldwide. An increase of 50 units is planned with the launch of German production. By 2035, they plan to produce 2,000 missiles. “Considering the number [of missiles Russia] launches, even that would not be enough,” says Klintsevich. Combined, these two bottlenecks – issues with subcontractors and limited production volumes – make the demand for licenses and large-scale production practically impossible to implement in a short timeframe.

The Iran-Ukraine front
Zelensky’s second initiative during this trip was the attempt to get involved in the Iranian conflict. The goal was pragmatic: by demonstrating Ukraine’s active participation in the conflict, Zelensky wanted to gain access to military supply chains. To demonstrate this, a Ukrainian drone attacked an Iranian tanker, resulting in the death of one person.

Before Zelensky’s trip, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga made harsh accusations against Iran, claiming that it “deserved” the blow. But after Zelensky’s visit, his tone changed. “Let’s not stir up the conflict,” the foreign minister urged. Apparently, Zelensky’s attempt to get involved was unsuccessful.

Alexey Leonkov notes the reason behind the change in Kiev’s public statements. “Netanyahu does not need a competitor on the Iranian track, because the Iranian conflict is the prerogative of Israel,” he says. Netanyahu refused a private meeting with Zelensky. Israel jealously guards its key role in the Middle Eastern conflict. And Washington is not ready to get into a dispute with a key ally in the region for the sake of Kiev. Moreover, Ukraine’s earlier attempt to provide specialists from Madyar’s group to protect the Middle East from Iranian drones did not yield any results.

Read more …

“From Africa to the Caspian Sea, each strike is an attempt to market Ukraine as a useful Western asset that still deserves cash and weapons.”

• Kiev’s Dirty War Goes Global (Sadygzade)

On the morning of July 25, Ukrainian drones attacked an Iranian merchant vessel in the Caspian Sea. An explosion occurred on board, killing one sailor and injuring another. Tehran described the incident as an act of aggression, summoned Ukraine’s chargé d’affaires and warned that retaliatory measures could follow.


Vladimir Zelensky did not deny that the operation had taken place, claiming that the targets were vessels allegedly involved in transporting military cargo linked to Iran. Yet within days, Ukrainian diplomacy abruptly changed its tone. Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga told his Iranian counterpart that the merchant vessel had been struck unintentionally, after which discussions over compensation began.

So long as the operation could be presented to Western audiences as another demonstration of the long-range capabilities of the Ukrainian security services, Kiev was eager to speak of success. Once it became clear that Tehran intended to demand accountability, the initial bravado gave way to attempts to portray the incident as an accident. In other words, the Ukrainian leadership sought to reap the publicity benefits of the strike without showing any willingness to accept responsibility for its consequences.

At almost the same time, reports emerged from Iraq that several groups suspected of attacking sites inside the country had been detained. National Security Adviser Qasim al-Aboudi stated that those arrested had admitted to acting in Ukraine’s interests and that, according to their testimony, the attacks had been disguised as operations carried out by local armed factions. The Iraqi authorities have yet to disclose the details of the investigation, but the alleged method closely resembles practices previously associated with Ukrainian structures in Africa and the Middle East.

It is difficult to regard these two developments as entirely unrelated episodes. Both in the Caspian Sea and in Iraq, the same logic appears to be at work, with the practical value of an operation becoming secondary to its political and media impact. The Ukrainian authorities are seeking to demonstrate that they can strike targets of interest to Washington, work through local groups and export their intelligence and drone capabilities far beyond Ukraine’s borders.

The true audience for such signals is not in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus or the capitals of Africa. They are directed at Western governments whose decisions determine the flow of funding to Kiev. At a time when the Ukrainian military remains dependent on foreign weapons, ammunition and budgetary support, Zelensky must prove that his government is not merely a recipient of assistance but a useful contractor capable of contributing to the West’s broader foreign-policy objectives.

The Mali and Syria precedents This model was most clearly displayed in northern Mali in the summer of 2024. Near Tinzaouaten, Tuareg formations attacked a column of the Malian army and Russian units. Fighters from JNIM, an organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda and active across the Sahel, also took part in the fighting.

Following the attack, Andrey Yusov, a representative of Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence, stated that the rebels had received information that enabled them to carry out a successful operation. This acknowledgement was made publicly and was reported not by Russian outlets but by some of the world’s largest international media organizations. Reuters, The Guardian, Bloomberg, The Washington Post and Al Jazeera all covered the alleged role of Ukrainian intelligence.

Subsequent attempts to portray the Mali scandal as the product of foreign propaganda were unconvincing, not least because the accusations had been prompted by the words of an official Kiev representative. Ukrainian intelligence itself associated the country with forces that, during the same combat episode, operated alongside a jihadist organization. Mali later severed diplomatic relations with Ukraine, accusing it of interfering in an internal conflict and supporting armed groups. Niger subsequently took the same step.

The sequence of Kiev’s actions was particularly telling. Immediately after the attack, Ukraine sought to claim some of the publicity surrounding the operation because Russian forces had been targeted and the outcome could be presented favorably to Western audiences. Once diplomatic repercussions followed, however, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry began insisting that there was no convincing evidence of the country’s involvement.

This approach allows Kiev to benefit from the outcome of an operation while avoiding responsibility for the methods used. When an action wins the approval of Western partners, Ukrainian involvement is highlighted through hints or public statements. When allegations of violating sovereignty or cooperating with radical organizations arise, the authorities issue denials and demand proof of activities they had effectively boasted about only shortly before.

Read more …

”Drone warfare has altered the balance in Ukraine, weakened the spirit of Anchorage, and given Europe a new political case for the conflict”

By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

“Trump believed that although Ukraine was resisting stubbornly, its defeat was ultimately inevitable and the sooner Kiev accepted concessions, the less severe the damage would be.”

So obviouslyTrump was very right all along. But Lukyanov didn’t/doesn’t see that?

• Why Western Europe Needs The Ukraine Conflict To Continue (Lukyanov)

The military-technical balance of power is a key element of every political system and changes in that balance, including those brought about by the emergence of new forms of warfare, shape political intentions and determine what is possible in international affairs. The rapid transformation of warfare, driven by the drone revolution and demonstrated over the past year in both Ukraine and the conflict around Iran, offers an opportunity to reassess familiar concepts and how they are evolving.


The spirit has changed, but let us leave the military aspects of drone warfare to the specialists and focus instead on the political consequences.August 2025 can be seen as the turning point, when Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin held their much-discussed meeting in Alaska. Whether any concrete agreements were reached remains disputed, but what’s clear is the essence of what became known as the ‘spirit of Anchorage’.

Trump believed that although Ukraine was resisting stubbornly, its defeat was ultimately inevitable and the sooner Kiev accepted concessions, the less severe the damage would be. The understandings reportedly reached reflected what Russia was prepared to settle for, the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donbass, and where meaningful political negotiations could begin. The White House then turned to the other interested party, the Ukraine-Western Europe partnership.

It’s difficult to judge how much pressure Trump actually placed on his European counterparts. Some effort appears to have been made, but neither Trump nor his advisers were prepared to invest significant political capital and that was especially true given that parts of his administration didn’t share his hostility towards Vladimir Zelensky.

The Western Europeans, for their part, played the situation skillfully. The post-Anchorage pilgrimage of leaders to the White House, mocked by many at the time, as they appeared to indulge Trump’s often boorish behavior, served its purpose. The objective of the EU and UK was simple: to slow down the process that appeared to have begun in Alaska and buy enough time to convince the American president that his assumptions were wrong. Ukraine, they insisted, was still capable of changing the course of the war.

Almost a year later, it is fair to say that Brussels and London, together with Ukraine, achieved at least part of that objective. Meanwhile, Western perceptions of the conflict have changed and at this summer’s G7 and NATO summits, the US president displayed a noticeably more neutral, at times even supportive, attitude towards Kiev. In effect, he acknowledged that his earlier confidence in Ukraine’s inevitable defeat had been, at the very least, premature.

Whether this shift reflects genuine changes on the battlefield or the success of an effective political and media campaign is open to debate, but either way, the change is real and the much-discussed ‘spirit of Anchorage’ has faded because the political climate itself has changed.

Fear and hatred in Europe
Ukraine’s growing ability to conduct long-range drone strikes is the product of three years of sustained financial and technological support from Western Europe, and despite Trump’s repeated claims that “Sleepy Joe” squandered hundreds of billions of American dollars on Ukraine, it’s European governments, Germany above all, that are now carrying the greatest burden of supporting Kiev’s war effort. That’s why assistance didn’t collapse after Trump returned to the White House and sharply reduced American aid.

Western Europe finds itself in a difficult position as it faces persistent economic problems alongside growing concerns about Ukraine and its own internal stability. Maintaining support for Kiev is politically sustainable only if it is presented not as solidarity with Ukraine, but as an investment in the half-continent’s own security.

Public rhetoric, particularly in Germany, increasingly suggests that a military confrontation with Russia around the turn of the next decade is a genuine possibility. The argument is straightforward: As long as Ukrainians are fighting, Western Europe has time to prepare and therefore the conflict should continue for as long as possible, although how much of this militaristic rhetoric reflects genuine belief remains open to debate.

The circumstances have undoubtedly revived Western Europe’s long-standing historical suspicion of Russia, a powerful and, from the their perspective, unpredictable giant to the east. During periods of close economic cooperation these fears receded into the background, replaced by the pursuit of mutual benefit, but this political crisis has quickly pushed commercial interests aside.

In that sense, today’s expectation of a future military confrontation isn’t entirely artificial as it reflects deeply rooted attitudes within Western Europe’s political consciousness. There is, however, another dimension that is both more rational and perhaps not fully appreciated in that the EU and UK’s political establishment is searching for a new basis for internal cohesion at a time of profound economic and social change, and that faced with mounting uncertainty, it requires a unifying idea.

Nothing serves that purpose better than an external threat.

Read more …

Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik.

• US Not In Dispute With EU Over Ukraine, But Still Key Player — Diplomat (TASS)

Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik

European leaders need the conflict to continue because they “have not yet finished building their military-industrial complex,” Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large for the crimes of the Kiev regime Rodion Miroshnik noted. The US is not getting involved in a serious confrontation with the EU over Ukraine, but remains a key player and is waiting for the right conditions to intervene in a way that benefits itself, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large for the crimes of the Kiev regime Rodion Miroshnik TASS.


“When the Americans ‘get distracted,’ it means they realize that in this case, they were unable to pressure Ukraine, for example, into accepting the optimal agreements reached in Anchorage. These are the very agreements that the Americans themselves proposed. In other words, they assumed they could implement this project and coerce or persuade Ukraine to accept and carry out these terms. It turned out that they couldn’t. It also became clear that their European partners were unwilling to accept these terms,” the diplomat noted.

He explained that European leaders need the conflict to continue because they “have not yet finished building their military-industrial complex.” “That is why they are resisting American influence on the Ukrainian side. The Americans say, ‘All right, we’ll deal with Iran for now, but we’ll definitely come back to this issue.’ I don’t think they’ve completely abandoned the possibility of implementing this project. They will either return to it or wait for the situation to change. In fact, the Americans are undoubtedly a very important player in this arena,” Miroshnik concluded.

Read more …

“According to Rodion Miroshnik, the United States is doing everything possible to preserve and strengthen its hegemony”

• US Sees Profits As Key Foreign Policy Goal, Russian Diplomat Says (TASS)

Foreign policy is like a major game of chess in which the United States seeks to make profits at every turn, Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik told TASS. “This entire process should be viewed as a major game of chess taking place on a large chessboard. Every move is followed by counteraction and efforts to pursue certain goals and strategies. What is happening in different parts of the chessboard should be viewed through different lenses. The American lenses can change, but the key one – at least in the current situation – is about profits,” the diplomat said.


According to Miroshnik, the United States is doing everything possible to preserve and strengthen its hegemony. “The Americans can see the growing importance of energy resources. ‘You have oil — we’re coming for you!’ They first went after Venezuela and then Iran. They are also in favor of isolating Russia in terms of energy trade,” he added.

Read more …

I still don’t see the combi of America and socialism. Maybe I will pay dearly.

• The Socialist Monster Awakens (Victor Davis Hanson)

Who caused unaffordability? Fear about “affordability” supposedly fueled the new, strident socialism. Yet annual inflation during former President Joe Biden’s four years averaged almost 5%. It peaked at over 9%, while prices for some key staples rose by 30% over his tenure—all to silence from the Left. (By contrast, annual inflation during Trump’s first term averaged 1.9%. In his second term, it averaged 2.6% in 2025—and may rise to 4.5% in 2026, given the war with Iran.)


The socialists were not just quiet during Biden’s four years; they were themselves responsible for the rampant Biden inflation. They had implemented an inflationary de facto third Obama term, ramming through the most radical and costly agenda in decades under the veneer of that cognitively challenged waxen effigy, good ol’ Joe Biden from Scranton. So the current Jacobin takeover of the Democratic Party was not sparked by concerns about “affordability”—or at least not if by “affordability” we mean the middle-class struggle to buy a house, a car, or groceries.

Instead, the socialist moment was merely the logical culmination of years of boutique radicalism within the Democrat aristocracy—the ossified leadership of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Hakeem Jeffries, along with the aging Black Caucus, the incoherent Squad, the DEI crowd, the open-border zealots, and the radical greens. The grandees of the party also normalized the crazy mobs of BLM and Antifa long ago.

Democrats as Dr. Frankenstein
Almost every weaponized scam and national hysteria in the last two decades was amplified and spread by mainstream Democrats: the farcical claim that the Wuhan-lab-hatched COVID-19 virus came from pangolins or bats; the Duke Lacrosse and Covington Kids hoaxes; the Jussie Smollett scam, the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie; the deification of George Floyd, often portrayed with wings and a halo; Fauxcahontas Liz Warren, touted as the first Native American Harvard law professor (thanks to her grandfather’s high cheekbones); the radical diminution of in-person voting; the canonization of Trayvon Martin and Karmelo Anthony as blameless model children; and the mythology of a 1619 national founding.

Who allowed not just one, two, three, or four million border-jumpers into the country, but over ten million—illegal, unvetted, viewed as an assumed new political constituency, and instantaneously dependent on the welfare state? Who gave us three, four, five, or even more genders and biological males showering with teenage girls or female prisoners? Who sloganeered about “defund the police” and “no cash bail”? All this was about as radical as it gets. The Democrat establishment’s unhinged hatred of Donald Trump mainstreamed radicalism even further and helped birth the socialist-cum-communist Frankensteinian monster that is now devouring its mad-scientist creators.

“By any means necessary” was a Democrat mantra over a decade ago. By 2016, the Democrat leadership and the Clinton campaign were hatching the Steele-dossier farce to warp an election. In 2020, the Democrat deep state—Antony Blinken, Mike Morell, John Brennan, James Clapper, Leon Panetta, and others—had fabricated the farcical claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, a hoax that, this time around, likely did alter an election.

The Democrat establishment, working with its appendages in Silicon Valley, had censored news attesting to the authenticity of Hunter’s embarrassing laptop contents. (For an account of what the establishment was doing in 2020, read Molly Ball’s Time essay describing the “conspiracies” and “cabals” that worked behind the scenes to change voting rules and ensure a Biden victory through mail-in, no-ID balloting.) Then came four unhinged years of lawfare: special counsel Jack Smith’s seizure of the communications of senators and congressmen, the Mar-a-Lago raid on Trump’s home, the effort to de-ballot Trump, and the five civil and criminal circuses that resulted in half a billion dollars in fines.

All those perversions of the legal system were accompanied by a host of mainstream Democrats, retired generals, politicos, and athletes shouting that Trump was a Nazi, a fascist, a Mussolini, a traitor, or a Putin asset. Meanwhile, a host of loudmouth actors, Democrat activists, and celebrities competed with each other about how best to kill him—whether by shooting, stabbing, poisoning, beheading, burning him alive, or blowing him up. Trump supporters were libeled over the years by establishment Democrats as irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs, and garbage.

Even an establishment figure like Rosa Brooks, a former Obama-appointed Pentagon lawyer, called for a military coup in Foreign Policy just 10 days after Trump first took office in 2017. Three would-be assassins got close enough to killing Trump to draw return fire from the Secret Service—near-death encounters that elicited both unapologetic applause for the attempts and lamentations that the shooters had failed from the now truly deranged social-media Left. Murderers themselves were normalized as leftist icons, as seen in the canonization of Luigi Mangione and the glee that followed in many Democrat social media circles after the murder of Charlie Kirk.

Yet did the establishment Democrat apparat calm these waters? Or did it set them boiling? It was Chuck Schumer who threatened conservative Supreme Court justices, screaming in front of a mob outside the court’s doors, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer sounded more like a pink-haired anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement street protester than a U.S. senator. No surprise, then, that two years later a left-wing would-be assassin turned up at Kavanaugh’s home, along with crowds of enthusiastic protestors.

Does anyone recall Maxine Waters urging the public to bird-dog Trump administration officials and harass them whenever they were seen in public? “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Does anyone also remember Nancy Pelosi, then-Democrat House Minority leader, greenlighting “uprisings” over ICE deportations? “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.” So spoke the radical owner of two mansions, who entered Congress with little net worth and will leave it worth over $100 million. A Tip O’Neill she wasn’t.

Then there was soon-to-be Vice President Kamala Harris egging on the George Floyd demonstrations, which, weeks earlier, had already turned violent and indeed deadly (despite what the “fact-checkers” asserted): “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be—everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”

Read more …

Trump does damage to US diplomacy as practiced under Joe Biden, Kamala, Obama and Jake Sullivan? And that’s not a good thing?

• Trump’s Damage To US Diplomacy Could Last A Generation (McGlinchey)

As the US-Israel war on Iran grinds into its sixth month, it’s clear to all but the most intellectually-dishonest Trump loyalists and war-bent Israel-sympathizers that it’s been a spectacular failure. A war of aggression that was supposed to precipitate a revolution has instead galvanized popular support of the Iranian government in defiance of the country’s tormentors, who’ve killed thousands of their fellow citizens and destroyed civilian infrastructure. A war that was launched to neutralize Israel’s principal rival seems certain to leave that rival far more geopolitically powerful than before, while driving Americans’ support for Israel to record lows.


Beyond unforgivably throwing away the lives of 18 American service members in an unconstitutional war launched on false pretenses, Trump’s blunder has depleted America’s arsenal and pushed the country more than $100 billion deeper into debt. Meanwhile, the longer Trump delays the inevitable consummation of his defeat, the greater the risk of an economic calamity that engulfs not only the United States but the entire world.

If that latter nightmare can be sidestepped, we’ll likely find that Trump has inflicted his most enduring damage on an intangible yet critical national asset: the ability of American diplomats to productively engage counterparts all over the world. From using negotiations as a ploy for surprise attacks to murdering heads of state and casually reneging on American commitments — including his own — Trump’s damage to US diplomacy will be evident for years. Of course, that’s not to suggest America’s foreign policy reputation was sparkling before Trump’s ascension to power — only that he and his team have managed to drag it down to new depths.



Trump’s collaboration with Israel to launch an unprovoked war on Iran is manifestly among the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of the American republic. However, it’s important to appreciate that Trump first set this 2026 disaster in motion eight years ago: In May 2018, — spurred on by then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Trump’s Israel-first donors — Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, or JCPOA.

Also called the “Iran nuclear deal,” the July 2015 JCPOA was the culmination of nearly two years of painstaking negotiations over highly technical provisions, conducted by representatives of not only the United States and Iran but also China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to major restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from brutal economic sanctions. Among other things, the JCPOA required Iran to eliminate its medium-enriched uranium, slash its cache of low-enriched uranium by 98%, limit future enrichment to 3.67%, agree to even more external monitoring than it was already submitting to, and render its heavy-water reactor worthless by filling it with concrete.

Catering both to devoted Israel supporters and to Republicans who were eager to assume that a deal negotiated during the Obama administration must have been treasonous, Trump had repeatedly railed against the JCPOA throughout his 2016 campaign, declaring that his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” After being named national security advisor in April 2018, Bolton — who had long been pushing for war on Iran — quickly prodded Trump into making good on his promises to tear up the JCPOA, despite the fact that Iran was fully complying with the agreement.

“Trump’s move demonstrates that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its promises,” the Belfer Center’s Martin Malin said at the time. “It will heighten tensions in an already smoldering Middle East while giving fodder to hardliners and nuclear bomb advocates in Iran.”

Read more …

“..the chaos on the streets is not just a symptom of Seattle’s future; this chaos is Wilson and company’s mission statement. ”

• Seattle Is in Free Fall (Victoria Taft)

Victoria Taft/AI
Well, another Seattle chief of police just got fired. The city has had four in the past two-and-a-half years. There’s been only one mayor in the past 26 years who has been elected to two consecutive terms. In one of those years, 2017, Seattle had four mayors. “In just three months, Ed Murray, Bruce Harrell, Tim Burgess and Jenny Durkan all held the title of Seattle mayor,” Fox 13 reported. Is this normal? Of course not. Seattle’s been on a slide since the Antifa and BLM agitators welcomed the deconstruction of American norms—since the University of Washington and Evergreen State University started churning out social justice warriors instead of caring and knowledgeable citizens.


Seattle continues to suffer from a leadership crisis. This will come as no surprise to anyone who reads PJ Media’s weekly West Coast, Messed Coast™ update. Every week, the city’s leadership seems to take a dumb pill just to see what chaos will happen. The past four mayors of Seattle have been:

1) An accused kid diddler, 2) An incompetent former federal prosecutor who predicted the George Floyd Riots and Antifa take over would usher in a “Summer of Love,” 3) A fellow traveler on the Peter Principle Highway who took a left turn onto Wacky Woke Way, 4) An overeducated, inexperienced commie.

Is it normal to churn through police chiefs and mayors like this?

Police chiefs in Seattle The Emerald City’s velvet green old-growth firs were once emblematic of a flourishing life and business. It was a fertile testing ground next to the waters of the Puget Sound.

Want to be a test pilot? Boeing.

Want to grow with a company? Starbucks.

Want to change the world? Amazon.

Boeing moved its headquarters.

Starbucks’ founder moved to Florida.

Amazon isn’t expanding in Seattle—it’s gone to Tennessee. Its founder left town. Heck, Jeff Bezos left the state.

Katie Wilson has waved away businesses. “Bye!” she said.

Seattle lost businesses Thing is, the new mayor, the nepo baby who calls herself a Democratic Socialist—aka commie—has taken on the air of the Wicked Witch of the West and, during her campaign, even surrounded herself with Antifa flying monkeys. Her aides and staffers appear to come from the ranks of women’s studies majors who expect software developer pay for their useless degrees and protest experience. Seattle’s identity crisis in this changing political culture comes from a breakdown of norms. It’s a place where virtue signaling to reflect the latest fad takes precedence over character and what works. Tradition is now an apparition, a vestige of a memory.

Jobs are becoming an apparition too. Software companies are sloughing jobs. Some of it is because of AI and a contraction in the market, or they’re not expanding jobs in Seattle. Mostly though, Seattle is a very bad place to root a company. She is a greedy mistress.

Seattle Mayors vs. Police Chiefs Seattle’s leaders think cops don’t matter. After last weekend’s Bite of Seattle mass shooting by apparent gang members, Wilson talked up the police “care teams” to help. The police “care teams” don’t find outstanding perps who have 3-D printed guns.


No matter.

Leaders think they don’t need to provide for the care and feeding of businesses and the people who work there. Imagine if Wilson and her fellow travelers treated people who are struggling to keep their businesses open in Seattle with the respect they accord crackheads who stay on the street because they don’t have any rules there.

The leaders have shown they can have a successful World Cup event. They moved out the “homeless,” and kept the peace by using every officer in their depleted ranks, adding help from the FBI and cops from all over the region to keep the peace. It got rave reviews. But these leaders can’t sustain that because they don’t know how. Everything’s back to chaos. Indeed, the chaos on the streets is not just a symptom of Seattle’s future; this chaos is Wilson and company’s mission statement.

Seattle’s in free fall. Will anyone stop it?

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2083261719334338718?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 30 2026

Jul 302026
 
 July 30, 2026  Posted by at 8:32 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Girl Before A Mirror 1932


• New US Attack Wave On Iran Begins In Overnight Hours(ZH)
• Rand Paul Delivers a Cinematic Indictment of Fauci’s COVID Legacy (Queen)
• Paul Confirms Plans For Fauci Contempt Vote (JTN)
• Hawley Exposed Fauci’s 5th Amendment Charade, Then the Takedown (Margolis)
• ’Who the F**k Do You Think You Were?’ Moreno Destroys Fauci (Margolis)
• Senate Fan Girls for Zelenskyy then Advances Russian Sanction Bill 86-12 (CTH)
• Britain Backs Ukraine With New Electronic Warfare Cooperation (RFE/RL)
• Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Revive Mail-In Voting Order Ahead Of Midterms (AmG)
• DOJ and Trump Ask Supreme Court to Review $83.3 Million Carroll Verdict (ET)
• Trump Urges SCOTUS To Overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83M Defamation Verdict (CNN)
• CNN Trump Midrerms Poll (CNN)
• Welcome to Socialism’: A Clinton Hand’s Stark Warning About Mamdani (Green)
• The Mamdani Grocery Grift (Turley)
• Laura Loomer Says There’s No Nazi Problem In Ukraine. What She Didn’t See (RT)
• The End Of Freedom – The Last Breath Of A Dying Continent (Adams)

 


 

 


 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2082500161914257556?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2082524598277378179?s=20

 


 


Losing Zerohedge support?!

• New US Attack Wave On Iran Begins In Overnight Hours

The United States has begun a new round of airstrikes in Iran in the night time and early morning hours (local), according to a senior US official to Axios. The extent of the bombings, or whether they will be sustained, remains unclear: Trump “is in an escalatory mood” but is still contemplating “the depth of that response.”, A senior administration official says – WSJ. Trump is apparently making good on his earlier Wednesday threat: President Trump has told Fox News that he is “going to beat the fucking shit” out of Iran in response to their attack on US forces in Jordan overnight. Speaking to Trey Yingst, he added “we’ll be hitting them hard, they’re going to get a beating.”


There was heavy US refueler activity in regional skies just ahead of the strikes’ commencement – as well as unconfirmed reports of explosions at Riyadh’s international airport, but the cause has remained subject to speculation. But with each attack on Iran, its forces tend to respond in kind against Gulf countries hosting US assets and bases. It is going to be a long night for the region, especially while bracing for the IRGC’s inevitable response.

US is quite clearly stuck, in search of a strategy…

Details of Trump-Netanyahu Meeting at Oval Finally Emerging
After on Tuesday President Trump hosted both Zelensky and Netanyahu in the Oval Office there were no big press conferences or readouts given. But on Wednesday some key statements have begun to emerge concerning what was discussed, but at this point only offered via the Israeli side…

To be expected, Iran and the nuclear question dominated the discussions, according to i24’s Ariel Oseran, with Israeli officials describing a White House focused on three possible paths forward. “Trump is weighing three options: a nuclear deal, maintaining and intensifying the economic blockade, or renewed military strikes,” one official said, adding, “We didn’t tell Trump Israel’s preference is a strike. Our preference is the outcome. The decision is ultimately his.”

…talk about stating the obvious. But Israeli still maintains that the situation is at tipping point inside Iran, which according to more independent ‘realist’ analysts seems highly dubious. Israeli officials argued that Tehran is under mounting internal strain. “Iran is under severe economic pressure” due to fuel and diesel shortages, roughly 90% inflation, and “the beginning of public protests.” They added, “We discussed increasing pressure on Iran, both economically and kinetically.”

On Iran’s leadership, officials said, “We know for certain Mujtaba is alive, but since Operation Rising Lion no one has seen him.” Regarding Iran’s military capabilities, they claimed, “Iran now has only 1,500–1,600 missiles left after we destroyed much of its production capability.” Expletives fly and Trump talks ‘tough’ – but this whole gambit has been a bombing campaign in search of a strategy…

Read more …

Today, Fauci is an 85-year old grandpa. You should have gotten to him when it mattered.

• Rand Paul Delivers a Cinematic Indictment of Fauci’s COVID Legacy (Queen)

We’ve seen it countless times: the dramatic courtroom scene. It could be an attorney, or it might be the person testifying. But someone in a courtroom delivers a stirring speech that makes the difference in a case or makes a statement altogether. The courtroom scene is a hallmark of scriptwriting. From To Kill a Mockingbird to A Few Good Men to countless episodes of Law & Order, writers love a good grandstanding courtroom speech. And on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delivered a takedown of Dr. Anthony Fauci that screenwriters could easily drool over.


Paul reminded Fauci and everybody watching and listening of the costs of Fauci’s COVID-19 policies: The COVID lockdown could never have been inflicted without you aiding and abetting the crime. Children lost years of education, small businesses built over a lifetime disappeared, patients delayed cancer screenings and other medical care, families were separated from dying relatives, workers were ordered to accept a medical procedure or lose their jobs, worship assembly, employment, education, and travel were restricted in the name of science. While you did not impose every restriction, you used your public authority to justify them.

My own experiences during that period bear witness. My dad was in a hospital with cancer ravaging his body, with family unable to visit him (and a cellphone that went dead because a nurse misplaced his charging cable). By the grace of God, he came home with hospice, and we got to spend his last two days with him as a family. I was on staff at my church at the time, and even in the first state to open back up, we felt compelled to continue weird protocols for months “out of an abundance of caution” — a phrase I never hope to have to utter again.

We can’t ignore the damage that Fauci’s COVID policies did to businesses, churches, and even some families. Some politicians dutifully followed them for months and even years after the danger of the first waves of the pandemic was long gone.

Side note: Keisha Lance Bottoms, who famously declared that “Atlanta Isn’t Ready to Reopen—And Neither Is Georgia,” now wants to run the Peach State. The Atlanta mayor demanded that people wear masks outside long after Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) opened the state back up. We have to hold her accountable by making sure she never holds public office again.

Paul savaged Fauci for his word games on gain-of-function research: On May 11, 2021, you told the Senate the NIH has never, ever, and does not now fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. When I gave you the opportunity to correct the record to reconsider the statement, you responded that you had never before lied to Congress. We were then told that only the government’s narrowest regulation of definition counted here. That you could define gain-of-function in one way in which this was not gain-of-function, in which all of the common sense of the world be thrown out…

The American people were not asking for a semantics debate over what is gain-of-function. They were asking, does common sense say this research was dangerous in Wuhan? They wanted to know whether their money funded experiments in Wuhan that made bad coronaviruses better able to infect humans. The answer is, yes.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2082449192895566181?s=20

Finally, and possibly most devastatingly, Paul pointed out that the biggest thing that Fauci and his league of arrogant scientists did was destroy trust in institutions — possibly rightly so, but it happened under Fauci’s watch nonetheless. “There will be another pandemic. There will be another crisis. And there will again be officials that insist uncertainty must be hidden for the public’s own good. They will demand obedience. They will invoke science. “I am the science!” as though it were a commandment. They will argue that government officials cannot be questioned, because questioning them would undermine public trust. They have it backwards.

It is secrecy that destroys trust. It is arrogance that destroys trust. It is censorship that destroys trust. And it is the refusal to admit error that destroys trust. That loss of trust may be YOUR MOST DAMAGING LEGACY. Trust can’t be ordered. It has to be earned. No scientist is above scrutiny. No government official is beyond accountability. And no public servant has the right to treat suffering of millions of Americans as a footnote to his preferred version of history.”

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2082450685337960467?s=20

Of course, we watched as Fauci pleaded the Fifth repeatedly. We gleefully enjoyed Paul ejecting Fauci’s attorney from the chambers. But it’s hard to imagine a more cinematic moment than those opening remarks from Paul. Good stuff.

Read more …

“The question on contempt will be voted on and then there’s the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up,” he said.

• Paul Confirms Plans For Fauci Contempt Vote (JTN)

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Wednesday confirmed that his Senate committee would hold a contempt of Congress vote against Dr. Anthony Fauci after he invoked the 5th Amendment to avoid answering questions. “We believe… he didn’t need to hide behind the 5th Amendment and that maybe the 5th Amendment doesn’t attach when you have a pardon in place,” he told reporters. “The question on contempt will be voted on and then there’s the question of whether or not the Department of Justice will take that up.”


Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday and declined to answer questions, citing the 5th Amendment. Multiple senators, including Paul and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have questioned whether Fauci could legitimately invoke the 5th Amendment due to his pardon from President Joe Biden. Hawley opined that Fauci was improperly invoking the 5th Amendment to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about his increase in wealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fauci declined to respond.

Read more …

“Fauci, while Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands during the COVID-19 pandemic, directed his own staff to solicit cash prizes on his behalf..”

• Hawley Exposed Fauci’s 5th Amendment Charade, Then the Takedown (Margolis)

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) didn’t just question Anthony Fauci on Wednesday. He dismantled him methodically in front of the entire country, using nothing but public records, a Supreme Court precedent, and a series of questions so basic that a child could have answered them. Fauci had exactly one response prepared for every question senators asked him during the hearing: a canned invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights.The only problem is that Fauci doesn’t have Fifth Amendment protection anymore. President Biden pardoned him in the final hours of his term, which means that Fauci cannot legally “stand upon his privilege,” as the Supreme Court ruled all the way back in 1896.


Hawley knew that. He built his entire line of questioning around forcing Fauci to demonstrate it to the world, starting with the simplest possible setup. “Well, nothing says honesty like taking the fifth, huh, doc?” Hawley asked. “Let’s try something. What day of the week is it today?” “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” Fauci said.Hawley asked what color tie Fauci was wearing.Same answer. He asked what color the carpet was in front of him.Same answer again.

Three questions. Zero risk of self-incrimination. Three invocations of a constitutional right that, thanks to his own pardon, Fauci doesn’t legally possess anymore. That’s when Hawley reminded him.”Let’s just get one thing straight, you don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned,” Hawley said. “As you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more, Brown v. Walker, 1896. When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege.” From there, Hawley moved from exposing the absurdity of Fauci’s stonewalling to laying out exactly why Fauci was hiding behind it. The answer, according to Hawley, is money.

Hawley walked through how Fauci, while Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands during the COVID-19 pandemic, directed his own staff to solicit cash prizes on his behalf, using federal time, federal resources, and federal email accounts. Hawley named the staffers: Greg Folkers and Patricia Conrad, Fauci’s chief of staff and personal assistant. Both, Hawley said, spent government time chasing awards for their boss. One of those awards was the Dan David Award, worth $900,000. Hawley read from an email Folkers sent seeking help padding Fauci’s nomination. “I’m working on this nomination for the Dan David Award for Fauci,” the email read, according to Hawley.

“We need to beef up the COVID part. Do you have language in the can that you can share that delineates how we responded in new ways to COVID?” That wasn’t the only prize on the list. Hawley cited the Partnership for Public Service Award, the Adelson Prize, the Smithsonian Award, the National Academy of Medicine Award, and an award from the CDC Foundation, all pursued using federal employees on the taxpayers’ dime. “You turned your staff into a full-time application machine,” Hawley said. He noted Fauci’s staff didn’t stop at applying. They pressured federal ethics officials to approve the payouts. “We want to get to yes because Fauci wants the money,” one email read, according to Hawley.

Federal law bars government employees from soliciting cash awards or personal benefits, and it bars using subordinates to do it for them. Hawley cited the regulation by number, 5 C.F.R. Section 2635.205(b), and dared Fauci to explain how none of it applied to him. Fauci said nothing. He couldn’t.Hawley closed by putting Fauci’s fortune on the table. Fauci’s net worth now tops $12 million. His pension paid out more than $400,000 in its first year alone. Fauci built all of it, Hawley argued, while a million Americans died and he was busy chasing awards and sitting for glossy magazine profiles.

“You could sit for InStyle magazine, but you can’t answer questions for the American people,” Hawley said. Then came the closing blow. Hawley told Fauci that his silence spoke louder than any answer could have.”Silence is admission,” Hawley said. He accused Fauci of turning the pandemic into a vehicle for personal glory, calling him “a narcissist and a megalomaniac and a liar” who “disgraced” his own profession. “You’ve done more to harm science than anybody in my lifetime,” Hawley told him. “I hope you’ll go home and write that in your diary.”

I bet he will.

Read more …

“..I decided I’m going to give up my businesses, sell them all, run for office, run through the United States Senate. Here I am sitting in front of you, six years later, saying, who the f**k do you think you were for doing that? It is a total disgrace what you did to this country..”

• ’Who the F**k Do You Think You Were?’ Moreno Destroys Fauci (Margolis)

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) walked into Wednesday’s hearing wanting one thing from Dr. Anthony Fauci: an apology. He didn’t get one. Fauci came to Capitol Hill, read an opening statement, then refused to answer a single question that followed it. He wouldn’t even answer Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) question about whether a folder was sitting right in front of him. Moreno used his time to remind Fauci exactly what the last six years cost him personally, and what they cost the country.


“It was about six years ago, today that I decided I’m going to give up my businesses, sell them all, run for office, run through the United States Senate. Here I am sitting in front of you, six years later, saying, who the f**k do you think you were for doing that? It is a total disgrace what you did to this country,” Moreno said. He turned next to the colleagues who spent years defending Fauci in public. “I hope the voters of the United States of America watch the clips of every one of you doting on a guy who was more interested in being a celebrity than saving American people,” Moreno said. “You may have had a 50-plus-year legacy of public service, but it ends in total and complete disgrace.”

Then Moreno asked the only question that mattered. “Will you apologize, just apologize to the people who you harmed through your actions? Do you have the dignity to just say you’re sorry?” Moreno asked.”On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” Fauci said.

Fauci repeated that one sentence over and over again through the rest of the hearing. Moreno asked about service members discharged for refusing the vaccine. Fifth Amendment. He asked about business owners who lost everything during the lockdowns. Fifth Amendment. He asked about parents who strapped masks onto toddlers too young to understand why. Fifth Amendment. He asked about families who buried relatives who trusted Fauci’s word on booster after booster. Fifth Amendment.

Moreno brought up the Ohio mother arrested for watching a football game with her family during the pandemic. Fauci answered the same way. By the end, Moreno stopped asking questions and started making a point. He noted that James Madison, the man who wrote the Fifth Amendment, once lived a few blocks from the hearing room, and wondered aloud what Madison would think of a public health official invoking it to dodge accountability for his own decisions. “It’s no secret why you have to hire the biggest dirtbag attorney on the planet,” Moreno said. “I hope you’re paying him well, and I hope that one way or the other, somewhere, sometime, you answer for your crimes.”

Fauci’s reputation was already shot by the time he showed up on Capitol Hill, but boy did he absolutely destroy his legacy today.

Read more …

“Senators, grown adults awaiting Zelenskyy’s arrival, clinging to every word, clamoring to be first in line for his reception, competing against each other for time standing next to him..”

• Senate Fan Girls for Zelenskyy then Advances Russian Sanction Bill 86-12 (CTH)

The behavior of the U.S. senators clamoring to be with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reflects a certain level of disconnect that needs to be witnessed to be realized. Senators, grown adults awaiting Zelenskyy’s arrival, clinging to every word, clamoring to be first in line for his reception, competing against each other for time standing next to him, the entire event was grotesque and creepy.



Shortly after the guided tour of the upper chamber, the Golden Child was carried on a gilded chariot into the viewing chamber while trumpets blared, senators took turns bringing forth their taxpayer funded indulgences, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen knelt down at his feet and peeled Zelenskyy’s grapes. Yeah, that’s the vibe. The “Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026” was then advanced by the Senate in an 86 to 12 procedural vote teeing up the bill for final passage in the Senate later this week. However, I would challenge people to READ THE BILL, it’s only 61-pages.

Within the bill you will note almost everything within the law is left to the enforcement discretion of the President; which normally would not be of great concern, however, given the punishment for violations – things may get sketchy depending on who is in office.A foreign person who “undermines the peace, security, political stability, or territorial integrity of Ukraine;” and/or “undermines the democratic processes of Ukraine,” will be in violation of the U.S. law and subject to fines, travel or visa restrictions. [Page 13, page 28] As a consequence, any person who may be critical of Ukraine -undermining the democratic process via criticism- can be punished by the U.S. President.

Page 36 applies a 100% U.S. tariff against the import of any country’s goods into the USA if that country purchase energy products from Russia (with qualifiers). The intent of that section is to stop China and/or India from purchasing Russian oil and gas. As noted by Politico, ‘the revamped bill expands the number of Russian entities that would be subject to mandatory sanctions — including Russia’s shadow fleet of ships ferrying oil — but it also grants Trump broad waiver authority.’ The House is in summer recess, so things may stall even if the Senate (very pro-Ukraine) passes the bill.

Read more …

Their thought: Once there is war with Russia, nobody will notice the mess they made domestically.

• Britain Backs Ukraine With New Electronic Warfare Cooperation (RFE/RL)

President Volodymyr Zelensky met British Prime Minister Andy Burnham on July 27 as he kicked off a key week of talks with officials around the world to bolster Ukraine’s defenses amid a rising civilian death toll from Russian air strikes back home. Zelensky became the first foreign leader hosted by Burnham since he took office one week ago following the resignation of fellow Labour Party member Keir Starmer. The two leaders met at the Portsmouth Naval Base on England’s southern coast as Burnham pledged his country’s “unwavering” support for Kyiv as the war with Russia runs well into its fifth year.


Zelensky said being the first foreign leader to meet Burnham was “an important signal of support.””We discussed our defense for Ukraine, it is important to have sufficient capabilities to protect lives both in the sky and at sea,” Zelensky wrote on social media after the meeting, adding the development of joint defense production was also touched upon.Burnham and Zelensky were later scheduled to meet some of the 200 Ukrainian military personnel who have been in Britain the past three weeks participating in a maritime security and counter-mine exercise in preparation for potential future Black Sea missions.

‘Stone Cloak’ System
Burnham announced the sharing of the intellectual property behind Britain s new Stone Cloak electronic warfare system, enabling Ukraine to produce the technology itself. The jammers, the size of a tablet computer, can be used to prevent Russian air defenses from tracking and targeting drones when attached to the projectiles, officials said.Downing Street pointed out that the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine has reached 25 billion pounds ($33 billion) since Russia’s full-scale invasion of February 2022, including 16 billion pounds ($21 billion) in direct military assistance.

Following the London visit, Zelensky is scheduled to travel to Washington on July 28 for talks with US President Donald Trump. Zelensky is also expected to attend the funeral of US Senator Lindsey Graham, who died earlier this month. The Republican lawmaker was a vocal Ukraine supporter and had traveled to Kyiv for meetings with Zelensky days before his death.

Russia, Ukraine Exchange Deadly Strikes
Five people, including a child, were killed and eight injured in a Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s Rostov region, local officials reported on July 27. Rostov Region Governor Yuri Slyusar said rescuers recovered bodies, two adults and one child, from the rubble of an apartment building hit by a drone, while emergency crews continue recovery operations and provide assistance to victims. Zelensky, in a post on X, said that Ukraine’s long-range strikes hit an export terminal in the Rostov region and oil facilities in the Yaroslavl and Udmurtia regions to reduce Russia’s ability to finance the war.

“Last night, our long-range sanctions were effective in the Rostov region. An export terminal approximately 250 kilometers from the front line was hit. Deep strikes also targeted oil facilities in the Yaroslavl region and the Udmurt Republic, which is 1,300 kilometers from Ukraine’s state border,” Zelenskyy wrote. Meanwhile, the death toll continued to rise in Ukraine, with the capital, Kyiv, coming under a Russian ballistic missile attack on July 26, authorities said, while other regions suffered air strikes during the day that led to at least six deaths.

In the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv, a Russian drone struck a supermarket, killing two people and wounding 25, Ukraine’s emergency services said. “This is deliberate Russian terror that has no military justification,” Zelensky wrote on Telegram. Regional Governor Ivan Fedorov said a glide bomb attack killed one person and wounded six in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhya, which has been a frequent target of Russian bombardment.

In the frontline city of Slovyansk in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, the Naftogaz oil and gas company said two of its employees were killed in a Russian attack while trying to help residents affected by an earlier air strike. One person was killed, and eight others were injured in a Russian strike on the town of Balakliya in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region on July 27, regional authorities reported.Russia denies targeting civilian areas despite widespread evidence of such attacks that have killed thousands of people since the start of Russia s full-scale invasion.

Read more …

`What else can they do?

• Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Revive Mail-In Voting Order Ahead Of Midterms (AmG)

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let the president’s mail-in voting executive order take effect ahead of the midterms, after a federal appeals court sided with Democrat-led states seeking to keep it blocked just months before Election Day.


Trump signed the order in March, directing the Postal Service to restrict delivery of mail-in ballots in states that refuse to hand over lists of eligible voters. It also orders the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile lists of verified absentee voters for the Postal Service to reference, and threatens to withhold federal funds from states that do not comply, part of a larger effort by the president to tighten a mail voting system he has long argued is vulnerable to abuse.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the order in June, ruling that its timing made it impossible for the Postal Service to propose the rule through proper channels and would deny Congress its required chance to weigh in. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling Saturday, rejecting the administration’s appeal and leaving the order blocked in the 23 states and Washington, D.C., that sued to stop it.

In Monday’s filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the injunction improperly impedes the president’s authority over the executive branch, noting the Postal Service falls within it despite its independent structure. Sauer warned that further delay could make the order impossible to implement in time for November even if the administration ultimately wins on appeal. “Every day that the agencies are unable to take steps to carry out the Executive Order as to the November 2026 election makes it less likely that they will, as a practical matter, be able to implement any lists or rules that they ultimately finalize, even if they obtain appellate relief,” the filing states.

The order is one piece of a larger push by Trump to overhaul election security, an effort that has repeatedly run into resistance from federal judges. Trump has also urged Congress to pass his SAVE America Act, which would restrict mail voting and require identification to cast a ballot, though the legislation has stalled on Capitol Hill despite mounting pressure from the president.

Trump devoted a primetime address earlier this month to laying out his concerns about election interference, releasing declassified documents alongside the speech. Trump used the address to direct federal agencies to investigate a Michigan get-out-the-vote operation and to examine whether intelligence officials withheld information about Chinese efforts to influence the 2020 election.

Read more …

“In the new petition, the Justice Department argues Trump’s 2019 White House statements denying the allegations were official acts protected by federal law.”: ”Trump may have to pay almost $100 million in damages and interest “for issuing a press release and answering reporters’ questions, from the White House ..”

• DOJ and Trump Ask Supreme Court to Review $83.3 Million Carroll Verdict (ET)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on July 28 to intervene in the defamation dispute between President Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll. The DOJ is arguing in the petition in United States v. Carroll that the federal government—not Trump personally—should be the defendant in the case that led to an $83.3 million verdict against Trump. At the same time, Trump’s private attorneys filed a petition with the high court in the case of Trump v. Carroll, asking the justices to review the same verdict, largely on grounds of presidential immunity.


The DOJ’s petition, a copy of which was obtained by The Epoch Times, focuses on the federal Westfall Act, which shields federal employees from personal liability for common law tort lawsuits arising from their government employment. Common law refers to the body of law developed over centuries by court rulings, as opposed to statutes passed by legislatures. A tort is a wrongful act or infringement of a right that gives rise to civil liability. When the U.S. attorney general certifies that a federal employee—including a president—was acting in an official capacity, the United States is usually substituted as the defendant, and the individual ends up being dismissed from the lawsuit.

The $83.3 million verdict arose from statements Trump made in mid-2019 while he was president, in which he denied Carroll’s allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s. Trump denied the claim in an official White House statement and again when speaking to reporters—statements the jury found defamatory. In 2020, then-Attorney General William Barr, who served in Trump’s Cabinet, certified under the Westfall Act that Trump’s statements were within the scope of his official duties. As a result, the case, which had been pending in New York state court, was transferred to federal court. Then in 2023, then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, who served in President Joe Biden’s Cabinet, took the unusual step of withdrawing the certification, the petition said.

This allowed the lawsuit to move forward against Trump personally, after which the jury found for Carroll, rendering the $83.3 million verdict. While an appeal was pending, Trump was reelected, and in April 2025, his attorney general appointee, Pam Bondi, recertified Trump’s conduct and made a motion to substitute the United States as the defendant in the case. The Second Circuit blocked Bondi’s recertification, an action the DOJ argues the court was not entitled to take. The DOJ also argues the Second Circuit misinterpreted the Westfall Act.

“This petition presents the question whether the Westfall Act contains an implicit timing restriction barring the Attorney General’s posttrial recertification. Such a restriction does not exist,” the petition said of Bondi’s action. If the United States replaces Trump as the defendant, Carroll’s defamation claim would almost certainly fail. The Federal Tort Claims Act, which covers lawsuits against the government, specifically excludes defamation claims. The DOJ urged the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing it raises potentially significant institutional stakes.

Trump may have to pay almost $100 million in damages and interest “for issuing a press release and answering reporters’ questions, from the White House, defending against attacks on his fitness for office,” the petition said. Trump’s petition in Trump v. Carroll argues that the Second Circuit was wrong to treat presidential immunity like an ordinary legal defense that can be lost if not raised in time, and that the appeals court didn’t actually decide whether immunity protected Trump’s 2019 statements.

If the Second Circuit’s “mistreatment of Presidential immunity and the Westfall Act” are not corrected, there will be reverberations far beyond this case, as the threat of a single judgment for damages based on official acts will prevent presidents from “fearlessly” executing their duties, the petition said. The $83.3 million verdict is separate from a prior $5 million civil verdict Carroll secured in 2023. In that case, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming her again in 2022 when he was out of office.

The Supreme Court recently declined to take up Trump’s challenge to the $5 million verdict, but Trump has asked the court to reconsider its ruling. It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will take up the two new petitions.

Read more …

“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,”

• Trump Urges SCOTUS To Overturn E. Jean Carroll’s $83M Defamation Verdict (CNN)

President Donald Trump on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to once again step into his messy legal brawl with magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, appealing an $83.3 million jury verdict for defamation on the grounds that, as president, he is immune from the litigation.The appeal, which has not yet been docketed at the high court, relies heavily on the court’s 2024 decision granting the president wide immunity for actions taken in office.


“This is the first case in our nation’s history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office,” Trump’s attorneys told the high court, according to a copy of the appeal reviewed by CNN. “Yet, in upholding the exorbitant $83.3 million defamation judgment here, the Second Circuit never even decided whether presidential immunity applies.” Trump told the justices that an appeals court decision in Carroll’s favor would “cause significant damage, not only to this president and future presidents” but also the nation.

In addition to raising the prospect that Trump should be immune from the litigation, Trump is also asking the court to review whether the United States government should be the defendant rather than the president. “Here, the president of the United States has been ordered to pay nearly $100 million in damages … for issuing a press release and answering reporters’ questions, from the White House, defending against attacks on his fitness for office,” his attorneys told the court. The latest appeal comes weeks after the Supreme Court declined to take up a separate case from Trump in which the president is seeking to unwind a $5 million civil verdict that found he sexually abused and defamed Carroll at a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the 1990s.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in both cases. The new appeal involves statements Trump made against Carroll in 2019, when he was president, that a jury found were defamatory and ordered him to pay $83 million in damages. A federal appeals court panel affirmed the damages award, finding it “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts” and rejected several of Trump’s legal challenges. Among them, the appeals court found that Trump had previously waived any claim of presidential immunity and said the Supreme Court’s decision in 2024 involving presidential immunity did not alter their view.

The full 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revisit that decision in late April. At that time, one of the appeals court judges who sided with Carroll wrote that Trump had first brought up his immunity claims far too late in the litigation.

Read more …

CNN hates Trump. So they make this of his polls.

Note: The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from July 23-27 among a random national sample of 1,225 US adults drawn from a probability-based panel. Surveys were either conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. Results have a margin of sampling error of ±3.2 percentage points.

• CNN Trump Midrerms Poll (CNN)

President Donald Trump, pictured in the Oval Office on July 21, during a meeting with the President of Lebanon
A record-high 73% of US adults say that President Donald Trump hasn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds, with just 27% saying he’s had the right priorities. That comes amid increasingly bleak views of the Iran war, stagnating economic unhappiness, and broad discontent about Trump’s approach to these challenges.Roughly two-thirds of Americans think that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions and that his military decisions in Iran have hurt the US. Around three-quarters say the president is not in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives.


Trump’s overall approval rating, 34%, matches the career low he last saw at the close of his first term, following the January 6, 2021, insurrection. Half of Americans now strongly disapprove of him, a high across his terms, with a record-low 15% strongly approving. Within his own party, his approval rating has hit a new low at 78% among Republicans, and just 19% of Republicans say they’re enthusiastic about the rest of his second term, down from 38% last spring. While his ratings are underwater across a range of issues tested, Trump sees his lowest numbers on a trio of interconnected issues:

Just 28% approve of his handling of the situation in Iran, 25% on inflation and 21% on gas prices, with significant pockets of disapproval even among his supporters. With an increasing majority of Americans anticipating a long-term military conflict, only about one-quarter think Trump has a clear plan for handling the situation, down from 40% at the start of the war. And 62% now say Trump is not an effective world leader, up from 54% who felt that way early in his second term. Just one-quarter now say the war has been worth the toll in American lives and dollars, with younger Americans particularly skeptical.

On the most tangible economic fallout of the conflict in Iran, 74% of Americans say rising gas prices have caused them at least some hardship, up from 63% in March, with just under one-quarter believing the president has a plan to address the issue. And 71% say Trump hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods, up from 58% a year ago. There are few domestic bright spots for the president, whose issue approval ratings top out at 41% for handling voting rights and election integrity – one topic where his supporters have rallied most closely around him.

Just 39% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, a relative positive at the start of his second term, with 35% approving of his management of the federal government. Following two recent deadly ICE shootings, Americans say by a 20-point margin that the agency is making cities less, not more, safe. And amid the cyclospora outbreak and a surge in measles cases, they say by a 34-point margin that changes to health agencies like the FDA and CDC are leaving the public less, not more, safe.

Trump has never gotten high marks in polling as someone who’s in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans. In the latest poll, just 27% say that description applies to him, while about two-thirds say that he’s someone who does not put the good of the country ahead of his personal gain.

Those numbers reflect broad skepticism about the high-profile projects that would leave Trump’s mark on the nation’s capital. A 58% majority of Americans say they feel dissatisfied or angry about the construction projects Trump has undertaken in Washington, DC, including the effort to build a new White House ballroom and renovate the Reflecting Pool. Just 17% express positive feelings, with another 25% saying it doesn’t matter to them.

At the time of Trump’s second inauguration, nearly half of Americans thought it was at least somewhat likely that Trump would avoid conflicts between his family’s company and his work as president, but a scant 23% think he’s done so at least somewhat well. And 57% say it’s a bad thing that Trump earned more than $2 billion last year while serving as an elected official, including income from cryptocurrency holdings, royalty payments and property investments. Just 7% see that as a good thing, with 36% calling his earnings while president something that doesn’t matter much.

More than 6 in 10 say that Trump has gone too far in pursuing his personal business interests while serving as president and undertaking projects to remodel the White House and other Washington landmarks, with nearly as many saying he’s gone too far in making changes to cultural institutions like the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian.

Construction on President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom is seen on July 14. Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Read more …

Mamdani = taxes.

• Welcome to Socialism’: A Clinton Hand’s Stark Warning About Mamdani (Green)

Dem strategist Mark Penn took to X during the wee hours Wednesday morning to warn the public about “the lie of socialism” represented by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, but it’s really a cry for help over what’s happening to his party. Before we get to that, however, you need to understand just what a colossal screw-up Mamdani’s pied-à-terre tax really is. Because if what Penn says is correct — and apparently it is — it’s a colossal screw-up by design. And an oh-so-bitter taste of what New Yorkers are stuck with for the next three-and-a-half years.


In a piece headlined “Welcome to Socialism,” Penn wrote that Mamdani’s administration “with fanfare” released its list of “960,000 owners of real estate in New York City that have been determined they could owe the pied-a-terre tax because NYC computers have determined they own what was billed as a market value of $5 million or more.” So far, so socialist, right?But, Penn added, “there are only about one million residential tax lots in New York City so the first question is how did virtually every owner get put on the list?” Welcome to socialism, indeed.

“The answer is that you are subject to the tax in the first two years if your property has a “DOF valuation” of over $1 million. And so the $5 million figure was a fake,” Penn concluded. But here’s where we got to what Penn called “the interesting part” with understatement he must have choked on: “Once you are on the list you have to prove you should not be taxed by showing you are a resident. Or by challenging the valuation.””Good luck fighting the city bureaucrats on both of these counts. The individual litigation will be massive.” Socialism always starts with “soak the rich” but always ends with “stick it to everybody.” Mamdani is notable only for his speed.

But here’s what Penn missed in his piece.The New York Post reminded readers on Monday that “Mamdani threatened to raise city property taxes by a staggering 9.5% in February unless he was allowed to ‘tax the rich’ to cover a $12 billion budget gap that was later revised down to $5.4 billion.”The good news is that the hole in NYC’s budget got revised downward by more than $6 billion. The bad news is that “City Hall estimates the pied-à-terre tax would yield $500 million per year.” The worse news is that “Democratic city Comptroller Mark Levine’s office said the real figure would be closer to $340 to $380 million.” And the worst news is that critics of the tax say that it “could cause property values to plummet.”

“Add a tax of 4 to 6 per cent (yes condos are taxed that high now) a year of its DOF value to a condo or coop and that condo won’t be worth that much,” Penn explained. “And you can forget about out of town buyers. So this will destroy much of the home values that people have built up.” Mamdani’s brand of socialism is taxing everybody for unrealized gains on properties whose value Mamdani will destroy. Nifty, eh? He’s also the fresh new face of a Democratic Party that has grown so corrupt and stands for so little that Democratic Socialists in cities like New York have taken to wearing it like a skinsuit.

They even boast about it, and the most that even an old Clinton hand like Penn can do is whine about it on X. So the initial burst of pied-à-terre schadenfreude was over Mamdani supporters like Anna Wintour, Woody Allen, and Cynthia Nixon finding themselves on his Enemies of the People list. But today I’m standing in a puddle of my own schadenfreude as top-level Democrats like Penn come to realize just how badly the DSA takeover of their party is going to hurt them.

Read more …

“The plan is a multimillion-dollar version of the $5 gold watch grift. The chumps are New York taxpayers who believe that Mamdani can sell them produce at a discount of 30 percent below the market rate and not lose money. Indeed, this could end up the most expensive produce in the Big Apple.”

“The Mamdani con will cost New Yorkers millions, and most will thank him for it.”

• The Mamdani Grocery Grift (Turley)

Last week, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s short stint as a faux president ended with an embarrassing acknowledgment that he could not, as promised during his campaign, arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So, this week, Mamdani the Grocer made a reappearance, with details on the five city-run grocery stores that he will open. But rather than deliver discount groceries, Mamdani is selling New Yorkers a bill of goods that will cost them millions.


What Mamdani described was a discount food bank dressed up as a grocery. Standing in front of blackboards saying “REDUCED 30%,” Mamdani sounded like a bodega hawker: “Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks” Here’s the most delicious part: the presser was a gimmick from beginning to end. The mayor promised that “The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line — not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.”

The Mamdani markets are new variations of an old New York grift: selling gold watches for $5. The dupes want to believe that somehow this street vendor, surreptitiously displaying watches inside his overcoat, actually found a way to sell “solid gold watches” for just a few bucks. The math simply does not add up for Mamdani. Most groceries have an average profit margin between 1% and 3%, one of the smallest margins of any industry. To promise a 30% discount below market rate that cannot be adjusted due to monthly market fluctuations is economically absurd.

It is not a description of a competitive grocery but a public charity. It is a quasi-food bank where taxpayers subsidize the cost. As usual, Mamdani turns this into a class war, demonizing business owners. He suggests that real grocery stores are simply price gougers hoarding windfall profits from consumers. He ignores that they must pay rent, upkeep and fees — all things the city-run stores may simply write off. He proclaimed, “May the most affordable grocery store win.”

Of course, the test is not which grocery is the most affordable, but which is the most sustainable. If you are willing to take a bath on sales, you can always offer the most affordable prices for as long as your excess cash holds out. In Mamdani’s case, he has the credit of New York City to draw on to compete against Mom-and-Pop bodegas.The subsidy, however, is only part of the costs. The average bodega owner must cover the fixed costs of renting a space, building the store, and complying with inspectors. Those are the fixed costs that must be internalized into the cost of produce to break even.

Real stores are competing in one of the tightest markets in the world and are grappling with a 33% nationwide increase in costs since 2019. Mamdani wants to use the stores to prove that socialism works as part of his effort to introduce New York to the “warmth of socialism.” We may never know the real costs of the Mamdani markets. According to the New York Post, the city plans to open an East Harlem location as its first store, at a reported cost of $30 million.

However, that is not the full cost. The Post also reported that the city had already appropriated $25 million to improve the first site. The city will lose millions that could have been acquired through a sale of the land or through rents to private companies. Those costs are left on other ledgers and not likely counted in the true costs of the Mamdani markets. The first store will not even open until 2027 despite the props behind Mamdani. The second Manhattan store will not open until 2029. That is three years and tens of millions of dollars for just the first two stores.

That is how Mamdani is promising New Yorkers savings of “$90 a month, or roughly $1,000 a year.” He is using the city to subsidize food under the guise of selling at low, but still profitable prices. Ironically, those who can take advantage of the subsidy at the first two stores in Manhattan will be anyone, including the privileged, wealthy New Yorkers whom Mamdani denounces for not paying their fair share. After all, everyone wants below-market-priced slices in the Big Apple.

The first city-run grocery, in East Harlem, will cost $30 million to build — and perhaps more. It will never need to pay this money back nor factor it into its prices. The “warmth of socialism” will cover it; that is, you. In reality, Mamdani will be selling apples at a far greater cost than any competitor, but those true costs will be buried in the city budget and paid for by the taxpayers. Indeed, the Mamdani markets are likely to prove the most expensive groceries in the city.

Mamdani, however, has never sweated the math or the means. He knows that the focus will be on the cash register price and not the true cost. Of course, there is a big difference between the gold watch grift and the Mamdani grift: buying a knockoff watch only costs chumps a few bucks. The Mamdani con will cost New Yorkers millions, and most will thank him for it.

Read more …

“Does Zelensky’s Jewish identity settle Ukraine’s neo-Nazi question?”

• Laura Loomer Says There’s No Nazi Problem In Ukraine. What She Didn’t See (RT)

US conservative activist Laura Loomer arrived in Kiev after years of denouncing Ukraine’s “Nazi apologists.” She met Vladimir Zelensky, apologized for articles she had written for RT and said Russian media had “bamboozled” her. During their interview, Zelensky rejected the accusation Ukraine’s politics is riddled with neo-Nazi influence: the conutry had elected a Jewish president and even adopted a law against anti-Semitism, he argued. Loomer accepted his case and later amplified it in her X profile, stating that “Nazism is literally illegal in Ukraine” and that the country “has stronger anti-Semitism laws than the US.”


Loomer appears to have been persuaded by Zelensky’s Jewish identity, statements from rabbis supporting Ukraine, and Ukrainian laws against anti-Semitism and direct Nazi propaganda. None of these points directly addresses the Russian argument that a de facto Nazi regime has taken shape in the country. But when Russians speak of Nazism in Ukraine, they don’t really mean only anti-Jewish hatred. Ukrainian nationalism, aside from its direct connections to Hitler’s Reich in the Second World War, was born and existed as an idea of ethnic exclusivity directed against a whole range of other peoples.

Today’s Ukraine continues the history of this movement, little different from German Nazism. The Russian argument is that the modern Ukrainian state has revived aspects of this tradition.nThis is not only being noticed by Russians: in recent years, Ukraine’s fascination with Nazi-style politics and the glorification of Nazi collaborators themselves has led to conflicts with other neighboring countries, including the recent scandal with Poland.

Ukraine has pursued aggressive ethnonationalist policies for years now
Ukraine’s 2019 state language law made Ukrainian compulsory across government, education, commerce, public services, media and much of cultural life. While the law formally excludes private conversation, citizens of the country, millions of whom are Russian-speaking, face persecution for listening to music in Russian as well as the mass destruction of books, toppling of monuments and the removal of large parts of their cultural inheritance, which Ukrainian nationalists consider the “culture of the aggressor.”.

Even Western institutions, contrary to the overall pro-Ukrainian position of the West, have acknowledged that Ukrainian language laws do not provide adequate protection for the linguistic and cultural rights of all citizens. Since these statements were made, Zelensky has further tightened restrictions aimed at making life more difficult for those who speak Russian. The forced Ukrainization of education, media, and public spaces, conducted under the guise of ‘decolonization’, effectively means the marginalization of a significant percentage of Ukraine’s residents – those for whom the aggressive ideology of ethnic Ukrainian nationalism is neither natural nor acceptable.


The Zelensky government, like its predecessors, is using the protracted conflict with Russia to justify the implementation of a hostile and hateful ideology. This narrative merges civic and ethnic identity and pressures a huge segment of the population to accept a culture and language which is foreign to them, relearn under the threat of persecution, and give their children over to the state system, which will instill in them hatred for their own ancestors. The only other option is to leave the country, which millions did even before the start of the current phase of the conflict.

[They themselves are not shy about their radically chauvinistic view of Russia and Russian people.] Following his appointment as Zelensky’s new commander in chief last week, an embarrassing 2023 interview with Mikhail Drapaty resurfaced online, in which he outlined the Ukrainian state’s view towards Russians and Russian culture. “We see that you cannot call them neighbors. It is a nation, together with its leadership, that has no right to exist. Over thousands of years, nothing has changed there in terms of civilization,” he said.

The same sneering judgement applied, according to Drapaty, to residents and inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine. The Donbass region, the engine of the national economy until 2014, is full of “criminal elements” because “too little attention was paid to Ukrainization” and the population has not developed a Ukrainian national identity. Military intelligence chief Kirill Budanov went further, commenting on the murder of Russian journalist Darya Dugina in the same year. “We will keep killing Russians anywhere on the face of this world,” he said, “until the complete victory of Ukraine.”

Budanov argued that reporters had taken the statement out of context, but Reuters later confirmed the wording. Ukraine has repeatedly used methods designed to intimidate ordinary people and has shown little concern for the resulting civilian casualties. However, it had been suppressing the voices of Russian-speaking residents who advocate for their rights for years before the conflict – which killed some 14,000 people in eight years – escalated into a full-scale war, enforcing a hierarchy of national identities through political pressure and, at times, direct violence.

Ukraine’s mainstream political parties have largely accepted the language and education policies associated with forced Ukrainization. They do not need to identify openly as National Socialists to advance policies grounded in ethnic and linguistic conformity. Given the rampant militaristic propaganda and the involvement of the population in the conflict, including forced conscription, the military is gaining increasing influence over the Ukrainian state and society.

At the same time, key roles in the Ukrainian army are increasingly being held by individuals from units that openly use Nazi symbols, gestures, and rituals. Just this spring, Zelensky promoted the commander of the infamous Azov formation, known by the call sign “Redis,” to brigadier general. Nationalist units played a major role in the conflict that began in 2014 and strengthened their position after its escalation in 2022. Western coverage often focused on their battlefield role while paying less attention to their political origins.

Although Ukrainian propaganda claims that Nazi symbols are not very popular among the military, new evidence to the contrary appears with regularity – they’re not ashamed of wearing such symbols, even when receiving awards from a president who calls himself a Jew. .

Read more …

Not the present, but it is the future.

• The End Of Freedom – The Last Breath Of A Dying Continent (Adams)

They are killing us slowly. Not with bullets or blades, but with spreadsheets and algorithms, with policies drafted in climate-controlled rooms by people whose children will never shiver through a winter night without heat, whose pantries will never echo empty, whose futures remain secured behind gates we cannot approach.


In 2026, 333 million Europeans—more than the entire population of the United States—have fallen into energy poverty, a euphemism that cannot conceal the raw human suffering it describes, a bureaucratic term that sanitizes the screams of families watching their lives dismantled piece by piece.


Since 2021, utility costs have surged 47%, while wages stagnate in a cruel arithmetic that reduces families to penury. The numbers do not lie, even when governments do. Behind every percentage point stands a human being with a name, with memories, with children who ask why the heat does not work. Behind every data point lies a tragedy that statistics cannot capture—the sound of teeth chattering beneath thin blankets, the smell of cheap candles burning down to nothing, the silence of a home where conversation has stopped because speaking requires energy that hungry bodies cannot spare.

Look at these figures and understand that they represent flesh and blood. In Greece, 40% of households now face the impossible choice between heating and eating—a statistic that translates to grandmothers wrapping themselves in newspapers, to children doing homework by candlelight, to parents skipping meals so their sons might have warmth for one more night. The Greek winter of 2026 brought temperatures that dropped to -8°C in regions where insulation remains a luxury, where families huddle in single rooms wearing every garment they own, where the decision to turn on a heater for one hour means skipping dinner for three days.

Germany, once the industrial titan of Europe, now bleeds 15,000 manufacturing jobs each quarter, its factories darkening like dying stars. The Rhine Valley, which hummed with production for generations, now echoes with the footsteps of workers carrying boxes of personal effects, of security guards locking gates that may never reopen, of communities watching their purpose drain away like water into cracked earth. Energy bills now exceed rent payments by 23% across twelve member states, a reversal of economic reality that breaks families before they even begin, that ensures the poor remain poor and the middle class joins them in descent.

In Portugal, elderly citizens have begun collecting firewood in public parks, risking fines and arrest to secure warmth their pensions cannot purchase. In Poland, organized crime networks now control the black market for coal, selling inferior product at extortionate prices to desperate families who know that burning treated wood releases toxins but choose poison over freezing. The European Commission reports these trends as “energy market adjustments,” as if describing the migration of birds rather than the collapse of human dignity.

But the economic strangulation serves merely as prelude to a more comprehensive destruction. Step into any supermarket in Milan after 7 PM and witness the new normal: empty shelves where fresh produce once stood in abundance, security guards monitoring cooking oil purchases as if guarding gold reserves, elderly women weeping quietly beside discount bins where bruised vegetables wait for hands brave enough to claim them. The Italy that exported culinary culture to the world now imports 60% of its grain from nations that view food as geopolitical leverage, as a weapon more effective than any missile.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/2081929230837760228?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Debt Rattle July 27 2026

Jul 272026
 
 July 27, 2026  Posted by at 9:29 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Paul Cézanne Les (Grandes) Baigneuses 1905


• Zelenskyy Pledges Ukraine Satellite Intel to Assist NATO/USA in Iran (CTH)
• Iran Lashes Out at “Freeloader” Zelensky for Caspian Sea Attack (ZH)
• Iran, Oman Hold Hormuz Talks As US Pauses Airstrikes For Second Day (ZH)
• Britain’s New Cabinet Of Fakers, Fraudsters And Hangers-On (Newsome)
• Why Is National Review Pretending Barack Obama Was a Moderate? (Margolis)
• GOP Senator Kennedy on the SAVE America Act (Matt Vespa)
• Mike Lee to Force Roll Call Vote on SAVE Act Before Recess (Salgado)
• Tucker Carlson Wants Trump Tried for Treason (Matt Margolis)
• It’s Going to Be JD and Kamala, So Calm Down (Kurt Schlichter)
• Why Every Young DSA Member Needs to See ‘Star City’ (Rick Moran)
• Foreign Nationals Now Nearly Half of Germany’s Prison Population (Salgado)
• Fauci Files: A Megalomaniacal Egomaniac (Tom Elliott)

 


 

https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2081059184104370325?s=20 https://twitter.com/warDaniel47/status/2080994950217404633?s=20

 


 


“Zelenskyy Pledges to Share Exclusive Ukraine Satellite Intelligence to Assist NATO/USA in Defeating Iran..”

• Zelenskyy Pledges Ukraine Satellite Intel to Assist NATO/USA in Iran (CTH)

If you thought Ukraine was busy defending itself and launching counterattacks against Russia, think again. Apparently, unbeknownst to the rest of the world Ukraine was launching geo-synchronous satellites over the Middle East, deploying proprietary signals intelligence intercepts between Russia and Iran, and conducting covert surveillance operations, in addition to weaving sweaters for homeless kittens from Zelenskyy’s hair… or something. But seriously, read this:


Isn’t he just the most magnanimous little fella? Not only is he singlehandedly going to win a war against Russia, but he’s going to take a few minutes break and win the war against Iran for everyone. What a guy. The last few weeks have been a tidal wave of weird and sketchy stuff that indicates some form of NATO intelligence operation is underway.

This round of sketchy started with that trip to London to meet the coalition of the willing and King Charles; followed two days later with the surprising “drone” attack on the Dormition Cathedral of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, which bore all the same hallmarks as the Nordstream pipeline attack, which was immediately before the G7 meeting in Paris and perfectly set up the horrible Russia theme for the summit.

Someone then launched hundreds of simultaneous long-range drones into Russia hitting oil/gas refining facilities shortly before the NATO summit in Turkey, that set up the “vulnerable Russia” theme. A few days later, Zelenskyy fires the young Defense Minister responsible for the recent success of the modern Ukraine drone program; then following public backlash fires the Commanding General of the military while simultaneously proclaiming everything was awesome.

A few more days pass and suddenly Laura Loomer is in Ukraine begging forgiveness for saying bad things about Zelenskyy and promoting the horrible Putin / innocent Ukraine narrative. (MAGA cleaving) To wit, 12 hrs later Tucker Carlson is giving a Russia-centric podcast -targeted exclusively to a U.S. audience- a horrible Trump / Glory to Putin narrative. (More MAGA cleaving) Somehow, despite Zelenskyy’s exceptionally busy calendar, he found a few hours to sit down with Loomer and talk about the resilience of the Ukraine people who are ducking a weaving through air raids while Zelenskyy stormtroopers try to capture them on the street and push them into the Eastern Ukraine meatgrinder.

But wait, there’s more… This weekend, Ukraine holds a very public, outdoor, open-air drone exhibition and Military Drone Exposition that drew military hardware companies from around the world to Kiev and put a bullseye on the location of many Military contractors and vendors. Not surprisingly, Russia targeted the well-publicized drone exposition, hit the venue with multiple ballistic missiles and killed hundreds of military drone dealers/vendors.

Following the strike on the Drone Exposition, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now saying he has the time to help NATO defeat Iran by sharing information gathered from Ukraine intelligence operations on Russian satellite orbits. Join in when you feel comfortable. These joint NATO intelligence constructs are difficult to keep up with. When it sounds crazy, it’s ALWAYS an intelligence operation!

Read more …

“Iran Blasts ”Freeloader” Zelensky For Ordering Deadly Attack On Caspian Vessel ”At Israel’s Behest”..”

Zelensky’s nazis use him to get close to Israel. Oh irony.

• Iran Lashes Out at “Freeloader” Zelensky for Caspian Sea Attack (ZH)

Iran has accused Ukraine of attacking an Iranian commercial vessel in the Caspian Sea, which it says resulted in an explosion that killed one sailor and injured another. As we previously reported of the Saturday maritime incident, Ukraine seems to be openly boasting of this escalation. President Zelensky himself announced soon after on X, “We also have very good results from long-range strikes in the waters of the Caspian Sea. In particular, these are vessels that were involved in transporting military cargo from Iran, and a warship.”


Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukraine’s charge d’affaires in Tehran to severely protest the “hostile and criminal” attack on Saturday, IRNA reported. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has further warned that the “blatant UN Charter violation” which was “done at Israel’s behest” could serve to “drag Europe into its war”. Araghchi also denounced and attacked Zelensky personally, calling him the “freeloader in Kyiv”…

The risk of the Russia-Ukraine conflict merging with the US-Iran conflict seems plausible, but still remains low, and yet the Caspian Sea situation shows that it is actually possible. The Iranians have sought alternative trade and shipping routes via the Caspian, and early in Operation Epic Fury Israeli warplanes reportedly targeted and took out Iranian naval vessels there. This isn’t the first time that FM Araghchi has called out Zelensky. Back in January of this year, for example, he called Zelensky a “confused clown”, and said that the Ukrainian leader had been “rinsing American and European taxpayers to fill the pockets of his corrupt generals.” The two countries have previously clashed over Iran supplying Russia with Shahed suicide drones.

Iran Will Halt Tit-For-Tat Strikes If US Maintains Pause The diplomatic track appears to have opened with the Trump administration’s move to pause strikes as a goodwill gesture ahead of the weekend – now in its second day. That created space for Omani officials to meet their Iranian counterparts over the weekend, with Tehran reporting “some progress.” The talks have now produced a reciprocal stand-down, under which Iran would halt retaliatory strikes on US bases as long as the US maintains its pause in airstrikes.

Reuters reports: Iran will halt its own attacks as long as the United States maintains its latest pause on air strikes, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, after President Donald Trump abruptly called off his two-week-old bombing campaign. After 13 nights of intensifying U.S. air strikes on Iran, the Pentagon abruptly suspended the campaign late on Friday, with no U.S. attacks reported on either Saturday or Sunday. Iran, which had been following each night of U.S. attacks with its own strikes on neighboring countries that host U.S. bases, has also so far held fire for two days.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told Fox News on Sunday that Trump had decided to pause U.S. attacks to allow more time for diplomacy. “He’s giving talks some space, he’s giving it a little bit of room,” Waltz said, without providing further details. The senior Iranian source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters: “Iran’s position remains ‘attack for attack’: if the attacks stop, Iran will also halt its operations. That message has already been conveyed to the United States.” The source added: “However, Iran is prepared to mount a broad response should the U.S. launch another attack.”

Asked about the pause, a senior official in Trump’s administration said on Saturday that the president “has always been clear that his preference is diplomacy, but he has shown Iran what will happen if they fail to come to the table in a serious way.” The senior Iranian source said Tehran did not hold much hope that Trump’s decision to pause strikes represented a major shift in the U.S. negotiating position. “There is more skepticism than optimism about the halt in attacks. The prevailing view is that the pause is tactical rather than genuine. Iran has accumulated enough bitter experience with what it sees as U.S. deception,” the source said.

Read more …

“The pause offers the clearest signal yet that a diplomatic off-ramp may be emerging, with Iranian and Omani officials reporting progress in talks to reopen the critical waterway.”

• Iran, Oman Hold Hormuz Talks As US Pauses Airstrikes For Second Day (ZH)

The US military paused its air campaign against Iran for a second consecutive night after nearly two weeks of tit-for-tat strikes. US strikes were aimed at degrading Tehran’s one-way attack drone and missile capabilities around the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran hit US bases in the region. The pause offers the clearest signal yet that a diplomatic off-ramp may be emerging, with Iranian and Omani officials reporting progress in talks to reopen the critical waterway.


Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said in a Telegram post that he met with the Omani deputy foreign minister and held talks on Friday and Saturday about restoring safe transit for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Baghaei said the officials exchanged views on principles and operational mechanisms for managing safe maritime navigation through the strait. “The talks were constructive, and some progress was made,” he added, noting that technical and political consultations remain ongoing. The Omani delegation left Tehran on Saturday evening.

The talks coincided with the US military’s two-day pause in strikes and came as Brent crude futures surged into triple-digit territory and the national average for regular gasoline jumped above the politically sensitive $4-a-gallon mark. JPMorgan’s head of Global Commodities Research and Strategy, Natasha Kaneva, told clients last week that Brent prices at this level could increase pressure on Washington to reopen diplomatic channels. Meanwhile, Iranian Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia appeared on state television on Sunday and warned the US that any further strikes would widen the conflict.

“I believe that if the Americans once again fall for the Zionists’ deception, or move in line with them, and insist on continuing the war, particularly through air strikes, geographically this will expand further,” Akraminia warned. Akraminia said the conflict has already expanded to the Bab al-Mandab Strait on the southern Red Sea, referencing the recent Houthi attacks on tankers. “The scope of our operations now encompasses the entire region, from US bases in Jordan to the countries along the Persian Gulf,” he said. Earlier, United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported an incident in the southern Red Sea after a “tanker witnessed a splash from an unknown projectile in proximity to the vessel.” Details are scant at the moment.

Read more …

Can’t post the entire article here. But do read, I learned a lot.

“Burnham is an out-and-proud socialist who had already signaled that his government would spend and tax more.”

• Britain’s New Cabinet Of Fakers, Fraudsters And Hangers-On (Newsome)

Britons are struggling to characterize their new Cabinet, following the arrival of a new prime minister on Monday. The Cabinet is not as northern or female as Andy Burnham signaled. Most members have certainly changed. Most are not loyalists to Keir Starmer, even less so to Tony Blair. Like Burnham, many hark back to a mythical golden age of socialism in the 1970s. Like him, most are alarmingly deficient in popular mandate, external qualifications, and even political trust for their new responsibilities.


Let’s start with Burnham himself, a man born in Liverpool who pretended to be Mancunian to win the mayoralty of Manchester. He claims to represent the north but has not lived north or east of Manchester. At best, he represents a narrow part of west-central England, just north of the Midlands. Burnham has always looked south while talking up the north. Burnham was most newsworthy for agitating for changes in national government, despite sharing a party with Starmer.

As Starmer continued to trip himself up with both feet, Burnham was one of the Labourites who prevailed on ministers to brief against their PM. After Starmer blocked Burnham’s candidacy for an accidental by-election in February, Burnham prevailed on a local MP to resign from Makerfield to force a by-election in June, which Burnham won easily, to return to Parliament, which would allow him to challenge Starmer for the leadership (less than two years into Starmer’s five-year term). Starmer initially vowed to fight on but announced his intent to quit this month. No MP stepped up to challenge Burnham’s presumptive run.

Thus, Burnham has no popular mandate to be PM, even within the party, except in the form of pledges by more Parliamentary partisans in support than against. Opposition parties rightly called for a general election to confirm his premiership, but the constitution does not oblige him.

Burnham’s supporters pretend that his easy rise proves the strength of his candidacy. In reality, it proves the weakness of his party. It could not find a new leader within its own MPs, despite a whopping majority. It triggered an expensive by-election and a more expensive mayoral election to reach outside of Parliament. Meanwhile, Burnham unwittingly poured scorn on that same Parliamentary party by criticizing normal politics and the London elite. (Since then, he has aired the idea of moving the Cabinet from London to Manchester. His current plan is to spend at least one day per work week there. That’s neither efficient nor effective.)

In the many weeks that Burnham enjoyed as rising PM, he remained vague about his Cabinet and his policies. On Monday, he spent hours appointing just the highest roles in the Cabinet. The other appointments look set to continue for days. Of the first day’s picks, I must start with the only selectee who can be coded as qualified and mandated (although not loyal).

John Healey becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second most powerful position in government. He had quit as defense secretary six weeks ago, over Starmer’s procrastination on filling a hole in defense spending. Healey said that Britain should spend 3 percent of GDP on defense by 2030, which means he will need to find a couple dozen billion pounds per year. Previously, he advocated issuing “war bonds,” but who would buy them when the government is running record debt? He will need to cut other departments or raise taxes (probably both). On Monday, Healey said “fiscal control” would be his “first duty.” You could see the markets’ confidence decline immediately.

Healey’s resignation suggests a certain loyalty to Burnham, but otherwise they barely know each other. More usefully, he was a minister in the Treasury under Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Yes, Healey is actually qualified by experience! This is remarkable given that his predecessor, Rachel Reeves, falsified her CV, couldn’t add, and quickly became the most U-turn-prone and hated chancellor ever, as well as the most tearful.

Healey remains constrained by record government debt and his party’s suicidal unwillingness to cut spending. Remember that Starmer increased spending on welfare and benefits, after backbenchers rejected his proposal to cut them. (That was within Starmer’s first year of premiership.)

Burnham is an out-and-proud socialist who had already signaled that his government would spend and tax more. By Tuesday, his administration revealed plans to cut VAT (a sales tax) on electricity, to be funded by cutting the Starmer administration’s planned digital ID. But the minister responsible for that plan, Darren Jones, revealed, after being fired by Burnham, that digital ID was never funded. So Burnham is either ignorant or dishonest. This . . . doesn’t . . . bode . . . well.

In any case, scrapping VAT on electricity doesn’t make much difference to a household electricity bill in which most of the pricing goes to fund green initiatives, debt, stealth taxes, and administration. Burnham already looks unprepared and unreliable. Confirmation comes in the form of his deviation from his team’s prior briefings that he would appoint either Ed Miliband or Shabana Mahmood to the Treasury.

Red Ed goes to the Foreign Office, for which he is woefully unqualified and an undoubted liability. He infuriated the U.S. (and most Britons) as energy secretary, with his absolutism about reaching net-zero carbon by 2030, at whatever cost to the consumer. Ed also, by the way, reminds everybody of the weakness of the party’s leadership selection. He was leader from 2010 to 2015, when he literally and metaphorically stumbled at every election husting. Yet Burnham thinks Miliband is the best person to articulate British interests abroad? This won’t last long.

Miliband is already hurt. He has been denied the job he wanted, even though he was the first senior minister to call for Starmer to go, and he helped Burnham with an economic plan. (Some plan: it remains as vague as ever, except for the Soviet-style time horizon of 10 years.)

Meanwhile, Mahmood stays at the Home Office. Under-informed (or biased) souls read this as confirmation of her competence in pushing through controls on illegal immigration in the face of majority opposition from civil servants and backbenchers. In fact, she is hurdling a low bar after decades of government failures to control immigration, despite popular demands and almost every party’s commitments to lower net immigration.

Worse, Mahmood is duplicitous. She tells the right wing that her tweaks to the benefits and the timeline of asylum applications will dramatically control immigration. She tells the left wing that she will make the refugee route easier (which is the route by which almost all illegal immigrants get residency, with more privileges than citizens).

Also concerning is Mahmood’s long history of Islamocentrism, which is bizarrely ignored by mainstream media. She tars normative Britons as racists (whites and Jews in particular: isn’t that racist?), campaigned against Israel, played up her status as the first Muslim home secretary, promised that her promotion would serve “her” community, and railed against supposedly routine experiences of racism in her hometown of Birmingham, where her demographic is the largest.

I doubt Mahmood will last much longer than Miliband within Team Burnham. He favors the left of the party, which has characterized her (ridiculously) as a Nigel Farage in Labour colors. For now, Burnham needs to be seen to reward her, if only because one of her allies in Parliament, Josh Simons, was the MP who resigned from Makerfield to make way for Burnham.

So the highest three officers in the land will not last as long as normal, in my estimation. Burnham’s administration will not bring the stability that Britons crave, let alone the competencies that the markets and foreign governments crave.

Read more …

“..he built the most sweeping left-wing agenda of any modern president, yet somehow convinced people like Klein to call it “moderation”..

• Why Is National Review Pretending Barack Obama Was a Moderate? (Margolis)

National Review Online editor Philip Klein wants you to believe Barack Obama was some kind of political moderate. That’s the only way to read his reaction to a viral clip of the former president telling Caitlin Clark not to let “media nonsense” get her down and reminding her she’s a great player. Klein called it “a perfect example of why Obama is hated by the far Left & also why he won two elections comfortably.”


Set aside the Caitlin Clark moment for a second. The framing is the real story here. Klein wants readers to believe Obama was more moderate than John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. He wasn’t.

Sean Davis, cofounder of The Federalist, made the point with numbers Klein conveniently left out. “Obama was adored by the far Left when he left office (95% approval rating among Democrats) and he remains adored by the far Left today because he is the most left-president in modern American history (89% approval rating from self-identified liberals in a CNN poll last month vs. 28% approval from self-identified conservatives, which means the left-wing loves him even more than the right-wing hates him),” Davis wrote.

I’ve written a few books about Obama, and I can tell you exactly why the far left worshipped him then — and still does: he built the most sweeping left-wing agenda of any modern president, yet somehow convinced people like Klein to call it “moderation” just because he said a few kind words to Caitlin Clark. Let’s run through what he actually did as president, since Klein seems to have misplaced the receipts.

Obama ran in 2008 promising to “fundamentally transform” the United States, and then he did exactly that. The 2009 stimulus was one of the largest government interventions into market activity in American history. Obamacare handed Washington unprecedented control over the nation’s healthcare system, and its Medicaid expansion extended federal-state coverage to millions more people, with Washington footing most of the bill. Dodd-Frank buried the financial industry under new federal regulations.

Obama didn’t stop at legislation. When Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, he unilaterally shielded hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived as children from deportation through executive action alone, an end run around Congress that was blatantly unconstitutional. He committed the United States to international greenhouse gas targets the same way, through executive fiat instead of Senate ratification, because he knew the votes weren’t there.

His administration also nationalized the student loan industry, cutting private lenders out of the market entirely. He reinterpreted Title IX to smuggle “gender identity” into federal law, a decision that eventually opened women’s sports and locker rooms to biological men. He repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ordered his Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and later endorsed same-sex marriage after running in 2008 as a supporter of traditional marriage. Obama also helped transform the Democrat Party into an antisemitic party.

And don’t even get me started on what Obama did to race relations in this country. That last part tells you everything about how Obama operated. He knew exactly where the country stood in 2008, so he told voters what they needed to hear. Nobody who was paying attention actually believed him. He was too shrewd a politician to show his full hand before he had the power to play it.

None of this is moderate. None of it is centrist. It’s the most aggressive leftward lurch this country has taken in modern presidential history, and Obama pulled it off while much of the press corps treated him as a reasonable, above-the-fray statesman.

So when the editor of National Review holds up a clip of Obama being nice to a basketball player as proof of ideological balance, ask yourself why a supposedly conservative magazine is doing PR for one of the most radical presidents this country has ever had. Obama didn’t win over the far left by accident. He earned every ounce of that adoration by delivering exactly what they wanted, one executive order at a time.

Read more …

“BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.”

“Bigger picture, isn’t it going to hurt faith in our election process if a Republican-only policy to change how elections are run is rammed through 100 days…less than 100 days out from the election?”

• GOP Senator Kennedy on the SAVE America Act (Matt Vespa)

President Trump criticized Sen. John Thune (R-SD) for his weak, unimpressive effort to pass the SAVE America Act, a key priority for the president and a top demand of the GOP base. The bill will be a significant step toward improving election integrity, specifically making sure only Americans vote in U.S. elections. It represents everything conservatives have fought for regarding election security.Yet, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan thought it could undermine faith in our elections, because why wouldn’t an establishment outlet go down that rabbit hole? Yet, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) was the one interviewed for this segment, and he wasn’t having any of this nonsense. His response to her first question was great, with a simple “no.”


BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.”“Bigger picture, isn’t it going to hurt faith in our election process if a Republican-only policy to change how elections are run is rammed through 100 days…less than 100 days out from the election?”

KENNEDY: “No.”

“In my opinion, for both sides to have credibility in our elections, we need to do two things and only two things.” “Number one, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to register to vote and to vote.” “And number two, however you decide to vote, that’s up to the states. We need to go back to having an election day, not an election month.” “We’ve got to know the results of elections that night or shortly thereafter, if it’s close.” “That, to me, is what the SAVE Act is all about.” “And I think we can pass it. And I think we can craft it in a way to survive a birdbath, but we’re not going to know if we don’t try!”

BRENNAN: “Grants, in other words, to states to incentivize. Not requirements for states to action…that’s your version.”

KENNEDY: “That’s not the only thing.” “I’ve been contacted by some really smart people about a way to do it in addition to the grants. I’m not saying it will work. But you’re not going to know unless you try.”

Read more …

Forcing the vote appears to be the only way. BRENNAN: “The SAVE Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial.

• Mike Lee to Force Roll Call Vote on SAVE Act Before Recess (Salgado)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has openly promised to be the one senator necessary to force a roll call vote exposing who will or will not vote for crucial election integrity legislation just before the August congressional recess. Congressional rules acknowledge that the ability of any senator to demand a roll call vote is grounded in Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.” Therefore, it requires only one senator to start the process for such a vote.


Notably, election reform is wildly popular not only with Republican but even with Democrat voters. The SAVE America Act has bipartisan voter support. Scott Presler begged that one senator “to object to unanimous consent & ‘ask for the yeas and nays.’” Mike Lee replied on X:


Lee subsequently reshared Presler’s message while tagging Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). “I hereby object to any effort to put the Senate into recess in August—at least until such time as the Senate has passed the SAVE America Act—and hereby request a roll call vote,” Lee wrote, making it clear to the whole country what he was doing and putting Thune on the spot. “Do not assume you have my consent. You do not,” Lee warned Thune.

The House had actually found a workaround to avoid the blocks the Democrats set up, as provisions of the SAVE Act were really included in the budget resolution that the lower chamber had put together before the recess, a resolution that also included vital military funding. Unfortunately, Thune, ever the backstabber, delivered a nonsensical lecture about the importance of consulting Democrats — you know, the ones who aim to defund ICE and the Iran conflict, fund foreign criminals, and kill all election integrity efforts — and coming up with a “bipartisan” funding package.

The last thing Thune wants is to be put on the record with a roll call vote, exposing him and his lack of efforts to pass the SAVE America Act. On Saturday, President Donald Trump made one last push for the legislation. “The all Republican Senators! Terminate the Filibuster, which the Democrats will do as soon as they get the chance, and PASS THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, and everything else, including the Budget, and upcoming Debt Ceiling. Do it now, before it is too late!!!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Lee endorsed Trump’s call.

Sadly, Republican senators keep forgetting they’re supposed to work for We the People, the ones who elect them and pay their salaries. Hopefully Lee can galvanize some Senate action before the August recess. Most Americans across the political spectrum support voter ID, so We the People definitely want action.

Read more …

What does Tucker say about October 7?

• Tucker Carlson Wants Trump Tried for Treason (Matt Margolis)

It’s been coming for a while, but this week, the once-conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson has doubled down on a version of reality that would make Iran’s mullahs blush. Carlson used an appearance on the East Meets West with Olga and Tara podcast to unload on a provision in the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would expand defense-technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. His verdict? Lawmakers who back the measure are acting against America’s own interests, effectively merging our nations’ militaries.


Carlson didn’t stop at policy disagreement. He accused the Republican Party of handing the country’s sovereignty to a foreign government, sparing only two members from his contempt. “The Republican Party has decided that the interest of Israel is more important than the interest of the United States,” Carlson said on the podcast. “There are a couple of exceptions Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and they were driven out of the Republican Party. So it tells you what the priority is. The priority is serving Israel.”

Coming from a man who has spent years cozying up to authoritarian regimes and excusing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, that’s rich. But consistency has never been Carlson’s strong suit. He then accused Israel’s Mossad of feeding American policymakers fabricated intelligence for decades. “Mossad has fed, repeatedly, disinformation lies to American policymakers over decades, including the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,” Carlson said. “That fundamentally came from Israel. There’s no dispute about that.” There’s plenty of dispute about that, because it’s false.

British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, and Spanish intelligence all concluded Iraq likely possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in defiance of the United Nations. From there, Carlson’s rhetoric went from conspiratorial to unhinged. He called the defense-technology partnership a “generational disaster” and framed it as proof Americans no longer control their own country.”It’s the definition of treason,” Carlson said. “This is treason. This is acting against your own nation, on behalf of a foreign nation.”

Then came the real bombshell. Carlson wants President Donald Trump and the Republicans who support the NDAA provision put on trial for it. “The idea that the Republican Party would support merging U.S. and Israeli intelligence, IDF and Pentagon is so deranged that you have to root for treason trials, for Nurnberg trials at some point,” Carlson said. “And the president could veto it; he won’t because he’s a slave to Israel.” Let’s be honest here. Comparing a defense-cooperation bill to the crimes of Nazi Germany while demanding war-crimes-style tribunals against your own president isn’t principled dissent.

This is full-on loony talk here. He sounds no different than the socialist candidates running for Congress nationwide… and, let’s be honest, some Democrats in Congress today. Carlson closed out his rant by accusing anyone who defends Israel of defending genocide. “We’re against genocide, we’re against book burning, that’s what we learned from the Nazi period,” Carlson said. “And all of a sudden you wake up and we’re like, ‘No, no, genocide’s totally fine, as long as Israel’s doing it.’ In fact, if you call it genocide, you’re the bad person.” I don’t know what happened to Tucker. I remember being excited when he started his show on X, but now, he’s become indistinguishable from far-left crazies. Calling for treason trials against a sitting president over a defense bill is the sign of an absolute meltdown.

Read more …

We have two years of these bets ahead of us. Yay!

• It’s Going to Be JD and Kamala, So Calm Down (Kurt Schlichter)

Everybody who wants to gobble popcorn while watching exciting POTUS primary races in 2028 is going to be disappointed, at least in terms of the final outcome. We know how this story ends, but what leads up to it may be hilarious, particularly on the Democrat side. Every weirdo, loser, and mutation in their party intends to try to get the nod, knowing that the fix is already in; it’s just going to be a chance for folks like Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Pete Buttigieg to try to raise their profiles or maybe get picked to be VP. Neither of those two will.


But right now, it’s obvious who is going to go head-to-head against each other in the general election. You can deny it, you can argue it, you can cope all you want, but barring some unforeseen turn of events, we know how this is going to play out. It’s going to be JD versus Kamala, and that’s just the way it is. Well, that’s not technically correct. On the Republican side, the guy who’s going to be nominated is the guy who Trump says is going to be nominated, and right now that’s Vice President JD Vance. People are fantasizing that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is going to jump in and fight the veep for the top of the ticket, but that’s crazy talk.

And the least crazy guy involved is Marco Rubio himself, who has made a magnificent and fantastic 180° turnaround since his unfortunate dalliance with amnesty under the influence of a bunch of Bushie loser Senate colleagues a decade ago that nearly sank his political future. He knows that Donald Trump is going to pick the next nominee, and Donald Trump is already sending up smoke signals that it’s going to be JD. Marco is young. He has time. And he has no political death wish. He has stepped on the Donald Trump land mine before, and he does not want to be blown to little bits. But you can be sure that if JD stumbles, Marco Rubio will be right there to pick up the ball and run it in for the big win.

Will JD Vance stumble? He’s getting a lot of heat from some people on the Republican side, particularly those who think that he is insufficiently committed to destroying our enemies and protecting Israel. It’s annoying. Never-Trump has-been Brett Stephens, whose self-seriousness is inversely proportional to how seriously he should be taken, said, “Vance is MAGA at its absolute worst. Able to still sound reasonable while defending the indefensible.” Sounds like a rave review. Others cited his role in the Senate to essentially blame him for Capitol Hill dysfunction. Come on. Vance got grief for referring to the organized haters as an op; the organized haters of the op were outraged he called their transparent op an op.

JD terrifies those with the fantasy of returning to the good old days of submissive GOP-managed decline; they know he’ll carry the Trump message forward – which is a selling point. JD certainly doesn’t have the same view of war as a lot of traditional Republicans do, no doubt, in part, because, unlike most of them, he actually went and fought in one. He has seen firsthand the failure of America’s foreign policy establishment, and if he’s a little bit gun-shy about gunboat diplomacy, he’s got good reason to be. After all, his homeland in Appalachia has traditionally been one of America’s premier fields for growing crops of cannon fodder.

The consequences of the hawks’ prerogatives fall on people like JD Vance. Though a fellow son of that region and a veteran, I tend to be a little more on the “Bomb the bastards back into the Stone Age” side. Still, JD has earned his right to be skeptical about the overextension of American military power.Then there’s Israel, and while many of the people who are critical of him are very much aligned with me—my objection to Israel is that we’re not giving the Jewish state enough money and they’re not killing enough terrorists—they are misguided. JD Vance is not a groyper. If you actually listen to what he says instead of watching carefully curated podcast clips, you’ll see that what he’s saying is true.

The Venn diagram representing the interests of the United States and Israel is not a circle. Israel has its interests, and we have ours, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that. It’s obvious, and it’s important that we acknowledge this reality. Israel has a terrible image problem in the United States, partially because many Americans are stupid and weak, and because Democrats are cowardly and weak. The proper answer to terrorists is to kill them all and lay waste to their homes. That’s aesthetically displeasing to many people. Israel has chosen being aesthetically displeasing to being genocided out of existence by semi-human seventh-century barbarians, and a lot of fools hold that against it.

JD Vance does not hold that against Israel. He simply points out, correctly, that sometimes what Israel needs to do conflicts with what the United States needs to do, and a president of the United States should do what the United States needs to do. As for Iran, if you think he somehow believed that the Iranians were going to completely change who they are and become nice guys, I really can’t help you. This guy is a lawyer. He knows a little something about negotiating. And when you’re negotiating, you rarely describe your obnoxious opponent in the harshest possible terms. You talk nice about them. That’s how negotiations work.

Now, he may not choose to run for president in 2028. He’s got a very young family, including a newborn. It’s not clear his wife loves being in the limelight. She’s an incredibly smart woman; spend five minutes with her, and you’ll see. JD is even younger than Rubio. He’s got time. The bottom line is he may choose not to run. If he does choose to run, right now he’s got Trump’s endorsement, which means he’s the nominee. Certainly, he could lose Trump’s endorsement—Trump is notorious for spectacular breakups with former allies—but if you’ve got chips, put them down on JD.

Maybe there will be competition. There are rumblings about Ted Cruz jumping in, but I don’t think Ted Cruz is going to do that because Ted Cruz is smart and he doesn’t want to be humiliated by being utterly destroyed in the primary. There will probably be some dorky Never Trump geebos going for it, like Mike Pence, which would be hilarious. The Ned Flanders of American politics would be humiliated, but for Pence, you get the vibe that that might be a plus for him. Look, the GOP nominee in 2028 is going to be JD Vance about 80 percent of the time, so everybody needs to get their feelz under control and get ready to back him. Maybe he’s not 100 percent with you, but the alternative is 0 percent with you. Get over your panty twist, people.

And the Democrat nominee is going to be Kamala Harris. That’s just the way it’s going to be, because the Democrat Party’s biggest constituency is not failson and disappointment daughter, Democrat Socialists, but black women. Kamala is a black woman; ergo, she’s going to get nominated. You’re not going to get the Democrats to nominate someone who’s not a black woman. We’re seeing what happens when you do that in Texas. That blasphemous imp James Talarico is just not winning over black voters after beating Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30)

One of the benefits of Kamala is that she’s also DSA-friendly; she’s a communist and was recently sucking up to the Hamas wing. The socialists will swallow hard and take her. A bunch of others will run, and they’ll lose. There’s some talk about AOC, but she’s going to take noted burger chef Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat. AOC’s sell-by date is fast approaching anyway. Believe it or not, she’s not left enough for the socialists, and here’s a hard truth some people don’t want to hear: she’s getting hefty.

Part of the attraction of AOC was that she was a cute young woman. Remember, they literally auditioned her for the job, and key to that was that she was attractive. Between losing her hotness and the fact that every time she opens her mouth, she says something stupid—like how the Senate was constituted to enshrine Jim Crow about a century before Jim Crow—this clownette peaks at junior senator from the Empire State. .

Read more …

A different history. What if the Russians won?

• Why Every Young DSA Member Needs to See ‘Star City’ (Rick Moran)

How the Soviets got to the Moon first is only hinted at in Star City, a tense, cold-blooded sci-fi spy thriller, also on Apple TV, that trades the optimism of its parent show for a bleak, paranoid look at the Soviet space program in a paranoid country. The Soviet Moon landing a few weeks before Apollo 11’s is simply accepted as fact, with no sense of how the Soviets won the race. That small omission can be forgiven because the rest of this nightmare scenario is truly high-quality TV.


Critics widely praised it as a gripping, high-stakes expansion of the FAM universe. Told from the Soviet point of view, in Star City, the Americans are the bad guys and Soviet paranoia has a logical basis. Of course, the Communists misinterpret many American actions, which feeds their paranoia. The action in Season 1 takes place in the 1969-71 timeframe. The high-risk trip to Venus, planned by the Chief Designer, played with great humanity and brilliance by Rhys Ifans, knows that the Central Committee will never give the go-ahead for the mission and hides his intention from all but a few engineers and astronauts.

The Chief Designer is never named. We also saw the nameless Chief Designer in Tom Wolfe’s The Right Stuff, appearing in the film as a laughing, bald-headed stand-in for insufferable Soviet superiority. The real “Chief Designer” of the Soviet space program was Sergei Korolev (Sergei Pavlovich Korolev). During his lifetime, his identity was kept as a closely guarded state secret by the Soviet government to protect him from potential assassination by foreign intelligence and to maintain state security.

In Star City, the Soviet apparatus of oppression is the star of the show. The Communists never let anyone breathe without their knowing. Everyone—I mean everyone—is followed, recorded, and surveilled. The most terrifying character on television today is Anna Maxwell Martin, who plays KGB Colonel Lyudmilla Raskova. A cold-blooded killer, torturer, and intimidator, Raskova stands in the middle of a web of Soviet oppression that uses all the tools of state intimidation and fear to maintain a level of control that is unbearable to citizens. Instead of fighting it, they try to stay out of its way as much as possible.

Her quiet, fanatical devotion to the Soviet state (and her own career) makes her casual brutality and scheming seem not only logical but necessary. Raskova is a composite character, but she represents the logical extreme of socialism. How many times have we heard from socialism’s apologists that the reason it’s never worked isn’t the system; it’s the people who run the governments who are the problem. Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao—these were the “wrong” people to be leading any country. The theory of socialism is sound and will work if the “right” people are implementing it.

The logic of oppression leads inevitably to socialism as a national economic and social template. There simply is no better way to control people than mandating the actions of the citizenry based on what’s “good for everybody.” Imposing controls on how people act is only the beginning. In order to impose socialist dogma on the people, the state must control how they think as well. This means censorship to ensure homogeneous thinking, surveillance to ensure “proper” actions, and punishment for anyone who steps outside the socialist boundaries established by the government through anti-state thoughts, words, and deeds.

Putting someone in jail for listening to rock music? The Soviets outlawed rock as “degenerate.” Certain writers who published “dangerous” ideas were also locked up. Young people enamored of socialist ideology should think long and hard about the kind of society created by adopting socialist principles. They are not only unrealistic, but they’re also impossible. Human beings do not act the way that the socialists say we must act to create their utopia. Until we do, the imposition of socialism will always—always—result in brutality, poverty of mind and spirit, oppression, and death.

Read more …

Mutti Merkel is/was the uitimate globalist. And she destroyed what was once West-Germany, a country she grew up neighboring from her dirt-poor communist East-Germany. Was this her revenge?

• Foreign Nationals Now Nearly Half of Germany’s Prison Population (Salgado)

A statistic you won’t find in the mainstream media, because it totally undermines the idea that mass immigration is in any way beneficial to Europe, is the number of foreign nationals in Germany’s prisons. Remix reported on July 24 that foreign nationals account for 45% of the prison population in Germany, and that in the cities of Hamburg and Berlin, the proportion of foreign nationals in prison is almost 60%. When you consider that many migrants have become citizens or have children who are German citizens, the number of criminals due to mass migration could be much higher.


The majority of the foreign criminals reportedly came from either Eastern Europe or Arab countries. To put more precise numbers on it, Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung found that 27,000 of the 60,408 people in German jails in March 2026 were not citizens of the country. Notably, as recently as 2015, the percentage of foreigners in German jails was 30%, so the number has increased dramatically since then. Remix also reported that dual citizens and foreign-born German citizens are not included in the above statistics, arguing that the actual share of inmates with a migration background is likely even higher than the reported 45%.

I always point out that European and other Western nations’ governments do not import persecuted Christians or Jews, nor do they import freedom-loving political prisoners. They do not bring people in to assimilate them or demand that they accept Western moral standards. No, Western governments import masses of violent Third Worlders, many of them Muslims, whom politicians then encourage not to assimilate. That has led to the crime wave sweeping the West. In fact, while the foreign population of Germany is only around 17%, according to Remix, foreign nationals possibly comprise a majority of the country’s criminals.

The German Association of Prison Officers’ chairman, René Müller, complained that translators are increasingly necessary in the prison system and that they are not always available to meet the needs of the number of prisoners who require them. He believes this raises the risk of aggression from inmates and the possibility of Muslim prisoners becoming increasingly radicalized and isolated.

Bavaria’s Justice Ministry attributed aggressive behavior by inmates towards staff to language issues and “culturally determined behaviors.” If only the German authorities had examined the cultures of these migrants before welcoming them into the country without any language skills or shared values to make assimilation possible.

Remix News reported on this back in 2024, when it was estimated that German prisons cost taxpayers approximately €4.14 billion annually, with around €1.82 billion spent incarcerating foreign nationals. At the time, foreign prisoners already made up more than half of the inmate population in several states.

Alternative for Germany lawmaker Martin Hess said those figures demonstrated the consequences of the country’s migration policies. … The former police officer called for stricter deportations and a complete reversal of Germany’s migration policy, arguing that foreign criminality imposes both a security risk and a major financial burden on taxpayers.

Unfortunately, woke German authorities like their current system of arresting citizens for free speech while lavishing money on foreign criminals.

Read more …

“…Milking Covid For Everything It’s Worth ..”

If they try again, we should be better prepared.

• Fauci Files: A Megalomaniacal Egomaniac (Tom Elliott)

On May 28, 2021, Anthony Fauci learned that the Department of Health and Human Services would refer EcoHealth Alliance – the New York nonprofit that had routed NIAID money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – to its inspector general. That night he wrote in his diary:


“I am certain that there will be some deficiencies that the IG will find as is always the case with IG audits. Certainly, whatever they find it will be misconstrued by those who want to make a case for our involvement in the outbreak. I am starting to feel that it is important for me to write an editorial or an opinion piece giving our side of the story.” (p. 753)

Our involvement in the outbreak. Followed closely by a plan to get out in front of it. That instinct – get ahead of it, control the story, decide what the public needs to believe and then saturate every channel with it – is the organizing principle of these documents. It shows up in the origins fight. It shows up in masks, transmissibility, and boosters. It shows up in how he handled the people who disagreed with him. And it shows up, most revealingly, in what he chose to write down.

What was released
On July 24, Senator Rand Paul’s committee published two documents that have not been reported in any depth.The first is Fauci’s personal diary, 1,141 pages, running from late 2019 through his retirement in December 2022. It is partly a journal and overwhelmingly a scrapbook: he pasted hundreds of articles about himself into it, frequently in full. The second is 136 pages of internal email about his awards – nominations, ethics clearances, and the disposition of prize money. Fauci does not date the composition of his entries, so we cannot always distinguish what was typed the same evening from what was assembled later. Page numbers refer to the released PDFs.

I. What they thought at the start
Page 13 of the diary covers two important events from January 31, 2020. The first is that Fauci is handed the mic to serve as Covid’s point person. He writes: “White House is now fully convinced that I be the science/health spokesperson for the USG. Bob Redfield just does not come across very weel. He takes forever to say something and it is usually wondering. This drives the WH and HHS comms people crazy and so they are putting me out on all the requests.” The director of the CDC was not sidelined for being wrong, but for being slow on camera. The selection criterion was not who’s the most credible scientist, but who performs best on TV.

Redfield’s own account of that period, given under oath in 2023, is worth recalling. Asked why he had been excluded from the origins discussions, he pointed to ideological differences: “Because it was told to me that they wanted a single narrative, and that I obviously had a different point of view.” The second thing happens after he gets back to his office. Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust calls, sounding “very concerned,” with Kristian Andersen of Scripps conferenced in and Eddie Holmes in the background from Sydney. Fauci writes down what they told him:

“The people on the phone felt that the mutations around the furine cleavage site of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would require an evolutionary ‘jump’ that they found nowhere in bat isolates.” Deliberate insertion, they said, followed by release – accidental release being the most likely. The next day Fauci convened a larger call of twelve experts in epidemiology. His entry characterizing it (p. 14) is the probably the single most consequential paragraph in the whole diary. There was “not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion,” he writes.

Ron Fouchier was certain it could have arisen naturally and said they shouldn’t waste time. Christian Drosten agreed with Fouchier. And then, in Fauci’s own words: “the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.” Ten of twelve thought it must be manmade. And he admits the person driving the zoonotic theory perspective, Ron Fouchier, was “expected of him since he was the original GOF [gain of function] person with Yoshi Kawaoka.”

II. What happened next
Three days later, four of the scientists from that call were circulating a draft arguing the opposite. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” appeared in Nature Medicine on March 17, concluding that the virus was not a laboratory construct. Andersen told the journal in his cover note that the paper had been prompted by Fauci and Francis Collins. Drafts went to both men before publication. Fauci’s reply to Andersen: “Nice job on the paper.” Two months after Proximal Origin published – Fauci’s institute approves an $8.9 million grant for Andersen.

On April 16, Collins wrote to Fauci asking whether NIH could help “put down this very destructive conspiracy.” The following day, Fauci cited Proximal Origin from the White House briefing room podium – the most watched platform on earth at that moment. Three weeks after that, on May 4, 2020, he told National Geographic that the evidence was “very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated,” citing “a number of very qualified evolutionary biologists.” The doubt referenced in his diary never reached the public. And his account of that February call has never stopped changing.

A June 7, 2021 diary entry (p. 767), recounting the same meeting: “About half of the people felt that this was possibly a constructed virus and the other half were convinced that this was a natural occurrence.” In a June 3, 2024 sworn opening statement to the House Select Subcommittee, Fauci said he joined a call with about a dozen international virologists, that the discussion was “lively, with arguments for both possibilities,” and that after further examination several who had been concerned about lab manipulation became convinced the virus was not deliberately manipulated.

The June 2021 retelling contains another problem: he says “a few weeks later” Andersen and colleagues re-examined the data and concluded natural origin. The draft was circulating on February 4 – three days after the call. The June 2021 entry shows how he’s trying to mould history into something different for posterity.

III. Habit becomes routine
Origins is where this pattern is most consequential, but it is not where it started or where it stopped. The diary shows the same strategy applied to every contested question of the pandemic: decide what the public needs to believe, then flood the zone. Consider masks. Fauci’s public reversal in the spring of 2020 is well known, and he has explained it as a response to shortages and to emerging evidence on asymptomatic spread (p. 375). But watch what happens when the question comes back around in February 2021, when he begins pushing double-masking (p. 619):

“CDC starting to do practical things that I have actually been pushing for some time. For example: Wearing 2 masks could be better than just one. They did a dummy study and showed that a cloth mask over a surgical mask actually gives a more complete fit and keeps out aerosols.” Note the order of operations: He had been pushing it “for some time,” the evidence arrives afterward, and the evidence is a mannequin. That is the entire evidentiary basis for double-masking in a 1,141-page diary kept by the government’s chief spokesman on the subject during the month he was urging 330 million people to adopt it.

We see every time Fauci is turned to for guidance, he makes bold proclamations without feeling burdened to verify any scientific basis. We see it in the numbers.Across 1,141 pages by the nation’s senior infectious disease official during the largest public health event in a century, here is how often certain terms appear. Never once: “peer review.” “Meta-analysis.” “Risk-benefit.” “Learning loss.” “Mental health.” Once: “N95.” “Seroprevalence.” “Cost-benefit.” Twice: “Cloth mask.” “School closure.” “Natural immunity.”

Against which:
“Award” – 80
“Hero” – 49
“Instagram” – 36
“Bobblehead” – 23
“Selfie” – 19
Entries headed “PRESS:” – 641

The question of whether prior infection conferred meaningful protection – the question underpinning the vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs – is never worked through anywhere in these pages. It appears twice, both times as an attack to be repelled.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries