Mar 102026
 


Rufino Tamayo The Dance of Joy 1950


From Redcoats to Robots: AI is Challenging our Republic’s Future (Turley)
Trump Makes A Huge Move to Get The SAVE Act Passed (Matt Margolis)
Farther Along (James Howard Kunstler)
‘Wagging the dog’: Putin Mocks EU-Ukraine rRelationship (RT)
Has Trump Made a Bad Choice of War? ((Paul Craig Roberts)
Israel, Netanyahu and Trump Preparing the World for the Anti-Christ? (PCR)
Pentagon Officials Saying Iran War ‘God’s Divine Plan’ (Cradle)
Is Iran’s Regime Trying to Trigger Sleeper Cells in the USA? (Catherine Salgado)
Bondi Charges Muslim Terrorists Who Tried to Bomb NYC Protest (Sarah Anderson)
Meloni Slams Italian Judges For Blocking Expulsion of Foreign Criminals (RMX)
In A Sane World, Zelensky’s Mafia Regime Would Be Isolated (Amar)
Hungary Detains Ukrainians Transporting 10s Of Millions In Cash, Gold (Brooke)
Vance Vs. Rubio? Trump’s Pals Have a Preference. (Sarah Anderson)
Why the Left Suddenly Hates Gwen Stefani (Queen)

 


 

https://twitter.com/robertdunlap947/status/2030960465799532639?s=20 https://twitter.com/jackprandelli/status/2030598639559540917?s=20

 


 

 


 


“This republic will survive so long as it does not die by our own hand.”

From Redcoats to Robots: AI is Challenging our Republic’s Future (Turley)

This week, thousands of workers are receiving pink slips. They are not being let go due to inflation or outsourcing to foreign countries. To the contrary, they are being fired because booming sectors of the economy no longer need them. Indeed, it is an economy that may need fewer and fewer humans. Amazon this week announced further job cuts due to robotics and AI. Recently, Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter, announced that his company Block would be laying off 40 percent of its employees. He cited AI as reducing the need for human employees. In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss not just the economic changes unfolding due to AI and robotics but also the political implications of those changes for the American republic.


These economic changes are unfolding all around us. We are looking at one of the greatest job losses in history. In a free-market system, such technological changes tend to offset losses with new jobs in emerging industries. And there will be such growth with the AI and robotic revolutions. But it is also likely that we are looking at a static class of unemployed and practically unemployable citizens as this new revolution unfolds. “Low-skill jobs are the most likely to be replaced by a robotic workforce,” I write in the book. “Amazon warehouses are now entirely mechanized with twelve different types of over seven thousand robots moving rapidly to collect and direct goods where hundreds of people were once employed.”

But what is most notable about the Amazon announcement is that these were white-collar jobs. The impact of AI is not confined to factory workers and truck drivers. The danger is that politicians will react predictably and try to subsidize jobs that are no longer viable and industries that are being dramatically downsized. At the same time, they are likely to expand model programs in Democratic cities for universal basic or guaranteed income. Democrats have moved forward with more than 60 bills creating such programs, and this week, Cook County, Ill. (the second-largest county in the U.S.) made permanent the universal basic income program it had originally launched with federal COVID-19 relief funds.

The problem is the creation of what I call a “kept citizenship” in a republic designed for people who are economically and politically independent from the government. That system is seriously undermined by a large percentage of citizens living off the government dole. The solution cannot be an “arts-and-crafts” population kept entertained by government programs to learn glassblowing and pottery-making. A different type of citizen would emerge that is unlikely to be sufficiently free of the government to counter its excesses or failures.] “Rage and the Republic” lays out what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.” It notes that this is not just the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence but the 250th anniversary of the release of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.

The founders immediately embraced Smith’s economic theories as the perfect companion for their political theories. They believed that true freedom requires economic independence from government. That means accepting the economic changes and the loss of certain jobs. AI and robotics will largely wipe out certain jobs from taxi drivers to radiologists to warehouse workers. Meanwhile, we need to focus on homocentric jobs. In the book, I called these “Guinan jobs” after the bartender on the starship Enterprise in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” As a kid, I was always confused by Guinan (played by Whoopi Goldberg), who would mix a drink next to a replicator that could produce the perfect Romulan cocktail every time without fail or variation. Customers clearly wanted Guinan to make the cocktail, even if it is not perfect every time.

The question I ask is, how many “Guinan jobs” are out there. There are many, including teachers, psychiatrists and lawyers, who will be affected but likely not eliminated by AI. We will still want humans in these positions. All governments will face this existential crisis in the 21st Century. It will create growing instability globally. Although AI and robotics will make goods cheaper and more widely available, they are also likely to have a dramatic effect on populations. For example, as production costs drop with the new technology, there will be less advantage to moving factories to other countries with cheaper labor forces, such as China and Mexico.

Companies may choose to build near consumer markets to save on transportation costs while utilizing higher-skilled worker populations to maintain robotic and AI systems. That could produce massive unemployment in certain countries with low-educated, low-income populations. That in turn could destabilize governments and increase the chances of war in countries with large populations of unemployed young men. I also do not feel great optimism for global governance systems like the European Union. The EU has largely eviscerated the elements I identify in the American Revolution as producing the oldest and most stable democratic system. Although global governance is likely to increase, it could fail spectacularly due to its inherent instabilities.

In the U.S., this period of economic change is likely to fuel calls for socialist policies. Socialism has always thrived on economic upheavals. Indeed, socialists often use their own failures to further collectivize or centralize economies. Our republic is uniquely situated to not only survive but to thrive in the 21st Century. It was conceived in and designed for changing economic conditions. But if we are to survive, we must remain faithful to the constitutional structure that has afforded us stability for more than two centuries. Despite calls to trash the Constitution, pack the Supreme Court and change our political system, these protections are the very things that can get us through this century intact.

The Founders designed our Republic to prevent the tendency of democracies to become what one called a “mobocracy.” They knew that political and economic instability could create a form of “democratic despotism” in which democracies devoured themselves. We have a system that has overcome challenges — from redcoats to robots — that have crushed other countries. However, we must remember who we are. Our nation, created in the winds of change by a free and industrious people, need not fear change. It is a system designed for bad times, not good times. The true crisis is a crisis of faith being fueled by some in academia and in the media. This republic will survive so long as it does not die by our own hand.

Read more …

“He’s flat-out refusing to sign any other legislation until the Senate passes the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.”

Trump Makes A Huge Move to Get The SAVE Act Passed (Matt Margolis)

President Donald Trump dropped a bombshell on Truth Social on Sunday. He’s flat-out refusing to sign any other legislation until the Senate passes the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. With midterms looming this year, Trump calls it his absolute top priority, demanding it “must be done immediately” because it “supersedes everything else.”Trump couldn’t be clearer. “I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed,” he wrote, rejecting any watered-down compromise. The SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, has the votes for passage in the Senate, but not enough to overcome the 60-vote threshold to overcome the filibuster. The SAVE Act is overwhelmingly powerful because it requires real proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and enforces photo ID to vote.


This isn’t some radical idea. A photo ID is required for so many routine things that most people barely think about. You need one to buy alcohol or cigarettes, board a plane, rent a car, check into a hotel, open a bank account, purchase certain prescriptions, or enter many federal buildings. There are plenty of bars and clubs that won’t let you in without one, but nobody calls those policies racist. Nobody claims they suppress civil rights. Yet somehow, the moment the same basic form of identification is required to prove you are who you say you are when you vote, Democrats insist it’s a sinister plot to disenfranchise voters.The truth is far simpler: requiring ID to vote is common sense, and the hysterical comparisons to Jim Crow say far more about the weakness of the argument than the policy itself.

And Americans support it overwhelmingly. A Pew Research poll recently showed that 83% of Americans favor requiring government-issued photo ID to vote, with support cutting across political and demographic lines. That includes 71% of Democrats, 76% of black Americans, and 82% of Hispanics. Despite this, Democrats are playing hardball. “The SAVE Act is Jim Crow 2.0. It would disenfranchise tens of millions of people,” Chuck Schumer wrote on X. “If Trump is saying he won’t sign any bills until the SAVE Act is passed, then so be it: there will be total gridlock in the Senate. Senate Democrats will not help pass the SAVE Act under any circumstances.”

Well, the good news is that Trump’s threat really isn’t about forcing Democrats to pass the SAVE Act; it’s about getting wobbly Republicans on board to enforce a talking filibuster. Democrats are in the minority, of course; they have everything to gain by gridlock. Republicans, however, do not, and Trump is attempting to force their hand, not the Democrats’. And make no mistake about it, Trump’s not negotiating. He wants the gold standard: ID, proof of citizenship, minimal mail-ins. This forces accountability on a system Democrats have rigged for years. I know that Senate Majority Leader John Thune isn’t exactly a fan of tinkering with the filibuster, but Democrats will nuke it completely the second they have they control the House, Senate, and White House again, so from where I sit, it makes perfect sense to enforce a talking filibuster now because at least that’s what the filibuster is supposed to be.

Read more …

“Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” — General George S. Patton, Jr.

Farther Along (James Howard Kunstler)

Don’t lose the plot. Embrace the suck. This is the world’s hard time, for now. The birth of anything can be a bloody horror. It can even look like death. Don’t be too afraid to see what comes on the other side of this awful spectacle. So many Americans are rooting and wishing for the Iran war to turn out badly for Western Civ. And why? Because Trump. And why? Because at the same time he is ending Iran’s long-running nuclear blackmail game, he is terminating the rackets of the Democratic Party. The incipient changes in operational order create new categories of winners and losers.


Now you know why Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists run on the same track as America’s Woke-Jacobin-Marxists, including the pitifully deluded wine ladies of posh West LA, Grosse Point, Beacon Hill, Fairfax County, et cetera, whose brains have been hijacked by the cable news demon factory (and their sponsors). Chaos does everything possible to avoid meeting order. And this is why passing the SAVE Act is as consequential as ridding the Middle East of its chief chaos agent. Do you realize how perfectly insane our country’s election procedure has become? The fraud is titanic and right in your face, and the remedy is so plain and simple. What possible excuse is there to thwart it?

Non-citizens have no right to vote. Mail-in ballots are patently subject to chicanery. Vote tabulation machines are demonstrably hackable. 80-percent of Americans know this is the truth. How is there controversy over this? How? Because among all the broken institutions in our country, Congress is the worst. The Congress of our time is demonstrating that we might not be worthy of governing ourselves. We are at a cycle-low for public rectitude. Anything goes and nothing matters as long as the campaign contributions keep rolling in. You see how this has been going.

But mark this: we are going to get election reform one way or another. It’s that urgent, and failure to accomplish it by legislation will warrant a national emergency. And when the election machinery has been fixed, we had better do something about the plague of corporate money that runs like poison through our politics because of the Supreme Court’s foolish decision in the 2010 Citizens United case. They decided (by a slim 5-4 majority) that limitless campaign contributions by corporations amounted to free speech under the Constitution.

I will tell you concisely why this was tragically fallacious. Free speech in our country is a God-given right of sovereign citizens. Corporations are not citizens. Corporations don’t have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the public interest (a.k.a. the common good). Corporations explicitly, by law, have obligations, duties, and responsibilities solely to their share-holders. The interests of corporate share-holders and the nation’s public interest are manifestly oppositional. Perhaps now you can see why this was such a dreadful invitation to political chaos.

So, Mr. Trump, for all his flaws, attempts to bring order out of chaos at home and in global relations, and the agents of chaos mightily resent the shut-down of their precious chaos. With Iran, it has come to fighting fire with fire. It’s unlikely that most of the people in that country seek to become martyrs. The cult of martyrdom is strictly the business of the maniacs who seized power there in 1979, a reign of terror, extended by proxy around the whole Middle East and beyond.

Read more …

” Budapest and Bratislava have repeatedly accused Kiev of blackmail. They also say Brussels has sided with Ukraine instead of backing two EU member states.”

‘Wagging the dog’: Putin Mocks EU-Ukraine rRelationship (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has likened the relationship between Ukraine and the European Union to “the tail wagging the dog,” saying that despite the aggressive behavior of the government in Kiev, Brussels keeps supporting it.The Ukrainian authorities are preventing vital Russian oil from reaching Hungary and Slovakia via the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Ukraine, claiming it was damaged by Russian strikes – claims Moscow rejects. Budapest and Bratislava have repeatedly accused Kiev of blackmail. They also say Brussels has sided with Ukraine instead of backing two EU member states.


“The situation is very strange,” Putin said on Sunday in an interview with Vesti. “I get the impression that we are dealing with a case where ‘the tail is wagging the dog’, and not the other way around.” The Russian president called the stance taken by Kiev dangerous and aggressive. He stressed that Brussels is continuing to provide Ukraine with endless support, both in weapons and financial aid. Commenting on the energy market, Putin emphasized that halting transit could further undermine the energy security of EU member states, as happened after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

“Yet the EU prefers to continue the supply, effectively indulging the Kiev regime,” Putin added. Putin criticized Western countries for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, describing it as a “systemic mistake.” The president said the conflict began with Western support for a coup in Kiev, followed by the reunification of Crimea with Russia and unrest in southeastern Ukraine, including Donbass and Novorossiya. “These are not our actions,” Putin asserted, adding that European countries were now “reaping what they have sown.”

Read more …

There is no good choice for war.

Has Trump Made a Bad Choice of War? ((Paul Craig Roberts)

The propaganda that Americans are receiving about how hard Washington and Israel are hitting Iran does not seem to be backed up with evidence. It seems that the US Navy that Trump was going to use to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz has had to be moved away outside of the range of Iranian missiles. It seems that the American bases in the oil city states are no longer functioning and that the US will be operating out of far away Italy. Moreover Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t support the war propaganda. He is now speaking of the war in terms of months instead of a few days, but the US and Israel, stupidly expecting Iran’s quick collapse, did not inventory enough missiles for a war that last months. So Trump has started mentioning “troops on the ground” which he previously said was not in the picture.


Considering Iran’s large size– Iran is larger than France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom combined–the United States hasn’t sufficient troops, and it is doubtful that Israel would risk any of its own. The Israelis cleverly used western gentile troops against Iraq and Libya and Arab forces to overthrow Syria. Even the few commentators, many of them experienced military men, speak of Russia, China, or India mediating the conflict and bringing it to end with mediation. Apparently, they have never considered how a conflict can be mediated when one side, the Israeli American side, intends the destruction of the other side. How does Iran go about mediating its destruction? This is for Iran an existential conflict.

The survival of Iran as a sovereign nation rest entirely on an Iranian victory. An Iranian government that submitted to mediation would be submitting to the erasure of Iran as a country. It would be a government of traitors. I have never understood how the Iranian government could be so completely misinformed as to think that the issue was whether or not Iran enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons. The nuclear issue was never more than a pretext to be used to destroy Iran. The real issue has always been to clear Iran out of the way of Greater Israel. The previous pretext was the “war on terror” that the Zionist Bush and Obama regimes used to destroy Iraq and Libya and that was used to destroy Syria. Zionists have been extremely clear that their agenda is Greater Israel. Netanyahu himself and several Israeli ministers have held up maps on television of Greater Israel, a territory that encompasses the Muslim Middle East.

This new phrase of the 21st century American war for Greater Israel has been launched by the Zionist regime of Donald Trump. How is it possible that the Iranian government thought Washington had any interest in negotiating a non-nuclear weapon agreement with Iran? Just as Russia and China seem incapable of comprehending the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Iran seems incapable of comprehending the agenda of Greater Israel. There is no possibility whatsoever of any Iranian government negotiating its way out of Greater Israel. But watch Iran again give up a winning hand and return to negotiation. According to information I have, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned President Trump not to initiate a war for which sufficient stockpiles of weapons had not been accumulated.

But Trump convinced by someone, perhaps Netanyahu, that it would only take a few missiles and bombs and the collapse of the Iranian government would allow the imposition of a puppet ruler such as the son of the former American puppet ruler of Iran. As my faithful readers know, my concern has always been that the Zionist neoconservatives allied with Israel, who have been in control of American foreign policy since the regime of George W. Bush, are pushing too hard against Russia, against China and against Iran. The Zionist American neoconservatives’ agenda of American world hegemony and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East are roads to nuclear Armageddon.

It is my opinion that Russia, China and Iran have been poorly led by leaders who prefer their hopes to reality, and therefore have failed to understand that they are targets in the way of American and Israeli hegemony. It is almost as if they have never read the Wolfowitz Doctrine or have any awareness of the Zionist doctrine of Greater Israel.

I try to hold onto optimism. But Russia and China, which are supposed to constrain American neoconservative aggression, have totally failed their responsibility. Consequently, Putin is at war that he refuses to win in Ukraine. China pretends that it can avoid war even as its oil imports are reduced 50% by war that China could have prevented. The Iranian government trying to avoid a war, which was obvious to any intelligent person was unavoidable, submitted a second time to American “negotiations” and was again deceived and surprise attacked. Russia, China and Iran do not seem to be led by competent people in touch with reality. By the time Russia and China wake up to reality, will their only option be nuclear?

[..] the “Peace President” has become the “War President.” It is losing Trump supporters. Trump’s base is split. Trump has lost Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massey, his most effective supporters in Congress. Trump has lost Tucker Carlson, his most effective support in the media. If it turns out that Trump has allowed the satanic Israeli Prime Minister to goad him to start a war that Trump loses in a midterm election year, there is no one to defend Trump from impeachment. You tell me if this is a sign of an intelligent president of the United States.This war that Trump has started for Israel has many risks, one of which is that to avoid defeat Trump and or Israel might use nuclear weapons.

[..] Perhaps Donald Trump, Israel’s tried and true wartime operative, will be removed from office after the midterm elections. If so, the prospect of nuclear war lessens in the intermediate term. If not and Iran has staying power, the United States for the second time in history is likely to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. This, I think would finish America.

Read more …

“Netanyahu is the dominant force in the world today, not Trump, not Putin, not Xi. They are not even players.”

Israel, Netanyahu and Trump Preparing the World for the Anti-Christ? (PCR)

It seems that neither governments (with the exception of Israel), media, nor commentators understand what is transpiring in the Middle East. Governments are offering to mediate the conflict. Russia and China, either of which could have prevented the conflict, are calling for peace. An Iranian government official has apologized for attacking the Arab oil city-states that serve the US as air and naval bases for the Israeli-American attack on Iran. It seems that the Putin disease of never attacking those who facilitate attacks on Russia has spread to Iran. It is not clear, even to Iran it seems, that Iranians are in an existential fight for their existence, a fight that can only end in their victory or defeat. Israel and Israel’s American puppet will have it no other way.


Do Russia and China not understand that their calls for peace are ridiculous and suggest that the governments of both countries have no comprehension whatsoever of reality? And the same goes for the rest of the world and for all of the media and the many commentators. The bloviating is unbearable. I have read so many totally absurd explanations of what the Israeli American initiated war on Iran is about. Apparently, fewer Middle Eastern commentators have heard of the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel than Russian and Chinese commentators have heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. We are experiencing the foreign policy of countries that have no clue to the two agendas determining world events.

Just as Putin is unrealistic beyond belief by thinking that he can obtain a mutual security agreement with Washington prior to Washington abandoning hegemony over the world as the principal goal of its foreign policy, the governments of the world including Iran and the talking heads are unrealistic beyond belief in ignoring that Iran’s existence is incompatible with Greater Israel. War propaganda has 100% prevailed over facts since 9/11. The result is a completely mindless media that merely follows along whatever the official narrative is at the moment. The western media long ago ceased to be capable of any intelligent explanation or analysis or truthful reporting. Mainly the whore Western media is focused on getting whoever is the target of the moment.

So, where are we today? The world has yet again turned a blind eye to an Israeli-American war crime. A country engaged in peace negotiations was secretly attacked. This obvious war crime has been ignored by governments, except for one member of one European government. What will the consequences be? As far as I can tell, none of Israel and Washington’s targets are sufficiently aware that they are targets and continue to believe in negotiations, despite what has twice happened to Iran. The unrealism will encourage more provocations from Israel and their White House puppet.

It seems to me that a case can be made, perhaps it has been, that Zionists are Satan’s agents and from the Zionists ranks will arise the Anti-Christ. Perhaps it is Netanyahu. Netanyahu is the dominant force in the world today, not Trump, not Putin, not Xi. They are not even players. Netanyahu has used the Americans to destroy for Israel, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan Somalia, and now the targets are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Turkey. True to form these countries will not unite to protect themselves anymore than have Russia, Iran, and China. It seems that the world is at the risk of governments incapable of comprehending reality. Perhaps they are too busy appropriating taxpayers money, taking bribes, and making trade deals. Try and find serious people in the world. They are the ones you most hate. They disturb you in your comfortable world of official narrative in which others are evil, but not us, in which others have difficulties, but not us –except those caused by anti-semites, and racists, and homophobes, and right-to-lifers. Governments that cause wars are bringing democracy and freedom. As George Orwell said, “war is peace.”

Read more …

“Hundreds of complaints from US service members report that commanders told them the war on Iran is part of biblical prophecy for Armageddon ..”

I saw this a few days ago, the prayer session in the Oval Office, and asked myself: how is this different from the religious crazies in Tehran?

Pentagon Officials Saying Iran War ‘God’s Divine Plan’ (Cradle)

Dozens of US Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation into allegations that military commanders are portraying the war on Iran as part of biblical prophecy, according to reporting by Military.com, citing complaints from service members and a letter sent to the Department of War inspector general on 6 March. The request follows hundreds of reports that officers told troops the campaign against Iran is “divinely ordained” and that President Donald Trump has been “anointed by Jesus.” Lawmakers warned that invoking religious prophecy to justify military operations could violate constitutional protections and War Department rules requiring religious neutrality.


The controversy began after an anonymous non-commissioned officer contacted the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) on behalf of several soldiers in a unit stationed outside the Iran combat zone. The individual wrote that a commander urged personnel to view the war as “all part of God’s divine plan,” while citing passages from the Book of Revelation. According to the complaint, the officer told troops that “President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein told Military.com that the organization logged more than 200 similar complaints between Saturday and Tuesday afternoon, with reports coming from personnel stationed at 50 military installations across all branches of the US armed forces.

In a letter sent to Inspector General Platte B. Moring III, members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus and other lawmakers warned that “justifying a war based on interpretations of biblical prophecies” and telling troops they are risking their lives to advance a religious vision raises serious constitutional concerns. The lawmakers also asked investigators to determine whether statements by War Secretary Pete Hegseth or other officials have contributed to the spread of biblical rhetoric within military ranks, warning that such public remarks could promote similar messaging in operational briefings. Lawmakers asked investigators to determine if troops who reported the issue faced retaliation and whether additional safeguards are necessary to maintain religious neutrality in the military chain of command.

Independent journalist Jonathan Larsen initially reported over a hundred complaints from soldiers to the MRFF, claiming that commanders are describing the Iran war as divinely ordained and connected to biblical prophecy. One non-commissioned officer said the rhetoric was “so toxic and over the line” that it shocked troops and “destroy[s] morale and unit cohesion.” Weinstein warned the reports show commanders treating the war as “biblically sanctioned” and linked to the approaching “End Times,” while noting similar religious rhetoric has appeared in remarks by US political figures discussing West Asia.

Read more …

“This is precisely why we need to cut off the head of the snake in Iran, because they do have terrorist proxies in dozens of countries..”

Is Iran’s Regime Trying to Trigger Sleeper Cells in the USA? (Catherine Salgado)

A new report claims that the United States has intercepted communications from the Iranian regime attempting to activate terrorist sleeper cells within the United States. We have to take anything ABC News reports with a grain, or perhaps a shaker, of salt, but its report that the Iranian regime is hoping its terrorist proxies around the world are going to rise up and help it as they have been doing for so many years would almost be predictable rather than surprising. This is precisely why we need to cut off the head of the snake in Iran, because they do have terrorist proxies in dozens of countries. Fortunately, if there was such an encrypted message, the United States has intercepted it and is aware.


We know for a fact that tens of thousands of terrorists came into the United States under the Biden administration, including jihadis from Iranian-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. Almost as soon as the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, an immigrant from Senegal wearing a sweatshirt that said “property of Allah” and who had an Iranian flag and a Quran, murdered three young people in Austin, Texas. And last week, two Muslims with ISIS sympathies attempted to attack a crowd of New York City protesters with improvised explosive devices. The Islamic Iranian regime has built up a massive international network, and even many terrorists not directly connected to it are in sympathy with it.

But as for the new report from ABC News, it claimed the following: “The U.S. has intercepted encrypted communications believed to have originated in Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for “sleeper assets” outside the country, according to a federal government alert sent to law enforcement agencies. The alert, reviewed by ABC News, cites “preliminary signals analysis” of a transmission “likely of Iranian origin” that was relayed across multiple countries shortly after the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, was killed in a U.S.-Israeli attack on Feb. 28.

The transmission was encoded, the outlet added, and was supposedly going to “clandestine recipients” who would know how to decipher it. Such messages do not require the internet to reach “covert operatives or sleeper assets.”The federal government alert cautiously predicted that the encrypted message could “be intended to activate or provide instructions to prepositioned sleeper assets operating outside the originating country.”

Read more …

“..The charges include providing material support to a terrorist organization and using a weapon of mass destruction.”

Bondi Charges Muslim Terrorists Who Tried to Bomb NYC Protest (Sarah Anderson)

In case you missed it, on Saturday, March 7, an anti-Islam protest gathered outside Gracie Mansion — the official residence of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — when two homemade improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were thrown toward the protesters. The devices contained triacetone triperoxide or TATP, a volatile homemade explosive often called “mother of Satan,” as well as nuts, bolts, and screws. They were ignited but failed to fully detonate, creating smoke and chaos. Thankfully, no one was injured. A third device was later found near a vehicle the alleged terrorists drove, sparking evacuations at nearby apartment buildings.


The suspects are 18-year-old Emir Balat and 19-year-old Ibrahim Kayumi, both of whom are from Pennsylvania. They were arrested shortly after the incident. Both the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force called it “ISIS-inspired terrorism.” According to Balat’s statement to law enforcement, he wanted to carry out an attack that was bigger than the Boston Marathon bombing. Here’s more from the official statement: =In the NYPD vehicle en route to the NYPD precinct, BALAT, without being questioned by the NYPD officers transporting him, made the following spontaneous utterances, in part and as captured on the transporting NYPD officers’ body-worn camera footage:

[..] ‘this isn’t a religion that just stands when people talk about the blessed name of the prophet… We take action! We take action!’; and “‘I didn’t do it someone else will come and do it.’ After arriving at the precinct and being advised of, and waiving, his Miranda rights, BALAT requested a piece of paper and, after being given a paper and pen, wrote the following: ‘All praise is due to Allah lord of all worlds! I pledge my allegience [sic] to the Islamic State. Die in your rage yu [sic] kuffar! Emir B.’ Based on my training and experience, I know that “kuffar” is an Arabic term that refers to ‘non-believers’ or ‘infidels,’ and that ‘Die in your rage’ is a slogan used by ISIS and based on a verse in the Quran.

Law enforcement officers later asked BALAT if he was familiar with the Boston Marathon bombing, and if that was what BALAT had hoped to accomplish. BALAT responded: ‘No, even bigger. It was only three deaths.’ According to the New York Post, “[Balat] defiantly flashed an ISIS salute as he was led away in shackles during his perp walk. Wearing a black t-shirt and beige pants, Balat made the gesture before one of the officers detaining him slapped his hand down. Balat, whose parents are reportedly from Turkey but who became naturalized citizens in 2017, was arrested Saturday along with 19-year-old Ibrahim Kayumi after a homemade ‘Mother of Satan’ bomb was allegedly thrown at protesters outside New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Upper East Side residence.”

Read more …

US, Britain and now Italy?

Meloni Slams Italian Judges For Blocking Expulsion of Foreign Criminals (RMX)

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has sharply criticized judicial decisions blocking the detention of migrants transferred to Albania, citing the case of a Moroccan rapist with a long criminal record whom authorities say they cannot detain or deport after he applied for international protection. Speaking to RTL 102.5, Meloni said some court rulings preventing the continued detention of migrants transferred to Italian processing centers in Albania were “surreal” and undermined public safety. “I also wonder where the feminists are in the face of these events,” Meloni said during the interview, referring to the case of one of the migrants, Moroccan national Fathallah Ouardi, who had been transferred to Albania but was later returned to Italy after judges refused to validate his detention.


Meloni said the man had a lengthy criminal record. “The record of one of these migrants includes convictions for drug dealing, resisting a public official, conspiracy to commit sexual assault, and gang rape,” she said, as cited by Secolo d’Italia. According to the prime minister, the court rejected the detention order after the migrant applied for international protection. “This is someone who entered Italy illegally, started dealing drugs, and gang-raped a woman — we can’t detain him, we can’t send him to Albania, we can’t repatriate him, and we’re almost forced to grant him international protection,” she said, adding that such decisions raise serious questions about the protection of victims and public confidence in the justice system.

“How can we guarantee the safety of citizens like this?” she asked. “These decisions are surreal; they affect not the government’s work but citizens’ rights, first and foremost, the right to safety.”m“What trust can a woman who has been gang-raped have in the system if her rapist can’t even be deported?” she added. “I also wonder where the feminists of ‘Non una di meno’ are on these issues.”The Italian leader also defended her government’s migration policies, including the controversial use of offshore migrant processing centers in Albania. “I am determined to do what the citizens have asked me to do: a tough policy on irregular immigration, including with new tools like the centers in Albania,” Meloni said.

“Even though some are trying everything they can to prevent it, I am determined on this and am willing to work three times, four times, ten times harder if necessary.”Remix News provided reporting this week on another Moroccan national accused of raping a 26-year-old woman in Bottanuco in what was a sustained attack over the course of an evening. The suspect was born in 1987 and has accumulated a series of criminal charges and convictions in Italy over more than a decade. Authorities say he was investigated for drug trafficking between 2014 and 2015 and charged with illegal immigration in 2015. Records also list illegal entry and residence in Trentino in 2016 and theft in 2017.

Court documents further list convictions including resisting a public official and drug trafficking in 2014, as well as participation in sexual assault and gang sexual assault in 2018. A further drug trafficking conviction was recorded in 2025.

Read more …

“..the Hungarian authorities see things very differently. Their customs agency says that the transport is suspected of being part of a money laundering operation. They also maintain that among those detained was a former high-ranking general of Ukraine’s combined intelligence service and secret police, the SBU. ”

In A Sane World, Zelensky’s Mafia Regime Would Be Isolated (Amar)

Politics can be very rough. Yet, usually, as long as they don’t collapse into war, at least in public a certain minimum pretense of decorum is maintained. Especially by governments vitally dependent on others’ support. Ukraine under the rule of never-reelected Vladimir Zelensky, however, has anything but a normal political system.


It is in this context that Vladimir Zelensky’s latest folly needs to be seen: Zelensky has threatened Hungary’s leader Viktor Orban, telling him he will hand the prime minister’s address over to “our guys” in the military so that they could “communicate with him in their own language.” Obviously, this is not even a hint of violence anymore, but the equivalent of a mafia godfather placing a dead horse’s head on your pillow or leaving a bullet on your doormat. The reason: Orban is exercising his right within the EU not to agree to yet another insane “loan” – the kind that will never be paid back, at least not by anyone in Ukraine – for Zelensky’s astronomically corrupt regime.

Orban is right about that “loan,” of course. Yet that isn’t even the core of this particular scandal. That is the fact that Zelensky feels he can issue a direct, mafia-style threat against the leader of an EU member state. Regarding Zelensky, though, there is no surprise here. He has been at the top of a regime that combines a bizarre sense of entitlement, shameless demands, outrageously greedy corruption, and a repulsive record of sabotage and assassination operations, very much even against its Western backers. Ask Germans who still have a spine about the Nord Stream attack, for instance. Or, if you can’t find a German with a spine, ask Viktor Orban, who has correctly called it “state terrorism.”

What needs more emphasis than Zelensky’s depraved sense of impunity is that he has reason to feel that way. It is true that, in this instance, the EU Commission has publicly protested against his barbaric behavior. But let’s be realistic, that is a formality, nothing but a gentle slap on the wrist for appearances’ sake. What really matters is that first the West as a whole and recently the EU “elites” on their own have spent years emboldening Zelensky and his regime by feeding Ukraine’s corruption, accepting and spreading Kiev’s lies, and suppressing any criticism of this policy as “Russian talking points.”

Indeed, in the EU, Hungary and Slovakia as well have been harassed and treated as pariahs for their resistance to this coddling of the Zelensky regime. It is all the more remarkable that both countries have principally stuck to their guns, even while having to concede ground repeatedly.

Thus, it may be a coincidence, but it is a remarkable fact that just one day after Zelensky’s open mafia boss fit, Hungary hit his ultra-sleazy regime where it hurts by striking at its money: In a certainly deliberately spectacular operation – balaklavas, body armor and assault rifles included, and all carefully caught on camera – Hungarian anti-terrorism forces stopped a Ukrainian currency and gold shipment that was crossing their country in two armored transporters. Arresting and temporarily detaining seven Ukrainians, the Hungarian officials found $40 million, €35 million, and about nine kilograms of gold. While the detained have been released and are back in Ukraine, the money and gold as well as the transporters have stayed in Hungary.

Kiev has called the Hungarian measures “state terrorism,” which is as absurd as Orban’s assessment of the Nord Stream attack is compelling. The Ukrainian government and Oshchad Bank, that had organized the transport, claim that everything about it was perfectly legal, but the Hungarian authorities see things very differently. Their customs agency says that the transport is suspected of being part of a money laundering operation. They also maintain that among those detained was a former high-ranking general of Ukraine’s combined intelligence service and secret police, the SBU. Ukrainian journalists, in turn, have even named the general as Genady Kuznetsov, the former head of Kiev’s Center for Anti-Terrorist Special Operations.

Budapest’s customs agency has also made public some intriguing figures: In the first two months of this year, the total of currency and gold shipped to Ukraine via Hungary has already amounted to over $900 million dollars, more than €420 million, and 146 kilograms of gold. Clearly, the amounts finally stopped and, it seems, seized were only a small part of a much larger, ongoing flow.According to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, these funds may be linked to the “mafia,” here obviously meaning not just organized crime in Ukraine but Zelensky’s circles themselves, which may be one and the same thing, of course. Also, Szijjarto is a smart man; he may well have sent an implied message to Kiev as well: If you talk like the mafia, we will treat you as mafia. Rest of Europe: Watch and learn.

Read more …

““Since January, a total of $900 million and €420 million in cash has been transported through Hungary, and 146 kilograms of gold bars..”

Hungary Detains Ukrainians Transporting 10s Of Millions In Cash, Gold (Brooke)

Hungarian authorities have detained seven Ukrainian citizens and seized tens of millions of dollars, euros, and gold that were being transported through the country in armored vehicles, triggering the latest diplomatic dispute between Budapest and Kyiv. Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) confirmed on Friday that criminal proceedings had been launched on suspicion of money laundering following an operation carried out on March 5. Authorities intercepted two armored cash-transport vehicles traveling through Hungary from Austria toward Ukraine. According to the Hungarian authorities, the vehicles were carrying approximately $40 million, €35 million in cash, and 9 kilograms of gold.


Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said the case raised serious questions about the movement of large quantities of physical cash through the country. “Since January, a total of $900 million and €420 million in cash has been transported through Hungary, and 146 kilograms of gold bars have also been transported through the country,” he said, as cited by Magyar Hírlap.“We have a number of serious questions about this. First of all, this is a huge amount of cash, and we wonder why Ukrainians need to transport such a large amount of cash. If it is true that this is a transaction between banks, then the question rightly arises as to why the banks do not settle this between themselves by bank transfer, why it is necessary to transport such a large amount of cash, and why it has to be transported through Hungary,” Szijjártó added.

“These questions arise mainly because these cash shipments are accompanied by people who have clear ties to Ukrainian secret services.” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political director, Balázs Orbán, also commented on the case, raising concerns about the purpose of the funds. “Hundreds of millions in cash and gold moving through Hungary toward Ukraine — escorted by people linked to Ukrainian intelligence. Armored vehicles, suitcases full of money, staggering sums,” he wrote on X. “Whose money is this? What was it meant to finance? Who benefits from it? And why must such enormous amounts of cash travel across our country instead of being transferred through normal banking channels?”

He added that authorities would conduct a full investigation and argued that the Hungarian public had a right to know where such funds were coming from and what they were intended for. Ukraine, however, has strongly rejected the allegations and accused Hungary of illegally detaining its citizens and confiscating bank property. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the seven individuals were employees of the state-owned Oschadbank who were conducting a routine cash transfer between financial institutions. “Today in Budapest, Hungarian authorities took seven Ukrainian citizens hostage. The reasons are still unknown, as well as their current well-being, or the possibility of contacting them,” Sybiha said in a social media post cited by Ukrinform.

According to Kyiv, the vehicles were transporting currency and precious metals between Raiffeisen Bank Austria and Oschadbank Ukraine as part of standard banking operations. Sybiha accused Hungary of acting unlawfully. “If this is the ‘force’ announced earlier today by Mr. Orban, then this is the force of a criminal gang. This is state terrorism and racketeering,” he said. Oschadbank also confirmed that two of its armored vehicles and a seven-member transport team had been detained in Hungary while carrying out what it described as a routine transfer of funds and banking metals. “The value of the assets in the seized vehicles amounted to $40 million, EUR 35 million, and 9 kg of gold,” the bank said in a statement, adding that the transport had been documented in accordance with international banking and customs procedures.

According to GPS tracking data cited by the bank, the vehicles were last located in central Budapest near one of Hungary’s law enforcement agencies. Ukrainian officials said the whereabouts of the bank employees were not immediately known. Ukraine’s foreign ministry has also issued a warning advising Ukrainian citizens to avoid traveling through Hungary following what it described as the “kidnapping” of the bank employees and seizure of state bank assets. The incident marks the latest escalation in already strained relations between the two countries.

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sparked outrage among European nationalist politicians by suggesting that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s address could be given to Ukrainian armed forces so they could “speak to him in their own language.” Hungarian officials interpreted the remark as a threat directed at Orbán amid ongoing disputes over Hungary’s opposition to a proposed €90 billion EU loan package for Ukraine.

Read more …

Good battle.

Vance Vs. Rubio? Trump’s Pals Have a Preference. (Sarah Anderson)

It feels like we’ve been talking about who the 2028 GOP nominee will be from the moment Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2025. Even Trump himself has thrown his opinions out in multiple interviews. Ultimately, it seems to come down to either Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio, possibly even a combination of the two. Vance feels like the natural MAGA heir, and he performs best in polls by a mile. He’s extremely intelligent, he’s a veteran, and he has major relatable Middle America appeal. His story is the ultimate proof that you can pull yourself out of any bad situation, and he’s been a great advocate for people of faith and family values. But he’s also young, and some say he needs more experience under his belt, plus some of his ties to certain right-wing influencers come across as unappealing to certain voters.


Rubio definitely has the experience, and his star has risen in his current position as secretary of State, National Security advisor, and pretty much head of everything. He’s proven his competence on foreign policy 100 times over in just one year, he’s made the case for American exceptionalism most eloquently, and he’s the subject of what may be the most popular meme on the internet — I know that sounds silly, but it matters. He also appeals to Hispanic voters, which the GOP needs desperately, and could pull in some moderates and independents.

But he doesn’t poll nearly as well — though he’s gaining some momentum in 2026 after Venezuela and Iran — and many voters still focus on his past and file him under labels like “neocon,” “establishment,” and “RINO.” Based on his 2016 presidential run, they don’t think he’d be a good candidate. According to NBC, Trump has been polling his pals and donors at Mar-a-Lago dinners in recent weeks, and they have pretty strong opinions about who they want to see as the nominee. On the night before the conflict in Iran began, Trump was actually hosting a dinner at his home base in Florida “with a group of roughly 25 GOP donors, including New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and billionaire Georgia gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson.”

Trump asked the crowd who he should support in 2028, and according to someone who was there, the crowd shouted “Rubio” and cheered almost unanimously. However, another person in attendance told NBC that the room was more evenly split. (And these are not named sources, so, as usual, take that with a grain of salt…) NBC also reports that another former Trump official said that you have to remember that Mar-a-Lago crowd is not all that representative of the United States. The Mar-a-Lago donor crew are not JD people. He did not get picked [to be vice president] because of the Mar-a-Lago crowd. If you remember, that crowd was lobbying the president to pick Marco.

White House spokesman Steven Cheung responded and said this isn’t the administration’s current priority: “The president has assembled an all-star team that has achieved unprecedented success in just over one year. No amount of crazed media speculation about Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio will deter this Administration’s mission of fighting for the American people.” A lot of people have made a big fuss over the fact that JD Vance was in Washington, D.C. when we struck Iran, while Trump was with Rubio in Florida, believing it was proof of some sort of favoritism. But a White House spokesperson said this the reality is that it was a matter of security — it’s probably best not to have the president and vice president in the same place when you’re militarily going after one of the country’s biggest enemies.

Vance hasn’t announced whether or not he plans to run, but I can’t imagine he won’t. Rubio has said that if Vance does run, he’ll step aside and support him. Many have floated a Vance-Rubio ticket. My personal opinion on that is that Rubio is much more useful where he is — being the vice president almost feels like a step down. Then again, maybe he can make history again and be the vice president and secretary of State and National Security advisor and head of everything else.

Read more …

Because she’s conservative.

Why the Left Suddenly Hates Gwen Stefani (Queen)

At the tail end of my college years, a band from Orange County, Calif., burst onto the national scene. MTV News called this group a “ska-punk band” — it seemed like a lot of new bands in that era received that moniker — but No Doubt’s music was a true fusion of ska (along with rocksteady and reggae) and rock with more of a punk edge than a punch sound and a sparkling pop melodic sensibility. But what set No Doubt apart was its charismatic frontwoman, Gwen Stefani. She had a unique combination of that aforementioned punk edge and SoCal glamor. Add her boundless energy and truly unique voice into the mix, and a rockstar was born. “Just a Girl” was a fun hit, but No Doubt won me over with “Spiderwebs.” And then “Don’t Speak” launched them into the stratosphere; somebody (I don’t remember who) said several years later that if the record label had released a physical single for “Don’t Speak,” it would’ve become the biggest number one hit of all time.


No Doubt had a few more years of success, and Stefani began a massively successful solo career. Additionally, she married Gavin Rossdale of the band Bush and had three kids. When they divorced, she married country singer Blake Shelton. Side note: After she divorced Rossdale, she was supposed to marry me. I guess she didn’t get the memo.In recent years, Stefani has been more out front about her Catholic faith. She has been a practicing Catholic for years, but she currently partners with Hallow, a Catholic prayer and Bible study app that also markets to non-Catholic Christians. She and Shelton also lead traditional lives, which is unusual for a pair of longtime professional musicians.

Stefani’s openly faithful life and loyalty to her marriage have apparently made her a target of leftist ire. The Telegraph, the center-right (or should I say centre-right?) UK news outlet, published a feature over the weekend about how Stefani has become “an enemy of the left.” Of course, part of this stems from Stefani’s faith and her partnership with Hallow, which is — GASP! — pro-life. The Telegraph’s Poppie Platt writes of how Stefani is wadding panties everywhere: Stefani recently found herself in hot water over her decision to partner with the popular American “prayer and Bible study” app Hallow, which is anti-abortion and counts major Trump donor – and PayPal founder – Peter Thiel among its investors. Its other prominent celebrity backers include two of Hollywood’s most famous Christians, Mark Wahlberg and Chris Pratt.

After Stefani shared a video encouraging her fans to download the app and join its Lent prayer challenge – “Hey everyone, I just got my ashes, and I’m ready for Lent… Check it out. God bless,” she gushed – her more liberally minded followers went into meltdown. “This ‘Maga makeover’ thing is really gross,” one wrote on Instagram, while another said Stefani’s “pandering to the racist rednecks in this country is really disappointing to see.”Platt points out that Stefani has engaged in what the left would consider “cultural appropriation” for years: hip-hop affectations, nods to Latin culture, the Harajuku girls. Yet Stefani has never uttered the first mealy-mouthed apology for any of it.

And while Stefani hasn’t made any overt political statements that I can find, she did share an interview that Tucker Carlson did before he went full antisemitic Qatari stooge with The Chosen star Jonathan Roumie, another devoted Catholic. That was a problem for leftist pearl clutchers. Stefani has traded the Los Angeles-area life for something more settled with Shelton. My friend and colleague Sarah Anderson sent me a video Shelton made of the garden that he and Stefani are planting. He refers to her as “my wife — her name’s Gwen.” Her desire for a more traditional life is nothing new. After all, she wrote No Doubt’s single “Simple Kind of Life,” in which she contrasted settling down with a family against the nomadic life of a musician. But living that simple kind of life in reality is too much for leftists.

Platt writes: In 2024, she released the country-influenced album Bouquet, filled with songs that swapped the feminist-friendly, girl-boss messaging No Doubt was famous for – on angsty hits such as Just A Girl – for odes to marriage and settling down; it was duly slammed by critics. The fact it was recorded in Nashville with help from her country star husband Shelton only added further fuel to the fire for her liberal former fans, who felt like she had replaced independence with subservience. In response to the fuss over the Hallow advert, one X user said: “She’s married to a God-loving Southern country singer, what do you expect?”

Here’s what it all boils down to: the left despises normalcy. The kind of people who faithfully worship, plant gardens, and live quiet lives with spouses and kids are the kind of people leftists hate. Stefani is part of this segment of Americans who become targets of left-wing vitriol — whether she’s actually MAGA or not. And that tells you far more about the left than it ever tells you about Stefani. If you’ve noticed that faith, family, and living a normal life increasingly make you a target of the cultural elites, you’re not imagining it. At PJ Media, we’re committed to calling that out and defending the values that built this country.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 072026
 


Mark Chagall Paris through the window 1913


Trump to Rubio: Here’s Your Next Project (Sarah Anderson)
Strange – CNN Found a War to Cover Again (CTH)
Trump’s Favorability With His Voting Base Tops All Previous Presidents (JTN)
The Sinking Ship Problem of the Epstein Coalition (Helmer)
The Rockets Red Glare (James Howard Kunstler)
President Trump: ‘No Deal with Iran Except Unconditional Surrender’ (CTH)
Virginia Dems Move to Require Teaching Jan. 6th as an Insurrection (Turley)
James Comer Suggests Criminal Referrals Are Possible In Minnesota Fraud Probe (JTN)
Anthropic CEO Apologizes For ‘Dictator Trump’ Meltdown Memo (ZH)
Zelensky Issues Military Threat to Orban (RT)
Orban Intercepts Zelenskyy’s Money Laundering Operation (CTH)
Churchill Wasn’t The First: Europe’s War On Russia Is Centuries Old (Norin)
This Speech Started The Cold War – Still Haunts The World 80 Years On (Amar)

 


 

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2029740962369405166?s=20 https://twitter.com/AstronomyVibes/status/2029738545125150860?s=20 https://twitter.com/EvanLuthra/status/2029799159025521112?s=20 https://twitter.com/AlexMasonCrypto/status/2029590536722751572?s=20

 


 


Cuba.

Trump to Rubio: Here’s Your Next Project (Sarah Anderson)

Donald Trump told Marco Rubio that he’s got a new project coming on Thursday, and no, I’m not talking about babysitting Kristi Noem, though, apparently, he’s doing that too. Trump welcomed the Inter Miami CF soccer club to the White House today, and there was a lot of talk about Cuba, as the club’s co-owners, brothers Jorge and José Mas, are of Cuban descent. After praising Rubio as the “best Secretary of State in the country’s history” and joking that he didn’t want him to get “too popular,” Trump said, “He’s doing some job, and your next one is going to be… special. He’s waiting, but he says, ‘Let’s get [Iran] finished first.’ We could do them all at the same time, but bad things happen. If you watch countries, over the years, you do them all too fast, bad things happen. We’re not going to let bad things happen.”


The “special” job is, of course, taking over Cuba (last week, Trump called it a “friendly takeover”). The president implied during his speech that it would happen in a couple of weeks, but he said we need to get Iran under control first. But Trump was adamant, as he has been for weeks, that Cuba will fall. Of the regime, he said, “They want to make a deal so badly. You have no idea.” If the Miami Herald is to be believed, the current hand-picked “president” of the nation, Miguel Díaz-Canel, is the holdout and “biggest obstacle,” but it sounds like if he doesn’t start negotiating, he could end up being Cuba’s biggest loser. Rubio is reportedly in talks with Raúl Castro’s grandson, as well as other people in the country’s so-called “government.”

Díaz-Canel actually spent his day at the Iranian Embassy, paying homage to Ayatollah Khamenei. These images are giving me major “defiant Nicolás Maduro before the January 3 raid” vibes. We know how that turned out. Unfortunately, there’s no warrant out for Díaz-Canel’s arrest. Trump also said today that soon, Cubans who live in the United States will be able to go back to their country, but given the current conditions, I can’t imagine a lot of people are super eager. On Wednesday, over two-thirds of the island suffered an extended blackout. While some power has been restored, word is that it could take days to fix it. Then again, sadly, I think the people in Cuba are used to it at this point. Many parts of the country go 20 hours a day without power. The regime blames Trump’s oil squeeze, but we all know what the real problem is. It starts with a “c” and ends with an “ommunism.”

I’ve been banking stories out of Cuba for the last few days for an update, but if I included every single one of them, this article would end up at about 8,000 words, so I’m going to pick the two biggies. So, we know that Mexico’s narco-president, Claudia Sheinbaum, was sending Cuba “humanitarian oil” last year and early this year before Trump put a stop to it by threatening more tariffs. In February, she began sending humanitarian aid instead. Tons of it — items like food and toiletries, while about a third of her own country lives in poverty. Many have condemned her actions, mostly because she sent the aid straight to the regime rather than the Catholic Church as our State Department has been doing.

Well, Azteca Noticias did some investigative work and found that those items are being sold wholesale in state or military-controlled stores that only accept U.S. dollars. For example, for $43, you could get about 30 kilograms or just over 66 pounds of dry beans. And so, people continue to go hungry. The other major news is that many countries in the region are cutting any sort of diplomatic ties with the Cuban regime. The most noteworthy in recent days is Ecuador, which declared Cuban Ambassador Basilio Gutiérrez persona non grata and gave him and his staff 48 hours to get the heck out of the country. Those staff members could be seen on the roof of the embassy burning papers on Wednesday.

Several other countries are also refusing to continue participating in Cuba’s forced labor program. Commies will tell you it’s a great humanitarian gesture in which Cuba sends doctors and other healthcare providers and professionals to underserved countries. But the fact is that these medical professionals are treated like garbage. Some have compared it to modern-day slavery. Meanwhile, the regime gets rich off what these countries pay for the services. Honduras just sent 168 people back home, and on Thursday, Jamaica announced that it was ending its relationship with the program after five decades. Trump said on Thursday that Cuba will definitely fall. It’s just a matter of time as to when. He acted as if it’s merely a scheduling conflict between handling that, Iran, and Venezuela. He makes it all look so simple. We are witnessing history here, folks, and I will continue to document it as much as I can.

Read more …

“..the media participation was limited to column inches, punditry reports, claims and scripted presentations that worked alongside Zelenskyy, the actor..”

Strange – CNN Found a War to Cover Again (CTH)

CNN is bragging about the teams they have on the ground in Iran and around the war zone to provide coverage for Operation Epic Fury. [SOURCE] Which again, brings up an interesting contrast that seemingly flew under the radar from past events.


As we noted in the beginning of the Russian war in Ukraine, where was the media for that one? Where was this CNN coverage for the war in Ukraine? The Ukraine war was the only war in modern history with ZERO mainstream media reports complete with helmets, flak jackets and play-by-play reporting of every moment within the conflict. Why? The answer is not necessarily complicated. The Ukraine war was a war of narratives. Yes, there was actual fighting, but the physical conflict itself was not in alignment with the narrative the media intended to create from it. The reality within Ukraine did not fit in the pert chart and the visuals would not ever have supported the claims.

Ukraine was/is the COVID-19 of wars. A western intelligence operation using the geography of Ukraine to push an agenda in alignment with western interests. It would not and does not serve the interests of truth and transparency for media to report from inside a battlespace that might contradict their claims. Hence, we labeled it “World War Reddit,” and it remains that way through today. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was installed by the same interests who triggered the conflict. As an outcome, the media participation was limited to column inches, punditry reports, claims and scripted presentations that worked alongside Zelenskyy, the actor, traveling all around the world promoting the conflict and raising money.

The physical battlespace was far less valuable than the EU/NATO and Intelligence Community narratives needed to maintain it. As soon as everyone started making money from the screenplay, maintaining ticket sales was prioritized over the performance itself. Criticism and critiques can be completely avoided by keeping the curtain down and just narrating what’s going on behind it. That system of deception continues through today. Strange that everyone just accepted it.

Read more …

Says CNN.

Trump’s Favorability With His Voting Base Tops All Previous Presidents (JTN)

Multiple new polls show President Donald Trump’s approval rating within his party is higher than any other president in history. “Republicans love Donald Trump more than any president’s own party’s supporters loved him at this particular point,” CNN’s Harry Enten told viewers Wednesday night. The poll, which found that at this point in his second term, Trump’s GOP approval sits at a remarkable 86%, while former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush were both at 77%. Strong approval within their own parties is now at 53% for Trump, again higher than Obama and Bush, whose strong approval ratings were 48% and 47% respectively. This approval comes despite other polls showing majority disapproval for Trump’s strike on Iran.


Trump’s approval rating held steady at 44%
A Fox News poll released in late January 2026 shows similar results: strong support persists among Republicans, with 85% approving overall and 97% among those identifying as MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s slogan) supporters. Among all voters, Trump’s job approval rating held steady at 44% among registered voters, with 56% disapproving, unchanged from the previous month. That survey showed that Trump’s rating matches former President George W. Bush’s at a comparable point in his second term and exceeds Barack Obama’s by 2 points.

A president’s own party approval is a direct result of campaign promises coming to fruition. For Trump, there’s a substantial list thanks to his bullishness. President Trump’s campaign promise to secure the southern border has come to fruition through aggressive enforcement measures, resulting in negative net migration for the first time in 50 years and border crossings dropping to historic lows. Trump fulfilled his pledge to deliver major tax relief by signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which extended his 2017 tax cuts, eliminated taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits, and provided significant reductions for working- and middle-class Americans.

The administration achieved record energy production and dominance by unleashing domestic drilling and deregulation, contributing to lower energy costs and positioning the U.S. as a leading global energy exporter. Trump successfully implemented policies ensuring that net job growth went primarily to native-born Americans through strict immigration enforcement, reversing trends from prior years. His commitment to massive bureaucracy cuts and government efficiency efforts has saved hundreds of billions of dollars, equivalent to substantial per-taxpayer relief, while reshoring trillions in investments to boost American manufacturing and economic growth.

Read more …

“… the US, Israel and their allies – the “Epstein Coalition” as the Russian military bloggers are calling them…”

The Sinking Ship Problem of the Epstein Coalition (Helmer)

The problem is that rats can leave a sinking ship but they cannot return if their ship has already sunk. They must surrender instead or drown. This must have been what President Vladimir Putin meant when he instructed his spokesman Dmitry Peskov to announce on Thursday afternoon, March 5: “Moscow has not received any requests for assistance, including weapons provisions, from Iran, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a briefing. ‘As for the current situation, there have been no requests from Iran. Our consistent position is well-known to everyone. It remains unchanged,’ he pointed out, when asked if Russia planned to provide any assistance to Iran, particularly by providing weapons, in addition to political support.”


In other words, Russian military intelligence must have told the Kremlin that the war aims of — are failing to decapitate Iran’s civilian and military leadership; failing to destroy their missile stocks and underground launcher capacities; and failing to detect, intercept and prevent the escalating destruction of Iran’s counter-attack targets in the US base system, the Gulf Arab economies, and Israel itself. Accordingly, the Russian assessment is that Iran will not need to request military resupply and other assistance from Russia. Not yet — because the attrition of the Epstein Coalition forces is so rapid, they will be compelled to ask for a stop before Iran will need to ask for Russian assistance.

This is not the interpretation of Russian plans by the Trump Administration. At his Pentagon briefing on March 4, the US Secretary of War, Peter Hegseth, was asked by a reporter: “What is your message to Iran’s allies, namely Russia and China, who have called for an immediate end to hostilities?” Hegseth replied: “I don’t have a message for them and they’re not really a factor here and we’re – our issue is not with them; it’s with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.” Peskov’s announcement followed after Hegseth’s. Since Russian and Iranian officials know exactly what they have been discussing with each other, before the war began and since, Peskov cannot have been addressing Iran. Was he then messaging Washington for reassurance that “our consistent position… remains unchanged”? Was Hegseth correct that this means Russia has not entered the war on Iran’s side and will not do so?

This is the sinking ship question. It remains to be answered whose ship is sinking. It is unclear if Peskov’s message is the same as the Russian Foreign Ministry’s. Reading in retrospect and between the lines of the Ministry communiqués after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s first telephone call with Abbas Aragchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, on February 28 and his second call on March 3, there is ambiguity. In the first call Aragchi briefed Lavrov on Iran’s “steps to repel the aggression by the United States and Israel” and “expressed sincere gratitude to the Russian Federation for invariable and solid support.” That last phrase implies Russian intelligence, air defence radar, missile battery, and electronic countermeasures support, plus missile targeting and guidance in the counter-offensive.

In the second call, Lavrov has reported himself as having “reaffirmed Russia’s principled position in support of de-escalation, rejection of force, and a transition to a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict.” Transition means not yet.Lavrov’s spokesman, Maria Zakharova added on the next day, March 4: “We are convinced that the crisis surrounding Iran has no military solution. We strongly call for the abandonment of forceful methods and a return to political and diplomatic resolution of all issues.” Zakharova also announced that a special operation is under way for five border crossings between Iran and Turkmenistan to open for the northbound evacuation of Russians in Iran. This means that the same routes are now open for Russian military supplies to move southward to Iran, when or if they may be needed. When or if — this is the key to Russian decision-making in the days ahead.

Read more …

“If you are feeling dumb today, just remember, there are real people who believe Iran is winning.” —Cam Higby on “X”

The Rockets Red Glare (James Howard Kunstler)

You probably wonder what the end of this war will look like. It won’t look like V-J Day in Times Square, 1945, with sailors kissing girls they met five seconds ago. Our country is way too divided and disturbed with politically-inflected mental illness for love to bloom in the streets like it did then. If you happen to catch the glum crew on CNN you will detect that they really want this operation to fail because, you know, Trump. The war will be over when Iran loses the ability to spray missiles and drones all over the place — and notice how they are pouring it on the Emirate states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and even Azerbaijan, for Gawdsake, turning would-be bystanders into pissed-off additional enemies they need like a hole in the head.


At some point they will run out of ordnance, or the will to roll them out of the supposed 10,000 bat caves their weapons are stashed in. Our side apparently has an uncanny knack for seeing the launchers creep into daylight and efficiently blowing them up. Creates a disincentive to even think about launching. Of course, Iran might have some spectacular last-ditch thingie they can unleash to horrify the world — perhaps a “dirty” bomb that uses the 460 kilos of 60-percent enriched uranium they bragged about at one of the last negotiation sessions before the war with Witkoff and Kushner. Standing by on that.

But, at some point a week or so hence, a stillness will fall upon the earth and sky above Iran, and that will be all she wrote for sheer havoc. Victory will not look much like anything. Just that stillness. The body politic in Iran is another matter. Expect awful turmoil. Iran’s command structure is shattered. Officials don’t dare pick a room in some building to meet in. The Internet is down and most communication with it. Nobody knows who is really in charge, and nobody may be in charge, not for quite a long time to come.

Let’s hope we have the patience to let the Iranians sort out their own governing structure, and that it will be made up of people who are not insane, not fanatics of the martyrdom cult that has ruled the place for fifty years. It’s probably not part of the US plan to slaughter the Revolutionary Guard, or Sepah, the chief apparatus of despotic control in the country. Or the Basij, (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, which means “Organization for the Mobilization of the Oppressed”), an auxiliary volunteer paramilitary militia that acts as the “morality police” and cracks down on dissent. Hundreds of thousands are employed by these groups.

You might imagine circumstances in which the members of those dastardly outfits decide to peel away from them, sensing a loss of legitimacy and danger in remaining on-board. Surely, a lot of Iranians will have blood in their eyes, looking for scores to settle, just as the people took revenge on members of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even now with the bombs still falling in Tehran (perhaps even because of them), many ordinary Iranians are dancing in the streets. You must suppose there is massive opposition to the regime. But first, chaos.

Why would we feel any necessity to put “boots on the ground” in there? Why expose American troops to the factional fighting that is apt to break out, as it did in Iraq? Did we not learn the lessons of Fallujah? Wouldn’t it be enough that Iran just loses its ability to fire weapons at anyone? Loses its ability to mess with shipping in the Persian Gulf? And loses its ability to foment mischief in other countries, including any ideological influence it might still have, or any financial mojo for sponsoring terrorism? Can we not just stand by and let the Iranians figure out their own future?

Try imagining a peaceful Iran not bent on exporting Jihad (just like you might imagine a peaceful Ukraine, not making itself a problem for the rest of the world). Forgive the cliché, but Iran (a.k.a. Persia), is an old and durable culture, with a highly educated population, one of the world’s largest oil-and-gas reserves, and plenty of other resources. Iran could be somebody. It doesn’t have to be a bum with a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

As for our own country, too many people here are busy wolfing down the black pills with their Adderall and their Starbucks iced lavender cream chai. It’s actually possible that there is a satisfactory outcome to this Iran operation. Would that disappoint you — as it apparently disappoints the glum crew at CNN? As with Iran, it doesn’t pay to be insane, and something close to half of America is insane. That perturbation is mostly lodged in the American Left these days, the Democratic Party, devoted to a long list of ideas and propositions at odds with reality and locked into a strange willful hysteria that regards any kind of good faith as poison. That is exactly why we can’t have clean elections. How about fixing that?

Read more …

“Keep an eye on Russia. Ignore the western media narratives and look for direct source information on Russian oil activity. Let them work and just keep watching.”

President Trump: ‘No Deal with Iran Except Unconditional Surrender’ (CTH)

The U.S. and Israel have been targeting deep underground missile sites within Iran, with strong success. Iranian counterstrikes, missile & drone launches are down 80 to 90 percent according to Pentagon officials. Additionally, the Israeli military has reported they dismantled an underground bunker system in Tehran used by regime leadership. Originally the bunker was used by slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei underneath the leadership compound in central Tehran. The bunker was targeted by 50 Israeli fighter jets and subsequently destroyed. President Trump announced via Truth Social that he will not seek any terms with Iran other than unconditional surrender.


Meanwhile, in a somewhat predictable move, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced the U.S. will lift some sanctions on Russian oil exports in order to mitigate shortfalls. India will be permitted to purchase additional Russian oil for use in their refineries. The gasoline end products will then be sold into the market. BESSENT: “President Trump’s energy agenda has resulted in oil and gas production reaching the highest levels ever recorded. To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil. This deliberately short-term measure will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government as it only authorizes transactions involving oil already stranded at sea. India is an essential partner of the United States, and we fully anticipate that New Delhi will ramp up purchases of U.S. oil. This stop-gap measure will alleviate pressure caused by Iran’s attempt to take global energy hostage. (more)”

Strategically, it has always appeared that President Trump wanted to remove the sanctions against Russia as part of a negotiated peace deal with Ukraine. However, the intransigence of Ukraine and the EU had blocked that move. I would anticipate at some date the U.S. will use the opportunity of global need as a justification to permit more Russian oil to be sold into Western markets. This approach will not make Ukraine or the EU happy; however, it could be structured to put petrodollars back in control of Russian oil sales. That approach would further weaken China and the BRICS assembly who have been purchasing energy products in domestic exchange currencies.

The U.S., Venezuela and Russia could increase output and replace the missing oil production from the middle east region. This would stabilize markets. Although, the politics of that approach would face stiff opposition. What seems very likely is that Bessent, Rubio and Trump have a plan. If there’s one person in U.S. politics who understands how to use oil to financially mitigate any geopolitical impacts, it’s President Trump. Keep an eye on Russia. Ignore the western media narratives and look for direct source information on Russian oil activity. Let them work and just keep watching.

Read more …

“.. the Supreme Court effectively reduced many of the charges to mere trespass in later litigation, rejecting obstruction claims.”

Virginia Dems Move to Require Teaching Jan. 6th as an Insurrection (Turley)

Virginia Democrats are moving to require teachers to tell students that Jan. 6th was an “insurrection” and effectively bar them from referencing “peaceful protests” or election irregularities. The characterization of the riot as an insurrection is historically and legally false. However, any parents who want to send their children to Virginia public schools would have to accept this form of indoctrination as part of their children’s education.


In the last election, Democrats campaigned as moderates, including Abigail Spanberger. Once in control of the Governor’s mansion and the legislature, however, they have moved quickly to the far left in a flurry of measures. Democratic legislators just voted themselves almost a 300% increase in salaries. They will need it. They are moving to increase taxes on ride shares, concerts, counseling, leaf blowers, Amazon deliveries, DoorDash, Uber Eats, ammunition, and other areas. However, HB 333, drafted by Del. Dan I. Helmer of Fairfax, raises serious concerns over academic freedom and free speech. The summary of the bill mandates “a program of instruction on or relating to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol” and further:

“prohibits any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction from (i) describing, portraying, or presenting as credible a description or portrayal of the actions precipitating or involved in the January 6, 2021, insurrection as peaceful protest or (ii) stating, suggesting, or presenting as credible a statement or suggestion that there was extensive election fraud that could have changed or actually changed the results of the 2020 presidential election. The bill requires any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction to describe the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol as an unprecedented, violent attack on U.S. democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Soon after Jan. 6th, I condemned the riot but rejected the argument that this was an insurrection. However, it soon became part of an orthodoxy in politics and academia despite the fact that the public rejected it. As former House Speaker Pelosi declared, “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.” Yet, “insurrection” and “sedition” are legal terms. They have a meaning. The FBI investigated thousands after January 6th and charged hundreds. Not one was charged with insurrection or conspiracy to overthrow the country. The vast majority are charged with relatively minor offenses of trespass or unlawful entry or property damage- the type of charges that are common in protests and riots.

Indeed, the Supreme Court effectively reduced many of the charges to mere trespass in later litigation, rejecting obstruction claims. Faced with a collapsing historical and legal narrative, Democrats are now moving to simply indoctrinate students that this was an “insurrection.” Notably, Helmer is running again for Congress after Democrats, with the support of Gov. Spanberger, moved to reduce Republicans in the state (which is divided down the middle between the parties) to just one of eleven districts through gerrymandering.

Helmer is running in one of the most notorious new districts, called the “lobster” or the “scorpion,” because it runs from the Potomac River in Arlington southwestward, then splits into two “claws” toward the West Virginia line near Rawley Springs and Goochland and Powhatan. In my book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the radicalization of the American left. While many on the left advocate censoring “disinformation,” they are far less circumspect in promulgating their own disinformation.Likewise, where Democrats have objected to the pressure put on universities for greater diversity of viewpoints as an attack on academic freedom, these Democrats see no problem in mandating the teaching of positions that are demonstrably false.

Here, Rep. Helmer and other Democrats are mandating the teaching of a false narrative to children rather than simply relying on public debate. The reason is that they are losing the debate over the characterization of this riot as an actual insurrection. This, and other moves on the left, will only accelerate the exodus of families from public education. Notably, Fairfax County (which Helmer represents) has seen a sharp fall in enrollments in recent years.

Read more …

Walz, Ellison, Omar et al.

James Comer Suggests Criminal Referrals Are Possible In Minnesota Fraud Probe (JTN)

Chairman James Comer, who leads the House Oversight Committee, told Just the News that further criminal referrals are possible with the evidence his committee has uncovered of the rampant welfare fraud in Minnesota. A new report from Comer’s committee, released on Wednesday, concluded that senior Minnesota government officials, including Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, were for years aware of claims of widespread fraud in the state’s federally funded welfare programs, but failed to act, other than to retaliate against whistleblowers, Just the News reported. Comer told Just the News that he has already shared those findings with the Justice Department.


“We’ve given [the Justice Department] the report today that shows Walz and them knew. I don’t know that it’s a crime. Incompetence isn’t a crime, unfortunately…but at the end of the day, if some of these fraudsters implicate a coordination with Attorney General Ellison or Governor Walz, then I think that you could see some referrals from the committee,” Comer said on the Just the News, No Noise TV show on Wednesday. Governor Walz, who was also the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2024, previously acknowledged there is fraud in his state, but said his administration has made it a priority to root it out for years.

He appeared at an Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday alongside Ellison where he again defended his handling of the fraud allegations, touting the federal prosecution of more than 75 defendants, but struggled to answer why his own government did not take action against the suspected fraudsters after his office was informed of suspicious activity. “I have watched with dismay as members of this Committee have made unfounded allegations that I am somehow complicit in defrauding Minnesota programs,” Walz said in his opening statement before the committee. “As a former member of Congress, I know that this institution can be better than these evidence-free accusations levied for nakedly partisan reasons,” he said, before reiterating a commitment to work with Congress and federal prosecutors to root out fraud.

However, the Oversight Committee believes the evidence shows the opposite, that Walz and his senior officials knew about the fraud concerns from the very beginning of his tenure and ultimately failed to act to address it before facing public backlash and pressure from the federal government in recent months. That evidence comes from testimony gathered by the committee from nine current and former Minnesota state officials who oversaw the benefits programs within the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and the Department of Human Services (DHS), the two government bodies that oversaw the programs at the center of the fraud allegations.

Read more …

No company can force the hand of a government. If it does. it IS the government. Shouldn’t his model have told him that?

Anthropic CEO Apologizes For ‘Dictator Trump’ Meltdown Memo (ZH)

As Anthropic attempts to salvage their relationship with the Trump administration, CEO Dario Amodei publicly apologized Thursday for the inflammatory tone of his leaked internal memo that accused the White House of targeting his company because it hadn’t offered “dictator-style praise” to President Trump. The apology came in his first major interview since the Pentagon’s Department of War (DoW) formally designated Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security – effective immediately – marking the first time such a label has been applied to a U.S. company.


The March 5 designation, confirmed in a letter to Anthropic leadership, stems from weeks of failed negotiations over Claude AI’s military applications. Anthropic refused to drop strict red lines prohibiting the model’s use for mass domestic surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous lethal weapons, insisting on meaningful safeguards rather than what Amodei previously called “safety theater” in rival deals like OpenAI’s. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had threatened broad restrictions, including barring defense contractors from any commercial activity with Anthropic, but the company clarified the scope appears narrower: it primarily affects direct DoW-related work, with partners like Microsoft confirming continued availability for non-defense uses.

Last Friday, the Trump administration ‘fired’ the company after a bruising dispute with the Pentagon came to a head over ethical concerns surrounding Claude’s military use. The Pentagon demanded to use ClaudeAI for “any lawful purpose” with no guardrails – or having to allegedly ask permission in a life-or-death scenario. In the interview with The Economist Amodei described the crisis as one of the most “disorienting” in Anthropic’s history. He attributed the leaked memo – written hastily on Slack amid rapid-fire events including Trump’s announcements and OpenAI snaking their contract – to confusion and panic from a “difficult day.”

“It does not reflect my careful or considered views,” he said, downplaying it as a casual internal message rather than a formal memo. He said he’d apologized to DoW personnel and signaled openness to further dialogue with administration figures, though he sidestepped a direct personal apology to Trump. Amodei’s Thursday mea culpa was accompanied with a blog post titled: “Where things stand with the Department of War,” where he emphasized shared interests with the military, offered Claude at nominal cost plus engineer support for warfighters, and highlighted ongoing “productive conversations” despite the label.

I also want to apologize directly for a post internal to the company that was leaked to the press yesterday. Anthropic did not leak this post nor direct anyone else to do so—it is not in our interest to escalate this situation. That particular post was written within a few hours of the President’s Truth Social post announcing Anthropic would be removed from all federal systems, the Secretary of War’s X post announcing the supply chain risk designation, and the announcement of a deal between the Pentagon and OpenAI, which even OpenAI later characterized as confusing. It was a difficult day for the company, and I apologize for the tone of the post. It does not reflect my careful or considered views. It was also written six days ago, and is an out-of-date assessment of the current situation.”

Read more …

“Orban, meanwhile, has taken to social media to issue his own warning. “There will be no deals, no compromise. We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade by force,”

Zelensky Issues Military Threat to Orban (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has issued an apparent military threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban over the ongoing refusal by Budapest to lift a veto on billions in loans underwritten by EU members for Kiev. Orban last month blocked a planned €90 billion ($106 billion) emergency loan raised by EU members for Kiev – following the bloc’s failure to agree on outright stealing billions in Russian assets frozen in Belgium. Orban took the step in response to Ukraine preventing key Russian oil supplies from reaching Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.


Speaking on new weapons for Kiev’s armed forces on Thursday, Zelensky stated: “We hope that one person in the EU will not block the €90 billion… Otherwise, we will give the address of this person to our armed forces, to our guys, so that they call him and communicate with him in their own language.” The diplomatic dispute between Hungary and Ukraine has escalated in recent weeks, spilling over into personal barbs. Zelensky launched a string of attacks against Orban, including fat-shaming him during the Munich Security Conference last month.

https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/2022635714953789612?s=20

The Hungarian prime minister has long opposed Ukraine’s push to join the EU, and has repeatedly refused to send it weapons or approve EU military aid, calling for diplomacy instead. Orban, meanwhile, has taken to social media to issue his own warning. “There will be no deals, no compromise. We will break the Ukrainian oil blockade by force,” he wrote on X on Thursday, adding that oil will soon flow to Hungary again through the Druzhba pipeline.

The Soviet-era pipeline, part of which runs through Ukraine, went offline in January after Kiev claimed it had been damaged by Russian strikes – accusations Moscow denies. Hungary and Slovakia, both heavily reliant on Russian energy, have accused Kiev of deliberately cutting them off for political reasons and inventing obstacles for restarting oil flows. Zelensky has issued threats against foreign leaders and officials before. Last year, he suggested that Russia’s top officials should check for bomb shelters, hinting that Ukraine could target the Kremlin. Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the comments “irresponsible.”

Read more …

“..a loan with no payback clause..”

Orban Intercepts Zelenskyy’s Money Laundering Operation (CTH)

Ukraine (Zelenskyy) was angry at Hungary (Orban) for blocking the €90 billion EU loan (a loan with no payback clause) which was backed by confiscated Russian sovereign wealth funds. A splendidly European financial scheme. To get back at Viktor Orban, Volodymyr Zelenskyy destroyed an oil/gas pipeline hub in Ukraine that transferred Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia (Robert Fico). Hungary and Slovakia were furious, and Zelenskyy said repairs were too complicated to be easily fixed. Viktor Orban and Robert Fico then doubled down on blocking Ukraine funds and Ukraine’s assentation to the EU.


When Zelenskyy was questioned about Hungarian or EU inspectors visiting the site to evaluate the repairs, Zelenskyy said they would not be allowed access. Zelenskyy further noted when he was told Patriot Missiles were in short supply, he did not get to visit the inventory; implying his lies were similar to lies told by the United States. Caught in a lie, Zelenskyy followed up by saying he didn’t care, it was Russian oil so get lost. Two days ago, Hungary then intercepted two Ukraine vans carrying $40 million in cash dollars, €35 million in cash Euros, and 9 kg of gold – presumably a money laundering transfer intended to fund Zelenskyy and his intelligence chiefs.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó stating that “since January, $900 million and €420 million in cash, as well as 146 kilograms of gold, have been transported across Hungary.” The shipment apprehended by Hungary included 40 million U.S. dollars as well as 35 million euros and 9 kilograms (19.8 pounds) of gold — worth around $1.5 million at current prices — according to a separate statement by Oschadbank. Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration confirmed Friday that it had detained the Ukrainian citizens and seized the two armored cash-transport vehicles. It added it was conducting criminal proceedings on suspicion of money laundering. {LINK}

Upon hearing of the intercept yesterday, a highly angered Volodymyr Zelenskyy then threatened to send Ukraine “special military operators” to the home of Viktor Orban to extract revenge. Zelenskyy’s threat caused the European Commission to issue an unusual rebuke of the Ukraine dictator. “Specifically in relation to the comments made by President Zelenskyy, we are very clear as the European Commission that that type of language is not acceptable. There must not be threats against EU member states,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill told reporters Friday, in a rare condemnation of the leader in Kyiv. {link}

Zelenskyy, with pants down and visibly on fire, now missing all the money/gold, retreats from the originating position that started this mess and says he will repair the oil transfer station he destroyed, if Hungary will permit Ukraine to get the €90 billion loan (not a loan) from the Russian sovereign wealth fund.

Read more …

“Before the Iron Curtain: The centuries-old roots of the Russia–Europe rift ..”

Churchill Wasn’t The First: Europe’s War On Russia Is Centuries Old (Norin)

In 1946, Winston Churchill’s Fulton Speech symbolically marked the beginning of the Cold War between the Western world and the Soviet Union. Since then, relations between Russia and the West have been fraught with tension. In recent years, this culminated in a strong and almost existential antagonism. Surprisingly, just a while ago, Russia viewed Europe as a natural ally. For two decades following the collapse of the USSR, there was a belief that Russia and Europe have a promising future together. Russian energy resources and European technology seemed like a perfect match, and Europe was commonly considered to be a model, both in terms of lifestyle and organizational efficiency.


That optimism turned out to be fleeting. Unfortunately, the roots of Russian-European opposition run much deeper. Ideas about isolating, colonizing, or even breaking up Russia didn’t emerge recently, and weren’t even invented by Adolf Hitler.

Prisoners of geography
One defining characteristic of Russia is its geographical position, which has historically influenced the decisions of its leaders and its overall policy. Russia is located on the edge of Europe, making connections with the rest of the European continent challenging. Throughout the centuries, this has affected relations between Russia and Europe, giving rise to unrealistic expectations, illusions, and persistent mutual fear. Russian foreign policy has long been shaped by efforts to break through this ‘cordon sanitaire’.

At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, several global developments occurred at around the same time. Europe discovered the great wide world, and as a result, soldiers, traders, and missionaries left its borders. Europeans didn’t just discover new lands – they were intent on carrying the word of the true faith there. Those who were willing to listen became part of the Christian world (although they were granted lesser roles within it), and those who resisted became enemies. However, while European missionaries erected crosses on the shores of America and India, movements spread within Europe that were initially considered heresies. Protestantism spread rapidly across the Old World, and intense religious conflicts raged in Europe.

Ignorant of these troubles, Rus’ was preoccupied with its own affairs. The country had cast off the Mongol yoke and was piecing itself together after centuries of foreign domination. It was during this period that emissaries from Western Europe arrived, including representatives from Rome. Their main goals were to persuade Rus’ to join the fight against the Islamic world, particularly the Ottoman Turks, and enter into a union with Rome. Initially, Catholics felt inspired by Russia – here was a vast and already Christian nation, which needed only some guidance along the right path.

Read more …

“Winston Churchill’s Fulton address was a signal for the Iron Curtain to drop, and for nukes to almost drop as well..”

This Speech Started The Cold War – Still Haunts The World 80 Years On (Amar)

Eighty years ago, on March 5, 1946, one of the most famous leaders of World War Two delivered a fairly short but stern message which helped lock humanity into a future of open-ended and high-risk Cold War. That was the essence of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s Fulton Speech (if we name it after the small midwestern US college town where he gave it), also known as the Iron Curtain Speech (after its key claim).


A massive political, ideological, and last but not least, military barrier had come to divide post-World War Two Europe, Churchill argued, and it was all the wicked Soviets’ fault: They had broken the Grand Alliance with the West by taking control of “the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe,” he charged. In the face of this “Soviet sphere” and the aggressive strategies seeking to expand it even farther, Churchill warned, a Western policy of “balance of power” would be ineffective and lead to “catastrophe.” Instead, he urged, the “Western Democracies” needed to “stand together” in order to – Churchill clearly implied – deter the Soviets, who in his view respected only strength, especially of the military variety.

Well lubricated with shameless flattery for American President Harry Truman, who had travelled far to be in the audience and had a hand in setting up the speech, as well as for the US in general – at its “pinnacle of world power” – the Fulton Speech also pitched Churchill’s own, badly declining Britain as a junior but special sidekick to the Americans in their “primacy.” Unfortunately, that too came to pass.

Short and – in its recommendations – really quite generic as it was, Churchill’s intervention, speaking in the middle of nowhere in what is now called fly-over country, has a secure place of honor in naively admiring accounts of the West’s Cold War. There, it is still celebrated as an example of looking unflinchingly at harsh realities, a valiant call to arms, and a wise policy recommendation. Even those less sentimentally inclined still consider the speech necessary and the strategy of containment that it was effectively selling, inevitable.

That however is lazy thinking. For more reasons than one: Most obviously, the old Cold War was extremely costly as well as outrageously perilous. In the end, it lasted for four decades, before it ended with a negotiated settlement, initiated by the Soviet Union, in the late 1980s (no, the Cold War did not end in 1991, whatever ideology-contaminated Wikipedia says). Over almost half a century, this Cold War of the last century could, all serious observers have long understood, easily have ended with World War Three instead, including a world-ending use of nuclear weapons. In that entirely possible scenario, I would not be here to write this, and you would not be here to read it. And everything around us would be missing as well.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Dark matter https://twitter.com/AstronomyVibes/status/2029551805097808281?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 262026
 
 February 26, 2026  Posted by at 10:39 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  58 Responses »


Piet Mondriaan Composition No. 10 1939-42


Cuban Regime Kills Four in Shootout With Florida Vessel (Sarah Anderson)
CNN’s Instant Poll of the State of the Union Will Trigger the Left (Margolis)
A Masterclass in Giving a Speech Without Giving a Speech (Stephen Green)
Which Party Represents Americans? (Paul Craig Roberts)
Sen. Chris Murphy Joins Pledge to Throw Trump Figures in Jail (Turley)
Trump Admin to Launch New Free Speech Site to Combat Censorship Abroad (ET)
A Continental Revolution Is Brewing In Europe (Zemánek)
RFK Jr. Defends Trump’s Glyphosate Order (ET)
EU To Start Permanent Ban on Russian Oil 3 Days After Hungarian Election (CTH)
Solidarity Simulacra: Zelensky’s Four-Year Reality Check (RT)
Moscow Will Respond If NATO Gives Nukes To Nazi Regime In Kiev – Medvedev (RT)
Zelensky Demands €90 Billion EU Loan (RT)
Bill Gates Begins Apology Tour Over His Epstein Ties (ZH)
Fani Willis Plotted Trump Case Closely With Biden DOJ, J6 Democrats (JTN)
Comey’s Leaker Claims The Epstein Files Shouldn’t Have Been Released (Pinsker)

 


 

https://twitter.com/tesla_archive/status/2026300209794630110?s=20 https://twitter.com/_MAGA_NEWS_/status/2026280929224986641?s=20

 


 

 


 


Are the Cubans especially jittery for some reason?

Cuban Regime Kills Four in Shootout With Florida Vessel (Sarah Anderson)

The Cuban regime may have just sealed its fate. Cuba’s Interior Ministry announced on Wednesday that four men on a Florida-registered vessel, possibly a speedboat, were shot and killed by its Border Guard after entering Cuban waters near Santa Clara Province. Six other people aboard the boat were wounded. The regime claims that the people on board the vessel shot at the Border Guards first. It’s not yet clear if the people on board were United States citizens, though many are assuming so since the boat was registered in the U.S. The Interior Ministry’s full statement reads:


“On the morning of February 25, 2026, a violating speedboat was detected within Cuban territorial waters. The vessel, registered in Florida, United States, with registration number FL7726SH, approached up to 1 nautical mile northeast of the El Pino channel, in Cayo Falcones, Corralillo municipality, Villa Clara province.” When a surface unit of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, carrying five service members, approached the vessel for identification, the crew of the violating speedboat opened fire on the Cuban personnel, resulting in the injury of the commander of the Cuban vessel.


As a consequence of the confrontation, as of the time of this report, four aggressors on the foreign vessel were killed and six were injured. The injured individuals were evacuated and received medical assistance. In the face of current challenges, Cuba reaffirms its determination to protect its territorial waters, based on the principle that national defense is a fundamental pillar of the Cuban State in safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring stability in the region.


Investigations by the competent authorities continue in order to fully clarify the events. There’s been no word from President Donald Trump or Secretary of State Marco Rubio yet — Rubio is currently in Saint Kitts and Nevis for a CARICOM meeting, where the situation in Cuba has been a hot topic. Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-Fla.) has issued a statement, calling for an immediate investigation into the “massacre.” Gimenez, who was born in Cuba, also suggested that “his regime must be relegated to the dust bin of history!”

Read more …

“Let that line marinate: two-thirds positive .. “

CNN’s Instant Poll of the State of the Union Will Trigger the Left (Margolis)

After Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address, CNN political director David Chalian broke down the network’s instant poll — and it didn’t exactly produce the outrage or “failing Trump” narrative that the left likes to see. It was the kind of segment that left-wing pundits will be scrambling to spin before breakfast. You could tell the numbers would be bad for the left when Chalian immediately began qualifying the findings. “I just want to take a moment here to explain. This is a poll of speech watchers,” he began. “So it is not a poll that is reflective of the population overall.” Yeah, that’s kind of how polls of speeches work. Thanks for reminding us. But seriously, the fact that he made sure to emphasize that point twice, you just knew. It was like he was really about to say, “Hey, don’t get too happy, MAGA world.”


Oh yeah, and there was another caveat before he began. “What we know about people who tune in to State of the Union addresses,” Chalian added, “they tend to be fans of the president, whichever president is giving the speech.” He explained that the “polling universe here is about 13 points more Republican than the overall population usually is.” You ready? “So just keep all that in mind as we go to the results,” Chalian continued, doing damage control in real time. “Get this reaction from those that watch the speech tonight. 38% said they had a very positive reaction to the speech, 25% somewhat positive, 36% negative.” He paused just long enough for the math to sink in. “So roughly two-thirds in the positive territory, one-third negative among speech watchers.”


Let that line marinate: two-thirds positive ..

On CNN.

For Donald Trump.


https://twitter.com/WarMachineRR/status/2026530396821758073?s=20 Chalian also noted that among speech watchers, 64% “say his policies will move the U.S. in the right direction.” But here’s a metric I think is really important: the change from pre-speech to post-speech. According to the poll, before the speech, 54% of speech watchers said Trump’s policies would move the United States in the right direction — a 10-point jump. “So Donald Trump made some progress with people watching the speech from their pre-speech expectations to what they saw in the speech itself,” Chalian observed. “And that 64% number, that’s pretty much in range across all of his State of the Union addresses, in his first term, last year, the joint session, that’s about what we’ve seen is roughly two-thirds have walked away from his speeches thinking he’s going to move it in the right direction.”

https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2026531073459355793?s=20


Since this is CNN, Chalian still tried to cast the moment as a low point, even though most people who tuned in clearly liked what they heard, and even he had to admit that it was a good night for Republicans running in this year’s midterm elections. “If you’re a Republican on the ballot in 2026, I think you leave this speech being as happy as you could possibly be that he sort of stuck to the script on the economy,” Chalian said. “He gave red meat to the base on immigration, and they can leave the hall tonight and sort of take that out on the campaign trail.”

Read more …

“Trump addressed exactly one person: the American watching at home.”

A Masterclass in Giving a Speech Without Giving a Speech (Stephen Green)

Let’s set aside “the optics,” what the polls might show in a few days, who got “destroyed,” how many “truth bombs” Trump dropped, the “What it All Means” chin-scratcher pieces — ugh, I give up. I went MEGO again just mentioning those things, so that’s the last of them you’ll see in this column, and also, you’re welcome. But President Donald Trump’s whirlwind, time-defying performance left me (and maybe you, too) with a nagging question/realization that I’ll try to explain today: How do you give a speech — particularly a speech of two hours — without giving a speech? It was the longest State of the Union in history, but it was no slog.


“I wasn’t even planning to watch the whole thing and I just kept watching,” blogfaddah Glenn Reynolds posted to Instapundit last night, and my friend and partner in thoughtcrime Stephen Kruiser added in today’s Morning Briefing, “It may seem weird to say it about a speech of that length, but there was an economy to it that made it effective.” Plenty of the non-speech speech was scripted, of course, primarily penned by Ross Worthington. The wrap was particularly effective, and delivered with a grace that Trump throws aside whenever he likes. But not this time: “The revolution that began in 1776 has not ended. It still continues, because the flame of liberty and independence still burns in the heart of every American patriot. And our future will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder, and more glorious than ever before.”

Good stuff. But what people will and ought to remember are the moments when Trump at least appeared to go off-script. One instant classic example was when he called on Congress to outlaw insider trading — by Congresscritters. The ad-lib — and you can watch Trump wait for the perfect moment to sink the barb — comes at the 0:29 mark. “They stood up for that, I can’t believe it.”But then Trump pauses and waits again, the audience primed for a segue into the next topic, when he sinks the second barb, this one more direct: “Did Nancy Pelosi stand up, if she’s here? Doubt it.”

If. She’s. Here. A joke inside the joke that followed the joke. There were many such seemingly unscripted moments, particularly when Trump addressed his guests in attendance, or presented TWO Congressional Medals of Honor.While the congresscritters in attendance all played their party-mandated roles, Trump wasn’t speaking to them. He was speaking to us. More than that, I think he was speaking for us. That’s how a billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star manages to maintain what we used to call “the common touch.” Bill Clinton — who grew up without any of Trump’s privileges — had to whack audiences over the head with how common he was. “I feel your pain,” indeed. Trump, on the other hand, does it more subtly.

Did I really just write “subtly” about Trump? Indeed, I did. Not quite a speech, Trump’s SOTU, I noted on Instapundit today, was more like a conversation — with the American people, with heroes in attendance, and even at times with surly Dems — that made the two hours fly. But the real secret is that Trump wasn’t speaking to the pundits with their mostly pre-written chin-scratchers based on the text of Trump’s talk. Trump addressed exactly one person: the American watching at home.

Read more …

” Just as Democrats have made it clear that they represent illegal aliens and not American citizens, Republicans have made it clear that they represent Israel and not American citizens”

Which Party Represents Americans? (Paul Craig Roberts)

For sometime I have made the point that America’ s enemies are at home, not in Iran, Russia, and China. Last night at Trump s State of the Union speech, the Democrats proved me to be correct. Trump asked the members of the US Congress to stand up if they agreed with his statement: the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. Many Democrats did not stand, which proves my point that if Democrats represent Americans at all, Democrats represent Americans as second-class citizens whose interests are sacrificed to illegal immigrant-invaders.


This is not an endorsement of Republicans. Unlike Democrats, Republicans do not hate white Americans. But Republicans, along with many Democrats, do sacrifice America’s interest to Israel’s. The US fights Israel s wars at the expense of American blood, money, and reputation. Federal state and local governments censor and punish Americans for criticizing Israel. Criticism of Israel is gradually being turned into an antisemitic hate crime, which means among other things that Americans cannot criticize the genocide and destruction of Palestine. In some American states, a person who is a critic of Israel cannot hold a state job or provide goods and services under contract to the state.

Currently in Texas the Israel lobby has brought a vote before the Texas legislature that incorporates Israeli propaganda as a mandatory part of statewide education in Texas. Is a bought and paid for Texas legislature going to permit Israel to shape the outlook of the rising American generation? If so, will it be an American generation or an Israeli one? Just as Democrats have made it clear that they represent illegal aliens and not American citizens, Republicans have made it clear that they represent Israel and not American citizens. The representation of Israel is manifest in the chant you can’t be an American if you don’t love Israel. Allegedly, America is a democracy, but neither political party represents Americans who are forced to support Israel and illegal aliens.

Read more …

Dems want, no, need, to see Trump not as The Other Party, but as The Enemy. i wonder why that is.

Sen. Chris Murphy Joins Pledge to Throw Trump Figures in Jail (Turley)

Before the State of the Union, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) joined other leaders in promising Americans that the Democrats will unleash a revenge tour after taking power in November, pledging to start throwing Trump people in jail when they retake Congress. Murphy went on MS NOW to feed the rage addiction that has taken over his party.We recently discussed how Susan Rice joined the mob in stating that “When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media … it’s not going to end well for them.”mShe followed other Democrats, assuring voters that, if they returned Democrats to power, they would crack down on their political opponents.


Republicans and law enforcement are now regularly called “Nazis” and “fascists” by Democratic leaders. Some are promising arrests from the President to individual police officers. Last week, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner promised to “hunt down” ICE officers like “Nazis.” Democratic strategist James Carville previously threatened that “collaborators” may be treated in the same way as they were after World War II. Gov. Tim Walz, who has called ICE officers “Gestapo,” said that this may be our “Fort Sumter” moment, a triggering event for a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Democratic members have been warned that they have to join the mob or be devoured by it. Bravo star and liberal podcast host Jennifer Welch praised footage of a “No Kings” protester celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. After playing the clip, Welch laughed with joy and declared, “So listen up, Democratic establishment. You can either jump on board with this s—, or we’re coming after you in the same way that we come after MAGA. Period.” Murphy clearly got the message and added his voice in declaring that “they’re going to get their clocks cleaned this November, and a bunch of people are probably gonna end up going to jail.” It is a curious pledge, since the Democrats could retake the House and Senate in November. That would not give them the ability to throw people into jail even if they had actual crimes to charge.

What is clear is that the Democratic Party has now decided to try to ride the rage wave to power, leading the mob with such reckless rhetoric. In “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I explore the rise of what I call the “new Jacobins,” establishment figures who are calling for radical changes to our constitutional system and for retaliation against political opponents. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them.These Democratic politicians will learn this lesson from history that they are likely to be devoured by the very mobocracy that they are unleashing through rage politics.

Read more …

Europe depends on it. A dark curtain is about to be drawn.

Trump Admin to Launch New Free Speech Site to Combat Censorship Abroad (ET)

In response to what the Trump administration says is a rising tide of censorship in Europe, the State Department is launching a new app that will give users worldwide access to content that has been censored in other countries. This includes not only Europe but also China and Iran. The platform, called Freedom.gov, will go live over the next several weeks, according to the State Department, and will be operable on iOS and Android devices.“Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,” the State Department stated in an email to The Epoch Times. “The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.”


Lauding the move, Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a civil rights legal group that has been critical of recent EU speech laws, stated on X that “for 250 years, this is what America does,” citing examples such as Radio Free Europe, which broadcast into communist countries during the Cold War. “If Europe’s bureaucrats don’t want you to see it, that tells you everything,” Tedesco stated. “Because even if your government fears freedom—ours doesn’t.” The First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. government from “abridging the freedom of speech,” has provided a legal restraint against government censorship that most other countries lack.

Recent European speech laws, most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), were ostensibly written to combat what lawmakers deemed “hate speech,” “harmful speech,” and “misinformation,” as well as pornography and abusive AI deep fakes. But critics of European speech codes say they are becoming increasingly draconian. In 2025, Virginie Joron, a French member of the European Parliament, called the DSA a “Trojan horse for s urveillance and control.” In Finland, Paivi Rasanen, a member of parliament, was charged for quoting Bible verses online in 2019, criticizing her church’s participation in a gay pride event. “I never imagined that quoting the Bible in a Twitter post would lead to years of criminal charges, yet this is now the reality in Europe,” she told The Epoch Times.

In Germany, illegal online speech could include insulting government officials. German police conducted early morning raids in June 2025 as part of Germany’s 12th annual “day of action against hate-posts,” and arrested 140 residents in the process. In the UK, people praying silently in the vicinity of abortion clinics were arrested in 2023 and 2025. Left-wing ruling parties in Canada are likewise working to remove religious exemptions from their “hate speech” laws. Increasingly, U.S. companies are facing extensive fines for allowing online posts that are illegal in Europe. In December, social media company X was fined $140 million for violating EU speech laws.

Such fines on U.S. tech companies, both for speech code violations and for what the EU deems to be anti-competitive behavior, could become a trade issue for the Trump administration. In January, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the “EU makes more from fines on US tech, than tax from ALL of public European tech,” noting that in 2024, the EU fined American tech companies a total of 3.8 billion euros. In addition, legal experts have warned that Europe’s online censorship laws could also silence Americans if U.S. tech companies are forced, on a global basis, to take down content that violates EU speech codes.

A House of Representatives report released on Feb. 3 and titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat” stated that “The European Commission, in a comprehensive decade-long effort, has successfully pressured social media platforms to change their global content moderation rules, thereby directly infringing on Americans’ online speech in the United States.” According to the Digital Services Act, illegal online speech could include anything that is prohibited in any EU member country. And in one of the more explicit efforts to regulate speech globally, European Commissioner Thierry Breton warned X owner Elon Musk during the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign that his company could face penalties for posting an interview with Trump.

In a 2025 interview with The Epoch Times, Andrew Puzder, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, stated: “When a company like Facebook or Twitter or X has to change its algorithm, and that algorithm might impact the free speech rights of Americans, that’s something that we really can’t tolerate. I know President Trump is not going to allow a foreign government to restrict the free speech rights of American citizens in ways that even our own government couldn’t restrict them.”

Read more …

“The future of the region is being written east of Brussels – and Marco Rubio’s tour confirmed exactly what Brussels fears most ..”

A Continental Revolution Is Brewing In Europe (Zemánek)

When US Secretary of State Marco Rubio left the polite but brittle atmosphere of the Munich Security Conference and headed for Bratislava and Budapest, the contrast could not have been sharper. In Munich, the old guard of transatlantic liberalism clung to its vocabulary of ‘rules-based order’ and ‘shared values’, even as its political base erodes across the continent. In Central Europe, Rubio encountered something different: Governments confident in their mandates, unapologetic about sovereignty, and aligned with Donald Trump’s insistence that nations – not supranational bureaucracies – are the primary actors of history.


Last week’s visit was a statement of intent. Washington under Trump has made a deliberate choice: If Europe is to be a partner rather than a liability, it must be rebuilt from its healthiest political core. And that core lies not in Brussels, but along the Danube. In Bratislava, Rubio met with Prime Minister Robert Fico and President Peter Pellegrini. The agenda – regional security, nuclear cooperation, military modernization – was substantive. But the subtext was unmistakable. “Under President Trump, this administration is going to make not just Slovakia but Central Europe a key component of how we engage the continent and the world,” Rubio said. It was a diplomatic sentence with revolutionary implications.

For years, Central Europe was treated by Brussels as a problem to be managed: Too conservative, too attached to national identity, too resistant to cultural engineering. Now it is being treated by Washington as an asset to be cultivated. Fico’s remarks revealed why this shift matters. When he visited Moscow and Beijing last year in pursuit of Slovakia’s national interests, the reaction from EU institutions was furious – accusations, insinuations, moral lectures. Genuine diplomacy, in Brussels’ view, is acceptable only when it aligns with the prevailing orthodoxy. Yet from the White House, Fico encountered no hysteria – only what he described as “common-sense pragmatism.” The contrast speaks volumes.

Central European leaders have grown weary of an EU that polices internal politics more aggressively than it secures external borders. They have watched as energy supplies became instruments of political pressure and as ideological conformity became a condition of financial solidarity. Slovakia and Hungary have both experienced the weaponization of gas and oil transit routes by Kiev and Brussels – an illustration of how geopolitics, under Brussels’ watch, too often morphs into leverage against dissenting member states. Trump’s America reads the situation differently. Stability requires diversification, not dogma. Slovakia’s negotiations with Westinghouse Electric Company to build a new nuclear power plant by 2040, along with plans to expand its fleet of F-16 fighter jets, represent more than procurement decisions.

They symbolize a rebalancing: Energy sovereignty anchored in American partnership rather than EU dependency. Slovakia’s upcoming presidency of the Visegrad Group offers an even broader horizon. A potential V4-US summit would institutionalize what is already happening politically: The consolidation of a Central European bloc that sees Washington – not Brussels – as its most reliable strategic interlocutor. The Visegrad countries are not seeking rupture with the EU necessarily. They are seeking a radical reform within it. And they are finding in Trump’s America an ally that understands the difference.

Read more …

‘Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on these chemicals,’ Kennedy said.

Poison or hunger.

RFK Jr. Defends Trump’s Glyphosate Order (ET)

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Feb. 22 said that glyphosate is poisonous but necessary as he backed President Donald Trump’s recent order designating the production of the herbicide as critical to national security. In a lengthy post on social media, Kennedy said pesticides and herbicides are toxic. “When we apply them across millions of acres and allow them into our food system, we put Americans at risk,” he wrote. “Chemical manufacturers have paid tens of billions of dollars to settle cancer claims linked to their products, and many agricultural communities report elevated cancer rates and chronic disease. Unfortunately, our agricultural system depends heavily on these chemicals.”


If the United States were to stop using the products, then “crop yields would fall, food prices would surge, and America would experience a massive loss of farms even beyond what [it is] witnessing today,” Kennedy said. He described Trump’s order as protecting national defense and the nation’s food supply, stating that Trump inherited the current agricultural system and that his administration is shifting from it without destabilizing the food supply. “We are accelerating the transition to regenerative agriculture by expanding farming systems that rebuild soil, increase biodiversity, improve water retention, and reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals, including pre-harvest desiccation,” Kennedy wrote.

“We are also driving the rapid adoption of next-generation technologies, including laser-guided weed control, electrothermal and electrical systems, robotics, precision mechanical cultivation, and biological controls that replace blanket spraying with precision intervention. “These solutions are not theoretical. Farmers are already putting them to work. Markets are scaling them. Now the federal government will act with urgency to expand their reach and accelerate adoption nationwide.” Kennedy said later: “The Make America Healthy Again agenda forces us to challenge long-standing assumptions about how we grow food, structure markets, and measure success in this country. Reform at this scale will test entrenched interests, and it will not move in a straight line.”

In his Feb. 18 order, Trump said herbicides with glyphosate are widely used in the United States and enable farmers to achieve high yields and low production costs. “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides,” the president wrote. “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.“Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

He designated production of glyphosate as a critical national security and directed Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to ensure that there is an adequate supply of the herbicides and elemental phosphorus, one of the ingredients in the products. Some people supportive of the Make America Healthy Again movement criticized the designation. Kelly Ryerson, coexecutive director of American Regeneration, told The Epoch Times that it “doubles down” on a system that is making the U.S. population sick and killing the soil. “We already have a limited number of harvests left,” she said.

Bayer, which produces glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, just proposed a $7 billion settlement to resolve thousands of lawsuits that allege that Roundup caused cancer. Bayer maintains that Roundup is not carcinogenic and can be used safely. That stance is shared by the Environmental Protection Agency, although the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.

Kennedy, while running for president in 2024, said in a post on X that glyphosate was “one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic” and that the Department of Agriculture would, if he won the election, ban its use as a desiccant on wheat. His Make America Healthy Again Commission in 2025 also said that glyphosate studies “have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances.”

Kennedy said in a previous statement to The Epoch Times, after Trump signed the new glyphosate order: “When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.” Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, said in response to Kennedy’s post on X that she understands aspects of his position but that after about a year of the Trump administration being in power, officials have not worked to limit people’s exposure to pesticides. “We love you Bobby but this administration needs to keep their word,” she said in a Feb. 23 post on X. “We were promised specifically clean air, clean water, and addressing of the pesticides [in] our foods.”

Read more …

If the EU wins, everybody loses.

EU To Start Permanent Ban on Russian Oil 3 Days After Hungarian Election (CTH)

I guess we can put this in the open admission file surrounding the all-out effort by the European Union to defeat Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban According to a leaked document received by Reuters, the European Union is scheduled to permanently ban all EU nations from importing Russian oil. They have scheduled the ban to trigger on April 15th, three days after the Hungarian election.


BRUSSELS, Feb 24 (Reuters) – “The European Commission will submit a legal proposal to permanently ban Russian oil imports on April 15, three days after Hungary’s parliamentary election, according to EU officials and a document seen by Reuters. Two EU officials told Reuters the timing was designed to prevent the oil ban becoming a major factor in Hungary’s election campaign. Hungary and Slovakia, still reliant on Russian oil imports, are strongly opposed to any ban.In the April 12 election, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his nationalist Fidesz party are facing the biggest challenge to their hold on power in 16 years.

The EU has already imposed sanctions on imports of seaborne Russian oil. But it wants to enshrine a full phase-out of Russian oil in legislation that would remain in place, even if a peace deal in the Ukraine war led to the EU lifting sanctions. nThe Commission plans to propose the Russian oil ban on April 15, according to a draft agenda seen by Reuters. Asked about the matter, a Commission spokesperson told Reuters the EU executive’s agendas were provisional and that it did not have a confirmed timeline for submitting the proposal.” (read more)

Read more …

“To UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the true goal of Tuesday’s get-together seemed to be ensuring that Ukraine keeps winning in the imagination of the Western public.”

Solidarity Simulacra: Zelensky’s Four-Year Reality Check (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky brought some of his most ardent fans to Kiev to mark the fourth anniversary of his wartime leadership, but the supporting actors in the Ukraine Cinematic Universe had little to offer him.mA look at the guests who showed up suggests Ukraine’s backers are divided into those who have to and those who don’t. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council chief Antonio Costa arrived in Kiev on Tuesday morning, along with the leaders of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Norway, and Sweden. Von der Leyen declared “that Europe stands unwaveringly with Ukraine, financially, militarily, and through this harsh winter,” and promised to help Zelensky achieve “Peace on Ukraine’s terms.”

“In Kyiv for the tenth time since the start of the war.To reaffirm that Europe stands unwaveringly with Ukraine, financially, militarily, and through this harsh winter.To underscore our enduring commitment to Ukraine’s just fight.And to send a clear message to the Ukrainian”… pic.twitter.com/iULkEQji16 — Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) February 24, 2026

In reality, von der Leyen’s plan to keep Ukraine afloat until 2028 with a €90 billion ($106 billion) debt-funded loan package has been vetoed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Von der Leyen arrived in Kiev empty handed, and in a video address to the European Parliament later on Tuesday, Zelensky held out the begging bowl once more, asking for the loan, for fast-tracked EU membership, and for more sanctions on Russia – which Orban has also vowed to veto. The European leaders who accompanied von der Leyen are in no place to help Zelensky either. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have long ago emptied their arms stockpiles, with former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis admitting in 2023 that he could only provide “political arguments” for arming the Ukrainian military, as Lithuania does not have its own “significant stockpile of weapons.”

All of the European leaders who visited Zelensky on Tuesday have authorized weapons purchases from the US for Ukraine under NATO’s PURL initiative. However, NATO’s European members have spent just over $4 billion on American weapons in the five months since August. When the US was arming Ukraine directly, it spent $10 billion every five months.

Where are the Americans?
The US, despite still indirectly arming Ukraine through PURL and providing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance data to its forces, remains the only Western power capable of forcing Zelensky to make the necessary concessions to resolve the conflict. Whereas the US has participated in three rounds of trilateral talks with Russian and Ukrainian officials, the Kremlin sees no point in talks with the Europeans. In the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, “the current generation of European leaders…have entrenched themselves too deeply in a posture of hatred towards Russia” to be taken seriously.

Not a single US official made the trip to Kiev on Tuesday. Their absence was conspicuous, after a year of Zelensky lobbying US President Donald Trump to visit the Ukrainian capital, and after a BBC interview on Monday in which the Ukrainian leader begged Trump to “stay on our side.” The British, French, Germans, and Italians also skipped the junket, choosing to send their messages of solidarity remotely during a meeting of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ later in the afternoon. If Zelensky hoped for something more concrete from the coalition, his hope was misplaced.

During the meeting of the 34-nation group, Ukraine received the promise of “full and sustained support,” according to a statement published by the UK, which co-chaired the virtual gathering. In reality, the coalition’s members could only echo Zelensky’s calls for more money and weapons, without actually offering any of either. Talk by coalition members France and the UK of sending troops to Ukraine remains a post-conflict hypothetical, and a red line for Russia. To UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the true goal of Tuesday’s get-together seemed to be ensuring that Ukraine keeps winning in the imagination of the Western public.

”We’ve got to shift the narrative,” Starmer said. “Whatever Putin tells himself and his people, Russia is not winning, and we must shift the narrative into that place with greater force and determination.” Starmer’s statement sums up the current state of play for Zelensky and his Western backers. Narrative management is the best they can offer. Think more ‘Ghost of Kiev’ myths instead of actual deliveries of fighter jets. More pomp and circumstance, troop reviews, and deal memos.

The danger exists that once Ukraine’s most committed European backers come to terms with the fact that they’ve poured all their money and political capital into a hopeless cause, drastic solutions could become more appealing. In that light, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) on Tuesday accused Britain and France of plotting the “covert transfer of relevant European-made components, equipment, and technologies” for the production of nuclear weapons to Ukraine. Both nations are also reportedly considering handing over a French TN 75 warhead to Kiev, or encouraging the Ukrainians to build a dirty bomb.

While London and Paris have both denied any plot to supply Ukraine with nukes, one line in the statement stands out – that the leaders of Britain and France have “lost touch with reality.” When reality does catch up with Zelensky and his ‘Avengers’, the results will be messy.On February 24, four years to the day since the constant killing in Donbass escalated into open conflict, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky trudged through the snow outside his offices in Kiev to a Soviet-era air raid bunker with a camera crew in tow. In a concrete tunnel once built to ensure continuation of government in the event of a Western attack, Zelensky opened his fourth anniversary video address with a now-famous anecdote:

”Here I spoke with [US] President [Joe] Biden, and it was right here that I heard: ‘Vladimir, there is a threat, you need to leave Ukraine urgently’. And here I replied that I need ammunition, not a ride.” The quote was entirely fake – fabricated by US intelligence agents for Western consumption. But four years into a conflict that could have been easily settled in 2022, with tens of millions of Ukrainians dead, injured, or emigrated, and with his country sentenced to lifetimes of unpayable debt, Hollywood one-liners and Marvel-comic optics are all Zelensky has left.

Read more …

France and the UK are considering covertly handing nuclear capabilities or a ‘dirty bomb’ to Kiev, Russian intel has claimed..

Moscow Will Respond If NATO Gives Nukes To Nazi Regime In Kiev – Medvedev (RT)

Russia would launch a nuclear response if NATO countries supplied atomic weapons to Ukraine, former President Dmitry Medvedev has warned. Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, was commenting to RT on Tuesday on claims by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) that London and Paris are considering ways to provide nuclear weaponry or related components to Kiev.m“I will be blunt and state the obvious,” Medvedev said, adding that the reported intention by the UK and France to hand over nuclear capabilities to the “Nazi regime in Kiev” would change the situation entirely. “This is a direct transfer of nuclear weapons to a country at war,” he stated.


According to the SVR, British and French officials are weighing the “covert transfer of relevant European-made components, equipment, and technologies to Ukraine,” and preparing an information campaign to portray any resulting capability as domestically developed. “There should be no doubt whatsoever that in such a scenario Russia would be forced to use any means at its disposal, including non-strategic nuclear weapons, against targets in Ukraine that threaten our country,” Medvedev stated. “And if necessary, against the supplier nations now implicated in a nuclear conflict with Russia. This is the kind of symmetrical response that the Russian Federation would be entitled to,” he added.

The SVR also alleged that another option under discussion was the provision of a complete French TN 75 nuclear warhead used on submarine launched ballistic missiles, or assistance in building a radioactive “dirty bomb” using conventional explosives and nuclear materials. Kiev could seek “more advantageous terms” in any negotiations if it possessed such weapons, the SVR suggested, adding that Germany had “prudently refused” to participate. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the reported plans as “potentially very dangerous,” saying they would threaten the global non-proliferation regime. Ukraine has argued that it gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees that later proved worthless. While a significant portion of Soviet nuclear forces were stationed in Ukraine, Kiev never controlled the missiles.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandums provided assurances – but not legally binding guarantees – to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that their territorial integrity would be respected after transferring Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia. At the 2022 Munich Security Conference, shortly before the Ukraine conflict escalated, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky suggested Kiev could reconsider its non-nuclear status.Moscow maintains that after the 2014 Western-backed coup in Kiev, Ukraine’s new authorities breached the neutrality pledge underpinning its post-Soviet independence by making NATO membership a key foreign policy goal.

Read more …

“.. if approved, the EU loan would end up being stolen by corrupt Ukrainian officials..”

Zelensky Demands €90 Billion EU Loan (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has demanded that the EU approve a €90 billion ($106 billion) loan backed by the bloc’s taxpayers that has been vetoed by Hungary. Provisionally agreed upon last December, the plan envisages an interest-free loan to Ukraine for 2026-2027, with €60 billion earmarked for military needs and €30 billion for “general budget support.” It would be covered through joint EU borrowing and only repaid if Ukraine receives war reparations from Russia. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic opted out of contributing to the loan, which is estimated to result in up to €5.6 billion in annual interest payments for member states. The scheme was approved after the bloc failed to agree to use Russia’s frozen central-bank assets to finance Ukraine due to opposition from several member states over the legal hurdles and risks.


Addressing the European Parliament via video link on Tuesday, Zelensky said that “right now there is an important decision… on the table – €90 billion in support for Ukraine over two years.”“This is a real financial guarantee of our security and our resilience, and it must be implemented,” the Ukrainian leader insisted. On Monday, Hungary vetoed the EU’s proposed emergency loan for Ukraine, as well as the latest package of sanctions against Russia. Budapest accused Kiev of jeopardizing the “security of Hungary’s energy supply” by deliberately blocking use of the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline for political reasons. The transit of Russian oil to EU consumers via the conduit has been on hold since late January, with Kiev blaming Moscow for damaging it. Russia has denied the allegations.

Ukraine expects its Western backers to cover a budget deficit of around $50 billion this year. El Pais reported in October that the Ukrainian government could run out of money by April. Speaking last month, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that if approved, the EU loan would end up being stolen by corrupt Ukrainian officials.

Read more …

It’s about money.

Bill Gates Begins Apology Tour Over His Epstein Ties (ZH)

A week after Bill Gates abruptly pulled out as a keynote speaker at a high-profile global AI summit in India, the left-wing billionaire finally mustered enough nerve to “take responsibility for his actions” over his ties to late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a town hall meeting with Gates Foundation employees.The Wall Street Journal reports that Gates told employees at a town hall event for the foundation on Tuesday that he never spent time with Epstein’s victims, and never visited Epstein’s island. He revealed that Epstein later learned about two affairs he had with Russian women, but said those relationships did not involve Epstein’s victims. Gates said photos in the Epstein files show him with redacted women were taken by Epstein’s assistants after meetings. Did Gates fall into a Russian honeypot?


“I did nothing illicit. I saw nothing illicit,” Gates emphasized, according to a recording reviewed by WSJ journalists. Gates continued, “To be clear, I never spent any time with victims, the women around him.” “It was a huge mistake to spend time with Epstein” and bring Gates Foundation executives into meetings with the sex offender, Gates said, adding, “I apologize to other people who are drawn into this because of the mistake that I made.” Last week, the $86 billion philanthropic body’s last-minute decision to yank Gates was a major embarrassment and came as the Epstein fallout worsened, with many high-profile people under fire.

“Knowing what I know now makes it, you know, a hundred times worse in terms of not only his crimes in the past, but now it’s clear there was ongoing bad behavior,” Gates said. He gave credit to his ex-wife, who “was always kind of skeptical about the Epstein thing.” Gates told staff he began meeting Epstein in 2011, despite the financier’s 2008 guilty plea for soliciting a minor for prostitution. He said he was aware of the “18-month thing” that had restricted Epstein’s travel, yet continued the relationship, even after his then-wife, Melinda French Gates, raised serious concerns in 2013. He said the relationship continued through 2014 and that he flew on a private jet with Epstein and spent time with him in Germany, France, New York, and Washington. “I never stayed overnight,” he said, or visited Epstein’s island.

He said Epstein “talked about the kind of intimate relationship he had with a lot of billionaires, particularly Wall Street billionaires,” and that he could help raise money for global health nonprofits. “It definitely is the opposite of the values of the Foundation and the goals of the Foundation,” he said. “And our work is very reputation-sensitive. I mean, people can choose to work with us or not work with us.” No matter what, the Gates Foundation has a dark cloud hanging over it because of Gates’ involvement amid the deepening Epstein fallout.

Gates is worth billions, so why would he need Epstein to raise money for global health nonprofits? Something doesn’t pass the sniff test in this damage-control town hall he held for his foundation’s employees.

Read more …

“Joe Biden waived Trump’s executive privilege ..”

Fani Willis Plotted Trump Case Closely With Biden DOJ, J6 Democrats (JTN)

Just the News and America First Legal win access to 8,000 pages of documents after extensive open records litigation. The memos include revelations on how Joe Biden waived Trump’s executive privilege specifically to aid Georgia prosecutors. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis coordinated extensively with the Biden Justice Department and White House as well as Democrats on the House Jan. 6 investigative committee as she built a failed criminal case against President Donald Trump and his allies related to their challenge to Georgia’s 2020 election results, according to a trove of internal communications obtained by Just the News.


The memos show that President Joe Biden’s top White House lawyer personally opened the door for Willis’ prosecutors to interview Trump administration officials by waiving claims of executive privilege, that federal prosecutors waived certain rights to allow the interviews to proceed before a state grand jury and that Willis’s team spoke glowingly of the congressional efforts to expose Trump’s involvement in the disputed election. “Our initial review of the report confirms you all have accomplished amazing things in the past year,” F. Donald Wakeford, a top deputy to Willis, wrote in a December 2022 email to Tim Heaphy, chief investigative counsel for the Democrat-run Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Just the News, alongside the nonprofit public interest law firm America First Legal (AFL), sued Willis for the records, under Georgia’s Open Records Law. Willis, a longtime Trump nemesis, sought to hide many of the records with claims of legal privilege during a prolonged legal fight. In a reaction to the lawsuit, Willis’ office this week dropped all privilege claims and released all the documents without any redactions, providing to Just the News — and the public — more information than it did to congressional Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

“These documents reveal that the Biden Administration and the January 6 Committee were much more involved in District Attorney Fani Willis’s prosecution of President Trump than was previously believed. AFL was happy to represent Just the News to get Americans this new information,” said Will Scolinos, an attorney at America First Legal. The documents show a cozy relationship between the Biden administration and Willis’ staff, one that included a meeting between her outside special prosecutor Nathan Wade and the Biden White House.Wade, who admitted to a “personal relationship” with Willis outside the office, billed Fulton County $2,000 for an “interview with DC/White House” on Nov. 18, 2022, just as Willis’ probe was accelerating, according to the new records Willis was forced to disclose.

There is no further explanation in the documents for that interaction, and Fulton County told Just the News and its lawyers at AFL that Wade did not keep any records of what happened at that meeting. Calls to Willis for comment were not returned by publication time.= The new memos show that the Biden White House counsel’s office gave Willis’ prosecution team a major gift, waiving Trump’s ability to claim executive privilege and to block former administration officials from testifying.

Executive privilege is the implied authority of the U.S. president to withhold information that the executive branch possesses from Congress or the Judiciary on the grounds that a president is entitled to confidential advice before making decisions. It is a long-standing American tradition and the secrecy of presidential communications was first referenced by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison.

Ironically, President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder asserted the same privilege during investigations of the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning scheme. The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press noted that “When a president invokes executive privilege, it may be among the most difficult walls to penetrate because the number of potential leakers with access to White House documents is limited and closely monitored.” In some instances, reporting has simply been prevented from reporting on an important issue because the blockade worked.

Biden, however, believed that the “extraordinary events” surrounding the “insurrection” on Jan. 6 in the U.S. Capitol, warranted waiving this historical understanding of the privacy of presidential communications, the new memos show.

Read more …

“He’s not a puppeteer. He’s simply a pervert.”

Oh no Scott Pinsker, he was the master puppeteer.

Comey’s Leaker Claims The Epstein Files Shouldn’t Have Been Released (Pinsker)

But the common thread of leveraging sex to monetize relationships is 100% applicable. It happens a lot. And that’s the biggest blessing of the Epstein Files: It took the repulsive practice of peddling flesh for financial favors out of the shadows. Today, the whole world knows the truth. Sunlight really is the best disinfectant. Which is also why the PR pushback of the Deep State is so fascinating: On Feb. 23, the New York Times ran a remarkable op-ed: “The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released.” A few excerpts: [W]e should recognize the release of millions of pages of the Epstein files as both a sign of institutional failure and a cause for concern. If our justice system were working properly, the public would never have such access.


[…]The release of the files is also cause for concern because so much of the raw investigative material in them — untold layers of hearsay, unverified accusations and vague circumstantial connections — ought not be released for the public to pick over. […] When materials collected in a criminal investigation get released in bulk for public consumption, the justification for the coercive and privacy-invading tools we give investigators gets a lot weaker. Institutions claiming to protect user or customer privacy might be more likely to resist valid uses of these tools. Witnesses who would otherwise speak to investigators about sensitive matters might start to rethink whether they want to provide grist for internet searches.

What’s especially fascinating is the author of the New York Times’ piece: Daniel Richman, whom the Times described as a “former federal prosecutor.” But that’s not why Richman is famous. Daniel Richman is the Columbia Law School professor who leaked anti-Trump news stories on behalf of disgraced FBI Director James Comey to trigger a special counsel investigation. From ABC News (June 13, 2017): Who Is James Comey’s Friend and Leaker Daniel Richman? “Daniel Richman is the Columbia Law School professor through whom former FBI Director James Comey shared details of his contemporaneous memos about meetings with President Donald Trump to the New York Times.

Speaking before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, Comey said he wanted to get a record of his meetings with President Donald Trump “out into the public square” so he decided to ask a friend to share the content of his memo with a reporter. “Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it,” Comey told Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Collins asked who that was, and he responded, without providing a name, “A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.” [emphasis added] Those “variety of reasons” began and ended with a list of one: It would’ve exposed Comey to criminal prosecution for leaking classified information.

PJ Media colleague and friend, Dave Manney, explored Richman’s twisted logic and elitist double-standard on secrecy: Daniel Richman wants the public to regret the files even as they read them, calling the dump a spectacle that highlights the Justice Department’s lack of confidence. I hate to tell him, but confidence died because the department slow-walked leads and cut sweetheart deals for decades. Americans didn’t ruin the system by demanding the truth. The people who protected Epstein and his ilk ruined it. He’s right — but the bigger story isn’t just Richman’s pretzel-shaped logic. It’s the intent behind it. Because Richman has proven himself to be a willing mouthpiece for the Deep State.

That’s how we all know his name. The New York Times might’ve described him as a “former federal prosecutor,” but that’s not why he’s famous. It’s his relationship with Comey that put him in the limelight. Based on precedent, it’s reasonable to assume he’s still speaking for James Comey. So why would the ex-FBI director — and hardline Trump critic — come out swinging AGAINST the release of the Epstein Files? After all, despite the hype and hoopla, none of the conspiracy theories about blackmail schemes, international espionage, and foreign governments were substantiated. If anything, the millions of Epstein documents and/or 300-plus gigabytes of data vindicated the government’s approach: It was less an elaborate cover-up and more a rich guy gaming the legal system on his own.[..]

Read more …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 192026
 
 February 19, 2026  Posted by at 10:25 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  51 Responses »


Ceiling painting from the palace of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom ca. 1390–1353 B.C.


Ukraine Should Come To The Table ‘Fast’ – Trump (RT)
Under Pressure To Reach Deal, Zelensky Explodes: No Time “For All This S**t” (ZH)
Putin Aide Urges Retaliation To ‘Western Piracy’ (RT)
US and Dutch Pilots Flying F-16s For Ukraine – Western Media (RT)
Hungary’s Opposition Made ‘Secret Pact’ With EU On Ukraine – Orban (RT)
18 Ways To Reverse The EU’s Immigration Disaster (RMX)
Judge Orders ICE Not to Re-Detain Abrego Garcia (ET)
Disinformation Board Member Jennifer Daskal Appointed as FISA Court Advisor (CTH)
Fear Is The Only Thing The EU Understands – Karaganov (RT)
Can You Buy A Country? (RT)
Former Trump Strategist Defends Ties with Epstein (RT)
The Last Temptation of the Least Dangerous Branch (Turley)
German Public Broadcaster Ran Fake Ai-Generated Clip of ‘ICE Troops’ (RMX)
Macron Calls Free Speech Online ‘Pure Bullshit’
Trump Posts Tribute to Rush Limbaugh on the Anniversary of His Death (Margolis)

 


 

Optimus

 


 

 


 


They don’t want peaxe. They want to beat Russia.

Ukraine Should Come To The Table ‘Fast’ – Trump (RT)

Ukraine must swiftly give up its uncompromising stance in the negotiations to settle the conflict with Russia, US President Donald Trump has warned. He made the comments ahead of talks between Russia, the US, and Ukraine in Geneva, Switzerland on Tuesday and Wednesday. The parties previously held two trilateral meetings in Abu Dhabi in January. Territorial issues – namely Ukraine’s refusal to abandon its claim to Donbass – reportedly remain the key item hampering progress towards peace. When asked about his expectations from the Swiss negotiations by journalists aboard Air Force One on Monday, Trump said they will be “very big.”


“Ukraine better come to the table fast. That’s all I’m telling you… we want them to come,” the president insisted. During his speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky again ruled out any territorial concessions, claiming that it “would be an illusion to believe that this war can now be reliably ended by dividing Ukraine.” Instead, he demanded more weapons from Kiev’s European backers and called for Ukraine to be included in NATO, which is one of Moscow’s clear red lines. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier that only a few issues remain to be addressed by the sides in Geneva. “The bad news is they’ve been narrowed to the hardest questions to answer,” he stressed.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that the members of the Russian delegation in Geneva, led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, “intend to discuss a broader range of issues, including the main questions concerning territories… and those related to the demands we have.” Moscow maintains that any sustainable settlement requires Ukraine to withdraw from the areas still under its control in Donbass – which voted to join Russia in referendums in the fall of 2022 – give up on its NATO aspirations, and commit to demilitarization and denazification.

Read more …

Zelensky represents a corrupt cabal. He’s getting rich doing it.

Under Pressure To Reach Deal, Zelensky Explodes: No Time “For All This S**t” (ZH)

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has increasingly made his frustrations with the Trump administration public, but he may have just crossed the line with the US President, who Zelensky admits can be tough and unbending. Zelensky has newly complained amid the latest Geneva trilateral talks that the US delegation could pressure him to make “unsuccessful decisions” and he is urging Washington to back off, even using expletives to make his point. For starters, he claims that the Ukrainian public won’t let him cede territory to Russia for the sake of peace even if he wanted to, as we highlighted previously.


But the latest colorful verbal broadside, cited by Axios on Tuesday as Russian and Ukrainian delegations convened in Geneva, saw Zelensky take direct aim at the head of Moscow’s negotiating team, Vladimir Medinsky. Kiev’s frustration at the state of dialogue has been boiling over. Medinsky has argued – along with numerous Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin – that the conflict’s historical roots must be addressed as part of any settlement, especially given the bulk of the Ukrainian population in the east (Donbas) has always been Russian speaking and looked to Moscow historically.mZelensky dismissed that approach outright: “We don’t have time for all this shit,” he told the outlet. “So we have to decide, and have to finish the war.”

Regardless, the Kremlin has lately made clear its aims to take the full Donbas either through talks or by force. Ukraine’s military still holds 10% of the Donbas, however, and Kiev is rejecting a US proposal for it to draw back its forces as part of a conflict freeze leading to settlement. The White House this month has finally appeared to be ratcheting up the pressure directly on Zelensky to make some kind of serious land concession. This was evident in the latest comments by President Trump on the topic of Geneva issued near the start of the week. Frustration with Kiev was evident when he told reporters aboard Air Force One, “Well, we have big talks.” He stated that “It’s going to be very easy. I mean, look, so far, Ukraine better come to the table fast. That’s all I’m telling you.”

Zelensky after this bitterly complained that it’s ‘not fair’ for Trump to take aim at Ukraine and not Russia, and suggested maybe it’s simply easer for Trump to do this given he doesn’t want to upset the far larger, more formidable country. Meanwhile, Medinsky has said Wednesday that the U.S.-mediated peace talks in Geneva had been “difficult but business-like, and that a new round of talks would be held soon,” according to Reuters.

Read more …

Patrushev is an important voice.

Putin Aide Urges Retaliation To ‘Western Piracy’ (RT)

Russia’s response to “Western piracy” targeting its maritime trade should be forceful and not limited to diplomatic means, an aide to President Vladimir Putin has said. Nikolay Patrushev, a veteran national security official who heads a naval policymaking body, called for stronger action against Western moves targeting vessels described as part of an alleged Russian ‘shadow fleet’. Attempts to paralyze Russian foreign trade will only intensify, Patrushev warned in an interview with Argumenty i Fakty published on Tuesday. “Unless we push back forcefully, soon the English, the French, and even the Balts will get brazen enough to try and block our nation’s access to at least the Atlantic,” he said.


“The Europeans are in essence making steps to impose a naval blockade, deliberately pushing towards a military escalation, testing the limits of our patience and provoking our retaliation. If the situation is not resolved peacefully, the Navy will be breaking and lifting the blockade,” Patrushev said. “Let’s not forget that plenty of vessels sail the seas under European flags. We may get curious about what they are shipping and where,” he added. Patrushev expressed skepticism that tensions could ease, saying “there is little hope that the West has an ounce of respect for diplomacy and the law.” He argued that “the old practice of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ is being revived,” citing US operations targeting Venezuela and Iran.

Washington has used warships to target suspected drug smuggling boats off Venezuela and intercept outgoing oil tankers, including one sailing under a Russian flag. The Pentagon is now concentrating assets in the Middle East as President Donald Trump pressures Iran to accept restrictions on its missile deterrence against Israel. In today’s world, the Russian Navy is “a geopolitical tool that combines might with flexibility and is suitable for both peacetime and armed conflicts,” Patrushev said. Its strength is needed to protect Russia’s “ability to export oil, grain and fertilizers, and the normal functioning of the state.”

Read more …

“.. intelligence, planning, troop training, and maintenance of complex Western hardware – are handled by foreign personnel.”

US and Dutch Pilots Flying F-16s For Ukraine – Western Media (RT)

The Ukrainian military is secretly using a squadron of veteran NATO pilots to fly donated US-made F-16 fighter jets, the French outlet Intelligence Online reported on Monday. Moscow has long warned that Western nations are moving closer to direct conflict with Russia. The report, which Kiev has denied, said the covert mission relies primarily on experienced US and Dutch air force veterans. The foreign personnel are deployed far from the front lines and focus on intercepting Russian long-range weapons, the outlet said. They are no longer part of their original militaries and reportedly work for Kiev as civilian contractors, without military ranks and outside the Ukrainian chain of command.


A shortage of trained Ukrainian pilots was previously identified as the main obstacle to using F-16s donated to Kiev. Training courses were reportedly undermined by language barriers, a lack of qualified trainees, and other issues, and were simplified for speed. Shortly after the first F-16s arrived in Ukraine in August 2024, Kiev began losing pilots in botched air defense missions, with four such incidents acknowledged. The secret foreign squadron provides pilots with the experience needed to operate advanced F-16 equipment, Intelligence Online said.

Moscow views the Ukraine conflict as a NATO proxy war against Russia, in which key elements of Kiev’s military effort – including intelligence, planning, troop training, and maintenance of complex Western hardware – are handled by foreign personnel. Western specialists were reportedly involved in Ukrainian strikes using Storm Shadow/SCALP air-launched cruise missiles on Russian territory. German officials opposed supplying Taurus missiles because Ukrainians cannot launch them independently. Russia also says Western nations tacitly support Kiev’s recruitment of mercenaries from among their military veterans. Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik estimated that around 20,000 foreign fighters have taken part in the conflict on the Ukrainian side.

Read more …

“… an election he has framed as a choice between “war or peace.”

Hungary’s Opposition Made ‘Secret Pact’ With EU On Ukraine – Orban (RT)

Hungary’s opposition parties are colluding with EU leaders to fast-track Ukraine’s accession to the bloc, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban was claimed, warning that should the pro-Brussels Tisza Party come to power, it could drag the country into a direct conflict with Russia. Hungary’s April 12 parliamentary election is expected to be a tough test for Orban’s longstanding conservative rule, during which time he has criticized the EU’s financial and military support for Kiev and its sanctions on Russia. Orban also opposes Ukraine’s bid for EU membership. Recent polls show a tight race between his Fidesz party and the opposition, led by former party member Péter Magyar, who met with European leaders at last week’s Munich Security Conference.


“Last weekend, the Tisza Party made a secret pact with Brussels in Munich. Part of this pact includes giving up its veto power, supporting the migration agreement, and accepting Ukraine into the EU. They are following Brussels’ orders and thus dragging us into war,” Orban remarked at a meeting of Fidesz and its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic People’s Party, which was broadcast on Hungary’s M1 television. Magyar met EU leaders on the sidelines of the conference last week, where he held talks with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, according to his office.

“Our friends belong to the international peace camp led by the United States. Their friends are leaders of the European military camp led by the German chancellor,” Orban said, referring to his political opponents. He claimed that Merz had openly signaled readiness to support Magyar’s party in the April vote because he wanted Hungary to relinquish its veto power within the EU. “The chancellor needs this to establish Germany’s sovereign rule in Europe,” Orban stated. The Hungarian leader has previously accused Magyar of acting under Brussels’ influence, saying the bloc uses “censorship, intervention, and manipulation” to undermine his government in an election he has framed as a choice between “war or peace.”

Read more …

“European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties.”

18 Ways To Reverse The EU’s Immigration Disaster (RMX)

Due to years of uncontrolled mass migration, many Europeans are asking what concrete options there are to reverse course, with many feeling that the situation is hopeless and cannot be significantly reversed. However, a new report titled “Taking Back Control from Brussels: The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies” — produced by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Hungary’s Migration Research Institute, and Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute — provides comprehensive solutions to the crisis.


The paper’s core thesis offers bold and practical solutions today, noting that the power still rests with member states. The authors write: “European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties.”

The report outlines how asylum policy has “completely collapsed” in the EU and reached a point of “total failure.” The authors contend that the current system lacks democratic legitimacy and has turned the Schengen area into a “sieve” that facilitates illegal migration and prevents effective border protection. Given the recent legalization actions of the far-left Spanish government, aimed at regularizing approximately 500,000 migrants who can then move freely across Europe, the paper’s proposals may be more relevant than ever.

The paper calls for a fundamental “paradigm shift” to restore migration sovereignty to individual nation-states, asserting that renationalization is a necessity for Europe to regain control over its borders and territory. The following 18 proposals from the second part of the paper outline a roadmap for this renationalization. The paper itself provides far more details about each proposal and is recommended reading for any European party looking for a blueprint to regain control of immigration.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/2016823717800624625
Read more …

“The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is also facing federal human smuggling charges.”

Judge Orders ICE Not to Re-Detain Abrego Garcia (ET)

A federal judge has blocked U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) from re-arresting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of the men at the center of the Trump administration’s deportation battles.The Salvadoran national’s case attracted attention across the country, including widespread protests, after the federal government detained him in March 2025 and shipped him to El Salvador’s maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center, along with an airplane full of other deportees. He was later returned to the United States, where he has had long-running legal battles with the administration.


U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return last year, ruled on Feb. 17 that he cannot be deported again because the federal government has not presented a feasible plan for removing him from the country. The judge said that despite releasing Abrego Garcia, the government appeared to be making plans to re-detain him, so Abrego Garcia filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent being re-detained. The court previously granted the requested order.In the new order, the court granted Abrego Garcia’s request to upgrade the temporary restraining order to an injunction to prevent him from being re-detained.

Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States illegally more than a decade ago, had been living in Maryland when federal agents arrested him. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security takes the position that Abrego Garcia is a “violent criminal illegal alien, and MS-13 gang member,” who “belongs behind bars and off American soil.”Abrego Garcia, who is facing separate criminal charges, denies being a member of MS-13, which has been designated a terrorist organization. Xinis previously ordered his release on Dec. 11, 2025, finding that because the federal government had never issued a final order of removal against him, it could not detain him in order to force him from the country.

The government said in a brief last month that Abrego Garcia may be detained because an immigration judge issued an order of removal on Dec. 11, 2025, that became final on Jan. 13 of this year. Detention after that order “does not require that the country of removal be certain in order for detention to be lawful,” the brief said. The judge suggested the federal government is not serious about removing Abrego Garcia from the United States.Since he secured release from criminal custody in August 2025, the government has “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” she said.

Read more …

“.. one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms ..”

Disinformation Board Member Jennifer Daskal Appointed as FISA Court Advisor (CTH)

A good catch by Chuck Ross at WFB drawing attention to the latest Amici curiae appointed to the FISA Court. Adding to a string of leftist ‘advisors to the court’ Jennifer Daskal has been appointed by FISA Court Presiding Judge Anthony Trenga. Daskal was the Biden administration principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security who launched the Disinformation Governance Board (Ministry of Truth) ultimately led by Nina Jankowicz. Jennifer Daskal’s career has centers around controlling information from a leftist perspective and was one of the core officials who used the term dis-mis-mal-information to censor speech on social media platforms around COVID-19 and the vaccination protocol.


Daskal’s reach and control into big tech and social media is well documented. Appointing her as an advisor to the FISA court is troubling as she has joined Amy Jeffress, appointed amicus curiae in 2015 (Biden’s personal attorney), David Kris, a 2016 amicus curiae selection (denied Carter Page FISA application contained fabrications), and the infamous Mary McCord appointed amicus curiae in 2021 (sits at the center of every stop-Trump operation).

“Washington Free Beacon – A Biden administration official who launched the Disinformation Governance Board and served as co-chair of the so-called Ministry of Truth has been appointed to advise the powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, prompting concerns from some Republican lawmakers. The presiding judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review appointed Jennifer Daskal on Feb. 1 to serve as amicus curiae for the court. Amici curiae, known as “friends of the court,” advise judges on legal issues related to foreign surveillance warrants in national security cases. Daskal served as acting principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. In that role, she drafted the charter for the Disinformation Governance Board, according to a Jan. 31, 2022 memo. (read more)”

Read more …

“Our strategy must change fundamentally. The objective is to accelerate the United States’ withdrawal from Europe. The method is firm deterrence.”

Fear Is The Only Thing The EU Understands – Karaganov (RT)

The current phase of the West’s conflict with Russia may be nearing its end. It has dragged on longer than necessary. The principal reason is a lack of determination to employ active nuclear deterrence. This is the only mechanism capable of resolving the “European problem,” which has once again become an existential threat to our country.The Ukraine military operation has acted as a powerful catalyst for Russia’s internal renewal. It has mobilized society, awakened patriotism, and allowed people to demonstrate their best qualities. Pride in the Fatherland and respect for service to it have grown. Engineering, science, the military profession, and skilled labor have regained their rightful status. The economy and science have revived. Teachers, regrettably, have not yet received similar recognition, but that is a subject for later.


By drawing Western hostility onto ourselves, we have seriously weakened the position of the comprador bourgeoisie and its Western-educated allies. The Portuguese once used the word compadres to describe local merchants who served colonial interests. After the reforms of the 1990s, this class expanded in Russia to unhealthy proportions. Fortunately, the process of cleansing the country of this Western-oriented stratum has begun. It has been achieved without mass repression, but with historical inevitability. This revival has come at a terrible cost. Tens of thousands of brave soldiers lost their lives at the opening stage of national recovery. They deserve eternal gratitude. When – or rather, if – the unfinished war resumes, such losses must not be repeated.

In 2013, I personally warned a group of Western European leaders that their policy of dragging Ukraine into the EU and NATO would lead to war and mass casualties. No one met my gaze. They looked down at their shoes, then continued talking about democracy, trust, and human rights. In reality, they wanted to exploit another forty million people. Something they have partly succeeded in achieving through the creation of millions of refugees. They spoke of containing Russia, which was still loyal at the time. Our response to NATO’s aggression in Libya in 2011 was weak. We are now paying for years of appeasement and the comprador instincts of part of our elite.

Russia briefly slowed down the EU’s march toward military adventurism by returning Crimea in 2014 and intervening in Syria in 2015. Then we relaxed. Had an ultimatum on NATO expansion been issued in 2018–2020 and backed by credible nuclear deterrence, the current war might have been avoided. Or at the very least it would have been far less bloody. By 2022, it was obvious that both the West and the Kiev authorities were preparing for war.Ukraine is not a homogeneous entity. In the east and south live people culturally close to us. West of the Dnieper lies a different historical and cultural community, shaped by Austro-Hungarian, Polish, and Western influence and infused for decades with anti-Russian ideology. We must accept this reality and pursue a rational separation from both Ukrainian and European pathologies, forging our own healthy model of development.

Militarily, we are winning. Politically, we have yet to respond adequately to a series of openly aggressive actions: pirate seizures of Russian vessels, threats to close straits, attempts to impose a de facto economic blockade, attacks on oil terminals, and efforts by the Kiev regime to sabotage our tankers. Often with Western European connivance. Our response so far has been intensified strikes on Ukrainian targets. This is not a strategic solution. Ukraine was deliberately thrown into the furnace so that the fire would spread to Russia. EU elites do not care about Ukrainians. The conflict will continue until its true source is addressed: Western Europe’s degenerated ruling classes, intellectually, morally, and materially exhausted, who cling to power by fueling war.

Unlike 1812–1815 or 1941–1945, we have not yet destroyed a hostile coalition or broken its will. The war has entered what chess players call the middle-game. The remnants of Ukraine, supported by the West, will continue sabotage and terrorism. Sanctions will remain. The EU is preparing for a new confrontation, potentially involving rearmed Ukrainian forces and mercenaries from poorer European states. Any violations of future agreements will require military responses. We will again be accused of aggression. Open conflict will likely resume. Our strategy must change fundamentally. The objective is to accelerate the United States’ withdrawal from Europe. The method is firm deterrence. The task is to defeat Western Europe’s current elites, who see Russophobia as their last political lifeline.

Read more …

It’s getting harder as time goes by.

Can You Buy A Country? (RT)

When US President Donald Trump revived the idea of buying Greenland – and refused to rule out stronger measures if Denmark declined – the reaction across Europe was swift and indignant. The proposal was framed as an anachronism: a throwback to imperial horse-trading that modern international politics had supposedly outgrown. But the outrage obscures an uncomfortable historical reality. The United States was not only forged through revolution and war; it was also built through transactions – large-scale territorial purchases concluded at moments when the balance of power left the seller with limited options. From continental expanses to strategic islands, Washington has repeatedly expanded its reach by writing checks backed by leverage. If the idea of buying land now sounds jarring, it is worth recalling that some of the largest such deals helped shape the United States into the country we know today. To understand why the Greenland debate resonates so strongly, we should revisit the major acquisitions that redrew the American map.


Louisiana: The biggest purchase
French explorers ventured into the Mississippi Valley in the late 17th century, claiming new territories and naming this vast expanse Louisiana after King Louis XIV. In 1718, they established New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi, gradually populating the colony not just with French settlers but also through policies enacted by Louis that granted freedom to children born of unions between white settlers and black slaves. Still, the population remained sparse. The region’s bad climate and complex relationships with Native Americans made settlement difficult. As a result, France didn’t particularly value this territory, despite its huge size: French Louisiana encompassed not just modern-day Louisiana but, either partially or wholly, the modern states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, New Mexico, and even parts of Canada. Despite this, however, it was hard to find a Frenchman beyond New Orleans.

New France in 1750 before the French and Indian War. © Wikipedia


In 1763, following the Seven Years’ War, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. The Spanish administration didn’t oppress the French settlers and managed the colony quite competently. However, much of this enormous land remained largely uninhabited aside from the Native Americans. The total number of settlers, including black slaves, amounted to several tens of thousands of people. By the early 19th century, Europe saw many changes. Napoleon regained control of Louisiana, aiming to revive France’s overseas empire. However, this ambition crumbled when his attempt to restore French rule in Haiti failed. A force sent by Napoleon was decimated by black rebels and succumbed to tropical diseases.

Against this backdrop, Napoleon quickly realized that he could not hold onto Louisiana, and the English or Americans would easily seize it. As for the US, it had mixed feelings about Louisiana; controlling the mouth of the Mississippi was crucial, but Americans were also wary of potential French aggression. Finally, US President Thomas Jefferson initiated negotiations with France for the purchase of Louisiana. Napoleon saw this as a big opportunity. He recognized that he could get real money by selling the territory which France didn’t really need and couldn’t control.

Jefferson and the American side initially aimed to purchase only New Orleans and its surrounding areas, offering $10 million. However, the French surprised their American counterparts: they asked for $15 million, but as part of the deal, offered vast territories stretching up to Canada. However, beyond New Orleans, the French essentially sold the freedom to claim land inhabited by the Native Americans. The French had very little control over this vast territory, and the Native Americans didn’t even understand what the sale entailed. In fact, aside from the Native Americans, the vast territory was inhabited by only about 60,000 settlers, including black slaves.

Regardless, the deal was concluded, and America’s territory effectively doubled overnight. Robert Livingston, one of the Founding Fathers and then US ambassador to France, famously declared, “We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives… From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank.”

Read more …

“The strategist’s spokesman said he conducted about 12 hours of interviews with Epstein for the documentary. ”

Former Trump Strategist Defends Ties with Epstein (RT)

Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and prominent MAGA figure, has defended his extensive communications with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, insisting they were part of an effort to produce a documentary. His comments come after the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related files by the US Justice Department, which reveal a far cozier relationship between Bannon – a former adviser to President Donald Trump – and the financier who was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell in August 2019.


According to the New York Times, Bannon’s name appears in the Epstein emails nearly every day in the six months leading up to financier’s July 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. In April 2019, Bannon texted Epstein a strategy to rehabilitate his image. “First we need to push back on the lies; then crush the pedo/trafficking narrative; then rebuild your image as philanthropist,” he wrote. Epstein also appears to have offered Bannon lavish perks, including private jet travel, lodging at his Manhattan townhouse, and medical care. While Bannon’s spokesman denied he accepted the jet or medical care, records suggest he had stayed at Epstein’s Paris apartment on at least one occasion in March 2019.

In a statement to the New York Times, Bannon said his interactions with Epstein were strictly professional, noting that he is “a filmmaker and TV host with decades of experience interviewing controversial figures.” “That’s the only lens through which these private communications should be viewed – a documentary filmmaker working, over a period of time, to secure 50 hours of interviews from a reclusive subject,” Bannon insisted. The strategist’s spokesman said he conducted about 12 hours of interviews with Epstein for the documentary.

However, so far only two hours have been released by the Justice Department. In the footage, Epstein acknowledged being “a criminal” and a sexual predator, but Bannon did not focus on his treatment of women and instead discussed finance and science. His spokesman said he planned to address the topic later on.The Epstein files, totaling over 3.5 million pages, include multiple mentions of numerous global elites, including Bill Clinton, Elon Musk, and the former Prince Andrew. Attorney General Pam Bondi has declared all the Epstein files released, though critics claim this represents only a fraction of the seized data.

Read more …

” These judges are using their offices to amplify their personal outrage over policies. The result is that they are erasing the distinction between our courts and our politics.”

The Last Temptation of the Least Dangerous Branch (Turley)

This month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new ethics guidelines, a publication that rarely attracts attention beyond a small circle of legal nerds. These guidelines, however, are not just the usual tweaks on rules governing free meals or travel. They include a new policy that could materially alter the character of the American courts, allowing judges to engage in commentary to rebut what they deem “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.” It is not just injudicious, it is dangerous.


Over two centuries ago, the Framers had to sell the Constitution to skeptical states, leery about yielding power to a central government, including federal courts. In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton sought to put these fears aside and assured the states that the federal judiciary is “the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” One can certainly disagree with Hamilton whether history has borne out his prediction that the court would have the least capacity to “annoy” others in our system. However, Hamilton’s pitch would later be reinforced by the adoption of apolitical ethical standards in our courts that separated them from political activities and commentary.

It did not begin that way. Early federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, were often openly partisan. Federalist judges took active roles in hunting down Jeffersonians under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. That changed as the nation embraced a new model of judges who would stand apart from politics. While judges often reflect the ideological views of the presidents who nominated them, they have largely followed rigid rules that have prevented them from engaging in political commentary. Judges are expected to address the legal issues in their opinions and leave political commentary to others regarding the implications or basis of those opinions.

It has not been a perfect system. Recently, some of us have criticized judges who have made overtly political statements in their opinions or in public. The deviation from the traditional line of judicial silence has grown in recent years. I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary, including inappropriate commentary in court statements and opinions. These comments often undermined the integrity of the court and the public’s faith in the neutrality of our judges.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from the Special Counsel’s case against President Donald Trump after she made highly controversial statements about him from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go. Chutkan later doubled down when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. After acknowledging that she could not block the pardons, she proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, denounced a Trump policy as “a revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.” Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol. He called Trump’s policies “shameful.” D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton called Trump a “charlatan.” U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa made public comments calling Trump a “criminal.” Other federal judges have made other public statements denouncing Trump and Republican priorities. Even before this change, these judges felt that they could engage in such political declarations.

Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson declared publicly how she sees her position as a judge “as a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.” Last year, the Supreme Court condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for his attacks on Trump as a bully bent on “retribution.” He also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and asked in one order, “Have we no shame?” There is no paucity of such criticism in our country. Many pundits have leveled such attacks against the President, but this was a sitting judge. These judges are using their offices to amplify their personal outrage over policies. The result is that they are erasing the distinction between our courts and our politics. ccu

Read more …

Here’s one use of AI.

German Public Broadcaster Ran Fake Ai-Generated Clip of ‘ICE Troops’ (RMX)

The German public broadcaster ZDF has admitted to a significant editorial oversight after its flagship news program, Heute Journal, aired AI-generated images featuring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arresting an immigrant family. After uproar on social media over the fake news segment, which included a visible OpenAI’ “Sora” watermark on the screen, the broadcaster expressed regret over the error and has since updated the report to remove the synthetic content. Critics pointed out that while it is becoming harder to differentiate fake AI content from real events, the appearance of the Sora watermark made it clear that this was AI content.



The controversy from the Feb. 15 report featured fake AI scenes of a woman and two children being led away by ICE. During the segment, ICE agents were referred to as “troops.”m When questioned about the incident, ZDF stated that the images should have been clearly marked. The broadcaster explained: “This marking was not transferred when the article was transferred for technical reasons.”nThe question now is whether ZDF generated these images in-house. ZDF has declined to comment on whether the editorial staff was aware that the footage was AI-generated at the time of the initial broadcast.

If ZDF created them, the fact that arguably the biggest public broadcaster is creating AI-generated content for public broadcasting is raising concerns about how often AI-generated content has been produced without proper labeling in the past. In response, ZDF reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting: “ZDF’s AI principles stipulate that AI-generated images are always transparently labeled.” The incident caused further confusion when the original broadcast was temporarily removed from YouTube and the ZDF media library, leading some media outlets to report that the broadcaster had “deleted its fake video.” ZDF clarified that the removal was only a temporary measure while the editorial team replaced the AI sequences with authentic video and still images.

A revised version of the program is now available in the media library, accompanied by a disclaimer stating: “Video subsequently changed for editorial reasons.”All German households are required to pay nearly €20 per month to fund ZDF and other public broadcasting outlets like ARD. That translates to billions every year. The outlets are routinely accused of bias against conservatives, including negative reports targeting the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a high rate of rejection for AfD guests on the networks .

Read more …

“.. Elon Musk slamming Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, when he wrote “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and traitor to the people of Spain.”

Macron Calls Free Speech Online ‘Pure Bullshit’ (ZH),

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday said that the notion of free speech on social media platforms – is “pure bullshit,” because algorithmically served content can lead to hate speech (such as the right to say his elderly wife has a penis and gives him black eyes). The comments come after the US recently imposed bans on a former European official and pro-censorship activists for trying to police online speech, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio justifies the moves as pushback against the “global censorship-industrial complex.”


Europe, including Germany and the UK, have been weighing social media bans for minors, a move that could impact critical advertising revenue for companies and platforms such as Meta, TikTok, YouTube, Snap, X, and others. “Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said in New Delhi on Wednesday, Bloomberg reports. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” he continued. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.”


Earlier this month, Macron said he expects a battle with the Trump administration over the bloc’s regulation of digital services, and that countries such as France and Spain could be punished if they move forward with proposed social media bans for children. nThe Trump administration has vowed to oppose efforts by foreign nations to “censor our discourse” or otherwise limit free speech that has been used to disadvantage anti-immigration political parties, and that the US would foster “resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.”

Vice President JD Vance, speaking last year at the Munich Security Conference, accused the EU of suppressing free speech and said Europe’s retreat from its fundamental values was a bigger threat to the continent than Russia or China. Calling Trump Washington’s “new sheriff,” Vance slammed attempts to moderate speech on social media. Some EU officials were concerned that the US was using free speech as a pressure point to cow the bloc into softening its regulation of technology platforms, Bloomberg reported earlier. -Bloomberg In response, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that freedom of speech ends with hate speech. Hilariously, Bloomberg highlighted Elon Musk slamming Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, when he wrote “Dirty Sánchez is a tyrant and traitor to the people of Spain.”

As the FT’s Stephen Bush opines regarding the UK’s push: Children are a lot like terrorists, and I don’t mean that as a commentary on their behaviour. I mean that being defined as one in a liberal democracy means that you lose at least some of the rights and freedoms that other citizens take for granted. Your freedom to marry who you want, to work or not work, to vote, to seek or not consent to medical procedures; these and many other rights granted to adults are curtailed for anyone the state defines as a child.

Another way in which they are like terrorists is that invoking children is a good way to get people to stop asking difficult questions and arguing against policy proposals. One big reason why banning under-16s from social media is taking off as a policy idea is that it is more palatable than banning all of us. But it is far from clear that any of us are well served by algorithms that dish up addictive material, violent pornography or endless footage of atrocities. Nor is it clear that “protecting” the under-16s will not make 16, 17 and 18-year-olds more vulnerable. The large number of first-time internet users who are taken in by fraud or are susceptible to harmful behaviour online, suggests that all it may do is move the problem along.

Read more …

“I’ll never forget, 2015, and I got a call, all excited, that Rush Limbaugh just endorsed you.”

Trump Posts Tribute to Rush Limbaugh on the Anniversary of His Death (Margolis)

It’s hard to believe it, but it’s been five years since the passing of Rush Limbaugh. Five years. Conservative talk radio has never been the same since. Honestly, I wish I had listened to him more, but as a writer, I found anything other than music distracting from my ability to write.mI did listen occasionally, and any time Rush read one of my articles, I would get a whole bunch of texts from people alerting me to it, which was pretty awesome. The last time he read one of my articles (that I know of) was the day of Biden’s inauguration, less than a month before he passed. Limbaugh had unmatched insight. In fact, even before Biden took office, Rush observed that Democrats were still very much afraid of Trump and would indict him to try to take him down.


“I know they desperately want Trump gone and I know that they desperately want it codified that Trump cannot run again because make no mistake, they remain scared to death of you and they remain scared to death of Trump, Trump — 75 million, 80 million votes — and I’m going to tell you, you’re not going anywhere,” Limbaugh said in January 2021. “Even if Trump does, you’re not. They can’t separate you from Trump, and more importantly, they can’t separate you from the ideas. They can’t separate you from MAGA. They can’t separate you from Make America Great Again, which I think remains one of our big campaign strengths going forward.”

On Tuesday evening, President Donald Trump released a video tribute honoring Limbaugh and reflecting on their friendship. Trump called it “the fifth anniversary of the loss of a really great man.” He described Limbaugh as “a great conservative, somebody that loved our country, loved his family, loved a lot of things.” He added on a personal note, “he was a friend of mine, Rush Limbaugh.” Trump recalled that the two had never met when he first launched his presidential campaign in 2015. “I’d never met Rush when I announced that I was running,” he said. Then came a moment he still vividly remembers. “I’ll never forget, 2015, and I got a call, all excited, that Rush Limbaugh just endorsed you.”

At the time, Trump said, Limbaugh’s support came purely from what he heard. “I’d never met him. He liked my opening speech.” Trump pointed to his campaign launch that June, when he descended the now-famous escalator alongside the woman who would become first lady. Limbaugh, he said, responded to the message immediately. “He liked, uh, when I got up in June, and I said, ‘You know, uh, we got bad borders, we got bad crime, we got bad everything,’ and he liked it,” Trump said. “I came down the escalator with now our first lady, and he thought it was great, and, uh, he endorsed me, and then I got to know him, and I realized what a great guy he was.”

Five years after Limbaugh’s death, Trump said the loss is still deeply felt. “But it’s five years, and we miss Rush,” he said. Echoing a frequent refrain from Sean Hannity, Trump added, “As Sean Hannity would often say, ‘There will never be another Rush Limbaugh.’” He closed by offering condolences to Limbaugh’s loved ones. “So to his family, his great wife and family, I just wanna say we miss you all,” Trump said. “We miss him, and there’ll never be anybody like him. Thank you very much.” A year before his death, Trump awarded Rush with the Presidential Medal of Freedom during the 2020 State of the Union address, honoring him days after Limbaugh revealed his Stage 4 cancer diagnosis.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Cybercab https://twitter.com/EvaFox/status/2023710868207292719?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 182026
 
 February 18, 2026  Posted by at 10:26 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  29 Responses »


Jean-Michel Basquiat Warrior 1982


Anthropic–Pentagon Talks Stall Over AI Guardrails (ZH)
Behind the Burnout and High Turnover Rates in the AI Industry (ET)
Bill Clinton Just Got Brutally Dissed By His Own Party (Matt Margolis)
The Obama Admin’s Prostitution Scandal And The Ruemmler-Epstein Connection (ZH)
Aliens Are ‘Real’ – Obama (RT)
Zelensky Launches F-bomb Laden Rant In Munich (RT)
The War Party Takes Munich (Kosachev)
The US Wants a Deal. Russia Wants a System (Lukyanov)
The Middle East Is Splitting Into Rival Blocs (Sadygzade)
In Defence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Charles Johnson)
Trump DOJ Seeks To Dismiss Steve Bannon’s J6 Conviction and Indictment (JTN)
Trump’s Surpising Reaction to Jesse Jackson’s Death (Matt Margolis)
Race Hustler or Civil Rights Icon? Jesse Jackson Dead At 84 (Rick Moran)
Regarding the Rev (Christian Josi)
‘Mr. Wonderful Destroyed CNN’s Anti-SAVE Act Narrative in 30 Seconds (Margolis)

 


 

AI Dalio Ed Dowd Deindustrialization was DELIBERATE. https://twitter.com/PrometheanActn/status/2023501026712539320?s=20 China

 


 

 


 


Will AI command the military?

Anthropic–Pentagon Talks Stall Over AI Guardrails (ZH)

Contract renewal talks between Anthropic and the Pentagon have stalled over how its Claude system can be used. The AI firm is seeking stricter limits before extending its agreement, according to a person familiar with the private negotiations and Bloomberg. At the heart of the dispute is control. Anthropic wants firm guardrails to prevent Claude from being used for mass surveillance of Americans or to build weapons that operate without human oversight. The Defense Department’s position is broader: it wants flexibility to deploy the model so long as its use complies with the law. The tension reflects a larger debate over how far advanced AI should go in military settings.


Bloomberg writes that Anthropic has tried to distinguish itself as a safety-first AI developer. It created a specialized version, Claude Gov, tailored to U.S. national security work, designed to analyze classified information, interpret intelligence and process cybersecurity data. The company says it aims to serve government clients while staying within its own ethical red lines. “Anthropic is committed to using frontier AI in support of US national security,” a spokesperson said, describing ongoing discussions with the Defense Department as “productive conversations, in good faith.” The Pentagon, however, struck a firmer tone. “Our nation requires that our partners be willing to help our warfighters win in any fight,” spokesman Sean Parnell said, adding that the relationship is under review and emphasizing troop safety.

Some defense officials have grown wary, viewing reliance on Anthropic as a potential supply-chain vulnerability. The department could ask contractors to certify they are not using Anthropic’s models, according to a senior official—an indication that the disagreement could ripple beyond a single contract. Rival AI developers are watching closely. Tools from OpenAI, Google and xAI are also being discussed for Pentagon use, with companies working to ensure their systems can operate within legal boundaries. Anthropic secured a two-year Pentagon deal last year involving Claude Gov and enterprise products, and the outcome of its current negotiations could influence how future agreements with other AI providers are structured.

Read more …

“.. a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620.”

Behind the Burnout and High Turnover Rates in the AI Industry (ET)

Across the artificial intelligence (AI) supply chain, insiders describe a precarious, high-turnover workforce with limited support and stability. This “invisible” human labor that labels data, evaluates outputs, and filters harmful material has become a revolving door of talent that navigates high-pressure gigs and burnout. Moreover, workers and industry experts say this talent churn can degrade the very AI models that workers are paid to improve. Across the board, workers who are hired to support, evaluate, or operationalize AI systems face similar challenges: high-stress environments that often involve complex tasks, unrealistic timelines, job instability, and low wages.


It’s no secret that the tech industry has long suffered from high turnover rates. Numbers vary, but many studies put the average rate of talent churn in the tech sector at between 13 percent and 18 percent. This becomes clear when considering the cost of replacing tech talent, which can be up to 150 percent of a worker’s salary, including recruitment expenses, onboarding time, productivity losses, and effects on customer relationships.Some have said that the loss of institutional knowledge alone makes worker retention critical. “People love to talk about the ‘magic’ of AI, but the work culture behind it is a meat grinder. I’ve seen talent turnover in model evaluation hit record highs because the work is repetitive and psychologically draining,” Barry Kunst, vice president of marketing at Solix Technologies, told The Epoch Times.

“When you lose a lead researcher to churn, you don’t just lose a body; you lose the ‘why’ behind the model’s safety guardrails.” Kunst said this is why he’s adamant about AI workforce stability, which he said correlates directly with model reliability. “If you’re rotating contractors every six months to keep labor costs low, your data governance will fail, period,” he said.Sovic Chakrabarti, the director of digital marketing agency Icy Tales, told The Epoch Times: “Team turnover is more common than people expect. “In some groups, especially those tied to model training, evaluation, or data labeling pipelines, churn can happen every few months.

“Short contracts, project-based funding, and constant reorganization mean people cycle in and out quickly.” Chakrabarti said he has worked on the development and support side of AI systems long enough to see patterns that, as he put it, “rarely make it into public discussions.” “That [workforce] churn absolutely leads to lost knowledge,” he said. “Important context about why a dataset was filtered a certain way, why a safety rule exists, or why a model behaved oddly in testing often lives in someone’s head. ”When that person leaves, documentation rarely captures the full story, according to Chakrabarti. “New hires inherit systems without understanding the original tradeoffs, which can quietly introduce risks,” he said.

Burnout rates among information technology workers are high. LeadDev’s Engineering Leadership Report 2025 found that 22 percent of the 617 polled engineering leaders and developers felt critically burned out at work. An additional 24 percent of respondents reported feeling “moderately” burned out, while 33 percent reported low levels of burnout. Some of this is driven by job security fears after two years of layoffs at big tech companies, but the pay for many of the workers fueling the AI revolution is often low. The Alphabet Workers Union, Communications Workers of America, and TechEquity led a study on the working conditions of U.S.-based data workers and found conditions similar to those of tech contractors in developing countries.

In a survey of 160 U.S. data workers, 86 percent worried about being able to pay their bills, and 25 percent relied on public assistance to get by. The same group reported a median hourly wage of $15 and a median annual salary of $22,620. Eighty-five percent of the study group said they’re expected to be “on call” for work, but only 30 percent reported being paid for that time. More than a quarter of respondents reported spending more than eight hours per week on call. “If there’s anything I wanted the general public to know, it is that there are low paid people [in the United States] who are not even treated as humans—just little more than employee ID numbers—out there making the 1 billion dollar, trillion dollar AI systems that are supposed to lead our entire society and civilization into the future,” Kirn Gill II, a search quality rater working on Google products at Telus, told the Communications Workers of America.

Chakrabarti said the work culture behind AI fuels these challenges. “There is real pressure to keep labor costs low,” he said. “I have seen unrealistic timelines, understaffed teams, and expectations to ‘do more with less’ while the stakes keep rising. That tension creates stress, especially when the systems affect millions of users.”

Read more …

“.. the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.”

Bill Clinton Just Got Brutally Dissed By His Own Party (Matt Margolis)

The Democratic Party put together a Presidents’ Day tribute on social media that snubbed one of their most electorally successful presidents in modern history. Bill Clinton, the guy who won two terms and left office with a 66% approval rating, got left out of the party’s official image like the creepy uncle no one wants to sit next to at Thanksgiving dinner. The post from the Democrat Party’s official X account showed a “Happy Presidents’ Day” collage featuring JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, FDR, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Notice anyone missing? The only Democrat presidents they skipped were Clinton and Harry Truman. You could probably argue that to today’s Democrat Party, all old white men look alike, but Clinton is still quite active in the party, and probably should have been included.


Naturally, the RNC pounced, retweeting the Democrats’ post with a photo of Clinton sitting next to Hillary, both looking appropriately concerned. “Forget someone again??” the caption reads. It’s the kind of burn that lands because everyone knows something weird is happening here. Fox News Digital reached out to the DNC to ask whether leaving Clinton out was intentional, but they didn’t receive an answer. The Clinton Foundation didn’t respond either. That silence speaks volumes when your own party features Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden—two presidents who collectively gave America stagflation, hostage crises, the Afghanistan disaster, and 40-year-high inflation—yet can’t find room for the guy they used to credit with balancing the budget. However, that was technically Newt Gingrich who did that. So, why did Bill get dissed? Fox News Digital offers a theory.

“Clinton, one of the most popular presidents in recent history, was not without his share of scandal. The late Kenneth Starr investigated Clinton for connections to a controversial 1978 land deal in the Ozarks nicknamed “Whitewater” dating to Clinton’s time as Arkansas attorney general. While Clinton was never charged with wrongdoing, Arkansas business partners Jim and Susan McDougal were convicted in connection with the failed Whitewater deal. Hillary Clinton had previously worked for the law firm that represented Jim McDougal’s bank. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton’s successor, was also convicted. But the Whitewater case led Starr to discover what became the Monica Lewinsky scandal — wherein Clinton allegedly had a sexual relationship with a White House intern. On January 26, 1998, Clinton famously maintained his innocence in the face of impeachment over Starr’s case, declaring at the end of a childcare policy press conference:”

Not buying that. If presidential scandals were enough to warrant exclusion from the image, Barack Obama would never have made it. Many on social media speculate it has something to do with the fact that Clinton’s name appears all over the Epstein files. He flew on Epstein’s private jet at least 16 times between 2001 and 2003. Recently released documents include photos of Clinton with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, including one showing a shirtless Clinton in a hot tub with someone identified by the DOJ as a victim of Epstein’s abuse.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton recently agreed to testify before Congress about their relationship with Epstein after facing potential criminal contempt charges. Sure, they claim House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is employing dirty tricks. Still, when your party won’t even put your picture on a Presidents’ Day card, the only possible explanation is that the party is so embarrassed by Clinton’s Epstein connections that they’re willing to airbrush him out of history entirely.

Happy Presidents’ Day, Bill.

Read more …

“The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

The Obama Admin’s Prostitution Scandal And The Ruemmler-Epstein Connection (ZH)

Remember Obama’s 2012 Colombian prostitution scandal? Turns out, Jeffrey Epstein was involved… Newly released Department of Justice documents from the Epstein files have exposed a previously unknown connection between a 2012 White House advance-team scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, and Kathryn Ruemmler – the former Obama White House counsel who later became Goldman Sachs’ top lawyer. Ruemmler resigned from Goldman late last week, after the latest Epstein document dump revealed her extensive, affectionate, and years-long correspondence with the convicted sex offender.


The emails show she called him “Uncle Jeffrey,” accepted expensive gifts, and turned to him for advice on sensitive legal and reputational matters – including how to respond to a 2014 Washington Post report that accused her of helping suppress evidence of prostitution involving a rich kid White House aide whose daddy was a huge Obama donor. The WaPo report, by all accounts, cost Ruemmler a job as Obama’s Attorney General.

The 2012 Cartagena Prostitution Scandal
In April 2012, ahead of President Obama’s trip to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, at least 20 Secret Service agents, military personnel, and others were involved in hiring prostitutes. The scandal led to multiple firings and disciplinary actions. A lesser-known element involved Jonathan Dach, a 25-year-old Yale Law student and unpaid White House advance-team volunteer (son of prominent Democratic donor Leslie Dach). Hotel records obtained by investigators showed a prostitute was checked into Dach’s room at the Hilton Cartagena shortly after midnight on April 3, 2012.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan briefed White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler on the evidence. The White House conducted a review, interviewed advance-team members (including Dach), and publicly declared “no indication of any misconduct” by White House personnel. Dach was later cleared and went on to work at the State Department. More recently, Dach was found to have ‘chronically violated state rules’ in his role as former chief of staff to Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) by using a state vehicle as his personal car for nearly two years “and driving at speeds constituting reckless driving under Connecticut law.”

The 2014 Washington Post Revival and Ruemmler’s Response
In October 2014, while Ruemmler was in private practice at Latham & Watkins and reportedly under consideration to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General – WaPo published new details. Reporters Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura revealed that the White House had received specific evidence (hotel records and witness accounts) implicating a White House advance-team member but had not fully investigated or disclosed it. On October 9, 2014, Epstein emailed Ruemmler: “Doing fine. Was talking to reporters until late in the morning last night. Trying to isolate/contain wapo.”mOn October 17, 2014, Ruemmler forwarded Epstein a draft of her response to the Post reporter and asked for his input. In the draft she downplayed the allegations, writing:

“The whole thing is ridiculous – they had to obtain the record ‘under the table’ because the last thing the Hilton wanted to do is to voluntarily give over info implicating the privacy of their guests. The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.”

Read more …

“When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?“

Aliens Are ‘Real’ – Obama (RT)

Former US President Barack Obama has said he believes that aliens are “real” but dismissed longstanding conspiracy theories that the US is concealing proof of extraterrestrial life at a secretive military facility called Area 51. Obama made the remarks on the No Lie podcast with Brian Tyler Cohen released on Saturday. Asked whether aliens “are real,” the ex-president replied in the affirmative, adding “I haven’t seen them, and they’re not being kept in Area 51.” “There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States,” he added.


When asked what question he most wanted answered upon becoming president, Obama joked that it was: “where are the aliens?” Area 51 is a highly classified US Air Force facility at Groom Lake in southern Nevada. The CIA officially acknowledged the site’s existence in 2013, when declassified documents revealed it had been used since 1955 to test the U-2 spy plane and other experimental aircraft. The facility’s secrecy sparked decades of speculation about extraterrestrial research, including theories that crashed alien spacecraft were stored there and that it was a venue for meetings with extraterrestrials. There have been a few UFO sightings in the area, but the CIA claimed they were test flights of the U-2 spy plane.

However, conspiracy theories have also been fueled by hundreds of alleged UFO sightings elsewhere. Pentagon officials told Congress in May 2022 that there were nearly 400 reports of unidentified aerial phenomena by military personnel, up from 144 tracked between 2004 and 2021. In 2024, the Pentagon stressed, however, that it had “no evidence to indicate extraterrestrial life has visited the planet.” Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump said that he was not a “believer” in extraterrestrial life, adding, though, that he had met with “serious people that say there’s some really strange things that they see flying around out there.”

Read more …

“..a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.”

Zelensky Launches F-bomb Laden Rant In Munich (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky delivered a profanity-laden tirade urging Western countries to expel Russian citizens, including students.Speaking to Politico Playbook on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference Saturday, Zelensky called on US President Donald Trump and European leaders to ramp up sanctions against Moscow.“Europeans still didn’t put sanctions on nuclear energy of Russians, on [the state-run energy company] Rosatom, on people, on their relatives, on their children which live in Europe, which live in the United States, which study in the universities of Europe, which have real estate in the United States,” Zelensky said. “So, they have a lot of real estate, they have children, relatives everywhere. F**k away to Russia. Go home,” he added.


Zelensky’s remarks come as the US, Russia, and Ukraine prepare for a third round of three-way talks in Geneva. Moscow has criticized measures targeting Russian nationals and cultural “cancellation” abroad as Russophobia. The trip also comes amid a conscription crisis and ongoing blackouts in Ukraine caused by Russian air strikes, which Russia says aim to weaken Ukraine’s defense production. Zelensky’s reputation has been tarnished by multiple corruption scandals involving his inner circle, prompting the resignation of two government ministers and his longtime chief of staff. On Monday, anti-corruption agencies charged former Energy Minister German Galushchenko with money laundering linked to a $100 million kickback scheme in Ukraine’s struggling energy sector.

Read more …


Very correct: “Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.”

The War Party Takes Munich (Kosachev)

This year’s Munich Security Conference was not merely disappointing; it was pointless. It produced no new ideas and no added value. Instead, it resembled a rally of a self-styled “coalition of the willing” for war. That, unfortunately, is consistent with Germany’s long tradition of failing to draw the right lessons from history. Western European leaders spoke almost exclusively about rearmament and the creation of an independent military capability aimed, openly or implicitly, at confrontation with Russia. The tone was unmistakable: preparation for war, not peace. At the same time, participants repeated the familiar mantra that “more must be done” to ensure Ukraine’s victory. The contradiction went largely unnoticed. What emerged instead was a disturbing impression that Western Europe’s war party has overwhelmed everything else, including common sense and the instinct for self-preservation.


There was something unsettlingly familiar about the atmosphere. One could not help recalling Germany in the spring of 1945, when defeat was inevitable yet resistance continued with fanatical intensity, sustained by fantasies of miracle weapons. In Munich itself, Bavarian Gauleiter Paul Giesler crushed an attempted surrender on April 28, 1945 by executing Wehrmacht officers and civilians who wanted to hand the city over to the Americans without a fight. Hitler rewarded this “loyalty” by appointing Giesler interior minister the day before his own suicide. Within days, Giesler shot his wife and then himself. History rarely repeats itself neatly, but it often rhymes, and Munich echoed loudly this year.

On stage, European figures such as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, alongside American voices like Senator Roger Wicker, openly called for supplying Ukraine with ever more advanced weapons, including Tomahawk missiles, described with an alarming casualness as if it were a modern “wunderwaffe.” The old refrain was repeated yet again: Ukraine can win, but Russia is also poised to attack NATO. This logical contradiction has become a permanent feature of Western discourse.

Washington, for its part, played along. But cautiously. This time, it sent the ‘good cop’: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in contrast to last year’s ‘bad cop’, J.D. Vance. Gone were the blunt warnings about Western Europe’s inevitable collapse if it stayed the course. Instead came soothing assurances of American support and solidarity. Yet the underlying message remained unchanged: without the United States, the EU cannot survive. The transatlantic alliance was not restored; it was merely cosmetically repaired. Zelensky received the expected applause from Munich’s hawkish audience and once again demanded security guarantees from Washington. In plain terms, he was asking the United States to commit itself to direct war with Russia.

Germany, meanwhile, declared its readiness to rearm and assume leadership of the Western slice of Europe in a new confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, Emmanuel Macron cautiously signalled that the bloc must eventually negotiate with Russia. Albeit, if only to avoid being excluded altogether while talks proceed in a Russia-Ukraine-US format. He even floated extending the French and British nuclear umbrella to other NATO members. In other words, “all quiet on the Western Front.” Once again, the conclusion is unavoidable: there is little to be gained from dialogue with this EU. And furthermore, one is reminded why it was precisely “civilized” and “enlightened” Europe that became the cradle of the two most devastating wars in human history.

Equally telling were the subjects that never surfaced. Talk of corruption in Ukraine, or of where Western funds are going, or when accountability will begin, was absent. So too was the fate of Venezuela’s leadership and the precedent set for international law. Iran was barely mentioned, despite last year’s US-Israeli military actions and the obvious risks of escalation. Even Greenland appeared only in whispered conversations offstage. Why complicate matters, when invoking the Russian threat remains the safest and most reliable option? That, in essence, is all one needs to know about this year’s Munich Conference. A forum with a promising youth and a respectable maturity, now drifting toward ideological exhaustion.

Read more …

“Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.”

The US Wants a Deal. Russia Wants a System (Lukyanov)

After last August’s meeting between the Russian and American presidents in Alaska, a new phrase entered diplomatic circulation: the “spirit of Anchorage.” The substance of the talks was never officially disclosed and can only be reconstructed from selective leaks. The form, however, was striking: a personal greeting, an honor guard, a shared limousine. Symbolism mattered. It was meant to signal seriousness. Yet the question remains: what exactly was born in Anchorage? And does it belong in the lineage of earlier diplomatic “spirits” that once defined entire eras? The term itself is not new. Before Anchorage, there was the “spirit of Yalta,” the “spirit of Helsinki,” and, briefly, the “spirit of Malta.”


All three marked turning points in relations between the great powers during the second half of the twentieth century. Yalta in 1945 laid the foundations of the post-war world order, recognizing the USSR and the United States as its central pillars. Helsinki in 1975 codified that order, even as it quietly set the stage for its eventual erosion. Malta in 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War and, with it, the division of Europe.These meetings differed in format and outcome. Yalta brought together three victorious powers dividing spheres of influence. Helsinki was the product of prolonged multilateral negotiations designed to stabilize a tense status quo. Malta was a bilateral encounter that effectively ratified the retreat of one side under the banner of a “new world order.” But they shared one defining feature: each sought to determine the parameters of the international system itself.

Does Anchorage belong in this tradition? Formally speaking, the Alaskan talks focused on Ukraine. That immediately raises a fundamental question. How realistic is it to reach a durable settlement without the direct participation of one of the warring parties? Such an approach is only viable if one of the interlocutors, in this case the United States, is both willing and able to compel Kiev to accept decisions taken without it. Events since August suggest that Washington lacks this capacity, despite its considerable leverage. A more convincing explanation, however, is that it lacks the motivation. Donald Trump has made resolving the Ukrainian conflict a matter of personal prestige. But prestige is not the same as strategic necessity. For Trump and the narrow circle around him, the precise configuration of a settlement matters less than the avoidance of an outright Russian victory. Beyond that, the exact line of demarcation, and the conditions under which it is maintained, are not critical.

The United States would only deploy the full weight of its political and economic power if it perceived these negotiations as shaping a new world order. That was the case at Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta. It is not the case today. Moscow, by contrast, has invested Anchorage with precisely this broader meaning. From the very beginning of the military operation, Russia has framed the conflict not primarily in territorial terms, but as a question of European security architecture. Territory has, inevitably, grown in importance over time. But the core issue has remained unchanged: the principles governing security on the continent.

Today, this is often described as the question of “security guarantees for Ukraine.” In reality, it concerns the broader system within which such guarantees would exist. This may ultimately prove the most serious obstacle to any agreement. Washington’s approach is different. The current American administration does not think in terms of comprehensive frameworks or shared rules. Its vision of world order is far more fragmented and instrumental. Control is exercised through economic pressure, military presence, and political leverage applied selectively to specific regions and problems. It is a model of targeted intervention rather than systemic design. A kind of forceful acupuncture.

In this context, agreements are not about principles, but about transactions. They are designed to deliver concrete, often mercantile, outcomes rather than to establish enduring rules of interaction. Ukraine, from this perspective, is one issue among many, not the axis around which a new order would be built. If the goal is merely a political settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, the Russian-American format is insufficient. Ukraine itself would have to be involved, as would Europe. While Europe’s strategic weight is limited, it retains a significant capacity to obstruct any settlement it finds unacceptable. Ignoring this reality would be a mistake.

For the “spirit of Anchorage” to stand alongside Yalta, Helsinki, and Malta, it would need to aim higher: at the construction of a new global political system to replace the one that emerged after the Second World War and has endured, in various forms, for nearly 80 years. Washington does not see Moscow as a central interlocutor in such a project. At most, this role is tentatively assigned to China. However, even that is far from settled. As a result, the “spirit of Anchorage” hovers uneasily between two incompatible interpretations of what the conversation is actually about.

From the Russian perspective, it is about redefining the foundations of European and global security. From the American side, it is about managing a specific conflict without altering the broader architecture of power. When the parties are not even discussing the same subject, the risk is obvious. In such circumstances, the “spirit” inevitably fades, becoming less a guiding force than a rhetorical shadow. A ghost of an agreement that never quite came into being. Could this change? Possibly, but only if events intervene that force both sides to move beyond regional calculations and confront the need for a more fundamental reordering. Until then, Anchorage remains suspended between ambition and reality, its promise unfulfilled.

Read more …

Complex.

The Middle East Is Splitting Into Rival Blocs (Sadygzade)

Across the globe, the post-Cold War settlement that once carried the promise of Western primacy is no longer taken as an unshakeable fact. Its vocabulary remains in circulation, yet real-time history continues to contest its authority. In the space left behind, many states are seeking a different idea of order, one that sounds less like instruction from a single center and more like negotiated balance among several centers. In such a moment, regions that were once treated as arenas begin to behave like authors. The Greater Middle East is one of the first places where this change is becoming visible as a messy strategic recomposition in which security is no longer outsourced and alliances are no longer assumed to be permanent.


For decades, a simple model dominated strategic thinking in the region. Washington would remain the ultimate guarantor, and regional states would calibrate their risks inside the umbrella of American deterrence. That model did not always prevent wars, but it provided a framework for expectation. Even when trust frayed, the underlying assumption was that the US could be induced to act, and that the cost of ignoring its interests would be prohibitive. In recent years, however, the region has experienced a succession of shocks that have made the old calculus feel less reliable.

One of the most dramatic was the Israeli strike in Doha in September 2025, an operation that pushed a long-simmering anxiety into the open by showing how quickly escalation could breach political red lines in the Gulf. If such an event could occur with only limited external restraint, then the notion of an automatic security backstop began to look like a story the region told itself rather than a guarantee the system could still deliver.

It was in this atmosphere that the Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed in September 2025, drew intense attention. It suggested that major regional players were preparing for a future in which protection would be organized through layered partnerships rather than delegated to a single patron. Analysts noted that the pact followed a pattern of disappointment with external responses, including perceptions of American restraint or hesitation when regional allies felt exposed. Whether the agreement functions as a hard war guarantee or as a strategic warning, it belongs to a wider movement in which states are building options.

Two emerging security configurations are now becoming visible across the Greater Middle East, and it is important to name their participants clearly. On one side, a prospective bloc is coalescing around Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Egypt, and Oman, with this core increasingly presented as a sovereignty-driven framework meant to reduce reliance on external guarantees and to deter destabilizing escalation, while Qatar, Algeria, and several other states observe this alignment with growing interest as a possible partner network rather than as a formal membership.

On the other side, a countervailing alignment is taking shape around Israel and the United Arab Emirates, whose partnership is reinforced by defense industrial cooperation and advanced technology collaboration, and whose strategic reach is further strengthened by Azerbaijan, which acts less as a conventional member than as a pivotal partner connecting overlapping networks because it maintains close ties to Türkiye while simultaneously sustaining deep security and energy links with Israel and expanding cooperation with Abu Dhabi.

Read more …

” In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million.”

In Defence of Sir Jim Ratcliffe (Charles Johnson)

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite. Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.


The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously. Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument.

The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here? The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century.

Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples.

Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair.

Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed.

Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country.

Read more …

“The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. ”

Trump DOJ Seeks To Dismiss Steve Bannon’s J6 Conviction and Indictment (JTN)

In a stunning reversal, the Trump Justice Department on Monday asked the Supreme Court and a federal judge to dismiss the criminal contempt indictment and conviction of Steve Bannon for refusing to testify in the January 6 investigation by Congress, declaring such a request is in the “interests of justice” after years of politically weaponized lawfare by Democrats. The move by DOJ is extremely rare — but not unprecedented — considering Bannon was already convicted and served time in prison. “The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in a brief to the nine justices, who were reviewing an appeal from Bannon’s lawyers.


“The government has accordingly lodged a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment with prejudice,” the motion also states The filing noted that the law “allows the government to seek dismissal even after a jury finds the defendant guilty and the district court enters judgment.” Separately, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Perro asked a federal judge in Washington D.C. to vacate Bannon‘s conviction and dismiss the indictment. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Just the News that the Democrat-led House January 6 Select Committee was part of a larger weaponization machine that abused the justice system.

“Today the Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that Steve Bannon’s conviction arising from the J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena should be vacated,” Blanche said. “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” The request to the two courts to abandon Bannon’s case is the latest twist in a five-year legal saga. The Democrat-led House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena on Sept. 23, 2021, to Bannon demanding documents and testimony related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 attack.

Bannon, a private citizen, had been a policy adviser to President Donald Trump for approximately seven months in 2017. He declined to produce any documents, and the House voted the next month to hold him in contempt of Congress. On Nov. 12, 2021, federal prosecutors in the Biden administration secured a grand jury indictment against Bannon on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He was convicted and served time in prison.

Read more …

“I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street..”

“He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand..”

Trump’s Surpising Reaction to Jesse Jackson’s Death (Matt Margolis)

Jesse Jackson, the polarizing civil rights figure and race hustler, died Tuesday morning at age 84. Though his cause of death was not immediately shared, he had been previously diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder called progressive supranuclear palsy, which is reportedly similar to Parkinson’s disease. While the media will inevitably lionize him as a civil rights icon, Jackson’s legacy is far more complicated—marked by allegations of extortion, self-promotion, the notorious exaggeration of his role in the events surrounding Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, and his blatant attempts to be seen as King’s successor in the civil rights movement. You can read more about that in my colleague Rick Moran’s piece here.



President Donald Trump, who knew Jackson for decades before their political paths diverged, has weighed in on the controversial figure’s death with a lengthy and personal statement on Truth Social, reflecting on their long relationship. And it’s not at all what I expected. Last year, Trump’s reaction to the death of Rob Reiner and his wife was rather — well, let’s just say I wasn’t a fan of it. Naturally, I was expecting something similar about Jackson, and I was surprised to see it wasn’t like that at all. “The Reverend Jesse Jackson is Dead at 84,” Trump wrote. “I knew him well, long before becoming President.” He described Jackson as “a good man, with lots of personality, grit, and ‘street smarts,’” adding, “He was very gregarious – Someone who truly loved people!”

Trump also took aim at Jackson’s critics, noting, “Despite the fact that I am falsely and consistently called a Racist by the Scoundrels and Lunatics on the Radical Left, Democrats ALL, it was always my pleasure to help Jesse along the way.” He detailed several ways he says he supported Jackson and causes important to him. “I provided office space for him and his Rainbow Coalition, for years, in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street,” Trump said. He also pointed to his criminal justice reform efforts, writing that he “Responded to [Jackson’s] request for help in getting CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM passed and signed, when no other President would even try.”

Trump further cited his administration’s record on historically black colleges and universities. He said he “Single handedly pushed and passed long term funding for Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCUs), which Jesse loved, but also, which other Presidents would not do.” In addition, he noted that he “Responded to Jesse’s support for Opportunity Zones, the single most successful economic development package yet approved for Black business men/women, and much more.”

Calling Jackson “a force of nature like few others before him,” Trump also made a striking claim about Jackson’s political influence. “He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand,” Trump wrote. Trump concluded by offering condolences to Jackson’s loved ones. “He loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!”

Read more …

“My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised.. ”

Race Hustler or Civil Rights Icon? Jesse Jackson Dead At 84 (Rick Moran)

He was a con artist and a “race pimp.” He was an opportunist, a race hustler, and a corporate shakedown expert who enriched himself by using funds earmarked for “the cause” for his own personal gain. He was an admirer of notorious racist and virulent antisemite Louis Farrakhan.Jesse Jackson, who died on Tuesday at the age of 84, was all of that. He was also one of the greatest orators of the 20th century, a groundbreaking political figure, one of the best political strategists in American history, and a towering figure in local Chicago Democratic politics. You can’t look at Jesse Jackson as a one-dimensional stick figure. Like all humans, especially those who have left their mark on history, he was a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. You can’t simplify his sins or his enormous contributions to American politics. He was a force whose impact will be felt for generations.


There is no doubting Jesse Jackson’s impact on American history. He was the first “serious” black candidate for president in that he energized the base of the Democratic Party in a multi-racial coalition that forced the party to swing hard left. His grassroots coalition, known as “Operation Push,” was the most dynamic organization in the U.S. until a scandal brought it down.He was given the opportunity to speak in prime time in the 1984 and 1988 conventions despite finishing far behind Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the nomination race. Both speeches are considered among the finest convention speeches in American history. “My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected and the despised,” Mr. Jackson said at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco. “They are restless and seek relief.”

“His transcendent rhetoric was inseparable from an imperfect human being whose ego, instinct for self-promotion, and personal failings were a source of unending irritation to many friends and admirers and targets for derision by many critics,” writes the New York Times. Prominent black social critic Stanley Crouch once said that Jackson “will be forever doomed by his determination to mythologize his life. That mythologizing began in earnest within minutes of the assassination of Martin Luther King in Memphis in 1968. While the rest of King’s inner circle was in shock, Jackson seized the moment, looking to wrest the mantle of “civil rights leader” from any of King’s close associates.

New York Times: “He was one of several aides who rushed toward Dr. King after he was shot. Later that night, Mr. Jackson hurried back to Chicago, parts of which were in flames in the unrest that followed the assassination. The next morning, he appeared on the “Today” show wearing the olive turtleneck sweater, blotted with blood, that he had worn the day before in Memphis. At a memorial convocation of the Chicago City Council that day, he declared, “I come here with a heavy heart because on my chest is the stain of blood from Dr. King’s head.” He added: “He went through, literally, a crucifixion. I was there. And I’ll be there for the resurrection.”

At least once publicly, he indicated that he was the last person to speak with Dr. King and that he had held his bloodied head as Dr. King lay dying. Others who were there said it never happened. Mr. Jackson’s account changed over time, from cradling Dr. King’s head to reaching toward it.If Mr. Jackson had been a figure of suspicion before, he became an object of outrage after Dr. King’s death. Some in Dr. King’s inner circle — including his eventual successor, Mr. Abernathy, and Hosea Williams, both of whom rushed to Dr. King when he was shot — questioned the accuracy of Mr. Jackson’s account and resented what they saw as his calculated grab to seize the spotlight as the First Mourner.

Over the decades, the story Jackson would tell about where he was and what he did during the assassination would go through several iterations. The storytelling revealed Jackson as a man desperate to be seen as King’s anointed successor. “If no one could replace Dr. King, Mr. Jackson was the one who spent most of his life trying,” writes the Times. It was never to be. Jackson couldn’t get out of the way of his own biases and racist dogmas. Where King reached out and begged for understanding, Jackson fueled the fires of racial division, while trying to claim he was a uniter, not a divider. His comments about New York City being “hymietown,” his friendship with Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan, and his insistence on being anywhere and everywhere a racial incident occurred in order to grab the spotlight and try to “racialize” the issue caused resentment and disgust among friend and foe alike. v

His “shakedowns” of corporate America, where he threatened companies with boycotts unless they adopted policies he prescribed (and donated cash to Operation PUSH), were outrageous and bordered on extortion. Jackson’s success as a political organizer was nothing short of astonishing. His 1988 presidential campaign was so successful that the Democrats were forced into trying to sideline him by putting up the white liberal governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis.

He tried again in 1988, and this time he began as a party heavyweight. In the Super Tuesday primary on March 8, he ran first or second in 16 of the 21 primaries and caucuses. Party leaders, fearing they could not win a general election with an assertively left-wing Black presidential candidate, desperately looked for an alternative. In the end, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts won the nomination, even though Mr. Jackson had earned almost seven million primary votes — 29 percent of the total.

No radical left candidate would come close to matching that total until Bernie Sanders in 2016. There is little doubt that Jesse Jackson was one of the primary personalities responsible for dragging the Democratic Party to the far left. Through his rhetoric and consummate organizing skills, Jackson made a huge impact on the Democratic Party and thus, on American history.

Read more …

“Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. ”

Regarding the Rev (Christian Josi)

We lost an icon today. While it wasn’t entirely shocking considering his health condition, it certainly shocked me and, I imagine, many of us. He was an icon. Fought for others his entire life. Was at Dr. Martin Luther King’s side as he was assassinated. Did amazing work through Rainbow PUSH. My children watched him when he appeared on Sesame Street and thought he was cool. He was cool indeed. Imperfect? Yes, but aren’t we all… I met and befriended him later in his life. I’ll get to that.


But first, an old memory. It was 1984, and he was running for president. I was in college, living with my mother in Redlands, Calif. There is a place called the Redlands Bowl, which is sort of like a local Greek Theater… an outdoor venue. My mom’s house was a mile away. While at the time I was not a fan, I heard his speech from my bedroom. That powerful voice. And it impressed the young me. That strong, passionate voice… As for the meeting and befriending, I’ve been a longtime conservative (now libertarian) activist, but I have always sought out friends on the other side. My best friend from the other side is Dr. Julianne Malveaux, whom I used to watch on tv and get pissed off at.

When I moved to Washington years ago, a mutual friend put us together, and we became instant pals. Her work and history impressed me. Whilst rarely on the same page ideologically, our passions matched. Passion is power. No one had more passion or power than The Rev. Dr. Malveaux invited me two years ago to his annual MLK Day breakfast event. Before it began, she took me backstage. JD Pritzker was there, other important people, but I didn’t care. I just wanted to see him. In the flesh.

And what a nice visit it was. I introduced myself, and he said, “I know who you are, Josi”… as he looked me straight in the eye and shook my hand tight. It was a moment I will never forget. That’s when he won my loyalty. I saw his soul. The soul was a beautiful one.The look in his eye… the unexpected respect. We are a diverse nation. We can agree to disagree, but we cannot afford to be unkind to one another. Jesse liked everyone, as I saw firsthand. Maybe didn’t always agree, but there was respect. That’s the point. It’s not at all about partisanship; it’s about decency. Respect. Keeping Hope Alive is not a joke. It’s a fact. Now more than ever.

Rest in peace, Reverend. America owes you a massive debt of gratitude. And I owe you as well. Thank you for changing my view, for influencing me, and for your work to make our nation better.

Read more …

Too much conversation, not enough logic.

Mr. Wonderful Destroyed CNN’s Anti-SAVE Act Narrative in 30 Seconds (Margolis)

Entrepreneur Kevin O’Leary was on CNN’s NewsNight Monday, where he wiped the floor with the panel over the SAVE Act. This bill does two simple things: It requires proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to vote. But you know how this goes — the usual suspects on the panel called it “voter suppression.” O’Leary cut through the noise with clean, clear logic, essentially making the point that it is stupid the United States hasn’t already implemented this before. Leigh McGowan, a podcaster you’ve probably never heard of, sparked the debate by declaring, “I think the thing is that the SAVE Act is a voter suppression act wrapped up as a Voter Protection Act. That is not what we’re doing here. We are trying to make it incredibly difficult for certain people to vote.”


She went on about “nationalized elections” and the “federal government taking over what is a state’s job,” invoking “states’ rights,” and lamenting that bills like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act had failed (even though those were actual efforts to nationalize elections). “What we’re doing here is not that,” she said. “We’re talking about having ICE around voting places. We’re talking about taking people and making them afraid.” That has nothing to do with the SAVE Act, but I digress.

Eventually, Kevin O’Leary stepped in and did what leftists dread: He brought up facts. “This narrative has to be bipartisan by every metric,” he began. “Every 24 months, we go through this debate over and over again when every country — in the Nordic countries, in Europe, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia — solved this problem decades ago.” He broke it down to the basics. “You’ve got to be a citizen to vote. You got to prove it. We all agree at the table on that one.”Then he landed the blow. “There’s such advancement in technology to make sure there’s no cheating. We should implement it here and get all this crapola over with. It’s getting almost boring. Every 24 months, ‘Oh, the election’s rigged!’ ‘Oh, this guy’s doing this, this guy’s doing that.’ No other country has this narrative.”

McGowan tried to defuse it with a half-joking concession. “Kevin, I agree with you. It is getting incredibly boring.” “It’s ridiculous,” O’Leary told her. McGowan, likely realizing the hole she’d dug, tried again: “We talk about this all the time. It’s incredibly boring. But it’s also not an actual problem. Like when you look at the statistics, voting — illegals voting — is not an actual problem in this country. You do need to show ID to be able to vote.”That’s not actually true. Only a handful of states actually require a photo ID to vote. Nevertheless, O’Leary replied, “But you agree, if you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote.” That forced McGowan into agreeing with the core principle of the SAVE Act. “I would agree with that,” she said, “but that’s not what the problem is.

The problem is that we have 0.001% of people that are illegally voting.” She rattled off statistics from the Heritage Foundation and the Brennan Center, trying to reduce the whole issue to a rounding error and claim that the SAVE Act is somehow unnecessary. Abby Phillip broke in again, perhaps realizing O’Leary had shifted the debate onto plain common sense. “It’s already illegal,” she reminded. McGowan echoed, “No one is doing that.”“So why don’t you just say if you cheat and steal and you’re illegal, you go to jail?” O’Leary asked. It’s a fair question. The left claims that fraudulent voting isn’t an actual problem, yet they fight like hell to ensure we don’t pass laws to enforce what they claim isn’t even happening. You can’t have it both ways.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

SKY https://twitter.com/forallcurious/status/2023522805179183424?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2023498116046221337?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 102026
 
 February 10, 2026  Posted by at 11:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  77 Responses »


Rembrandt van Rijn Abraham and the angels 1646


Who’s Next. . . What’s Next. . . ? (James Howard Kunstler)
Epstein’s Gates to Pandemonium (Jordi Pigem)
The Epstein Files and the Gap Between Suspicion and Proof (David Manney)
Western Leaders Following Zelensky Around Like ‘Nannies’ – Hungary FM (RT)
Ukraine Is Our Enemy – Orban (RT)
Zelensky Tried To Kill The Chance For Russia-Ukraine Peace, Again (Romanenko)
Russia Will Not Attack Europe Unless Struck First – Lavrov (RT)
Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing. Meet Ukraine’s ‘National Heroes’ (RT)
Massive Win for Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (CTH)
President Trump Superbowl Day Interview (CTH)
Dems Melting Down Over Voter ID As DHS Shutdown Talks Hit Wall (ZH)
Humanoid Robot Nails Perfect Backflip As Mobility Progress Accelerates (ZH)
The Myth of the American Free Press: A History – Part I of II (Wilson)
NY Times Columnist Says Vance’s Mother Should Have Sold Him (Turley)
Trump Officials Slam Venezuelan Nobel Winner As ‘Spoiler’ (RT)

 


 

https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2020801563950797023?s=20 https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/2020645989661512000?s=20

 


 

 


 


The more we read about Epstein, the less it is about sex. Like that was just a sideshow. Jim Kunstler smells a rat.

“,,,why don’t the dozens of so-called “Epstein Survivors,” grown women supposedly raped and abused by celebrities years ago as children, name their abusers publicly? What’s stopping them as they grandstand around the country?

Why not one single one?

Who’s Next. . . What’s Next. . . ? (James Howard Kunstler)

It’s all backstage now. This fraught moment, the power centers locked in the coldest cold of the year, the Spanish language lessons of Bad Bunny behind us, all the real action in the battle to save the country is out of sight, moiling and churning in the deep background. Everybody’s on edge waiting for shoes to drop, praying they don’t drop on their heads. You should have seen Senator Mark Warner (D-VA; Vice-chair of the Senate Intel Committee) on Face the Nation Sunday, frothing at the mouth over Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI). He cannot believe she turned up at the Fulton County, GA, election warehouse last month, where the FBI extracted 700 boxes of ballots and other evidence for what happened there in the 2020 election.


Senator Warner doesn’t want you to find out. Senator Warner, you understand, is one of the darkest creatures slithering through the cypress knobs of the DC swamp, and his lair, the Senate Intel Committee, is a fetid backwater of seditious intrigue. Senator Warner is setting the stage for yet another hoax against the country. He’s got a “whistleblower,” ID unknown, who supposedly imputes that last spring “an individual associated with foreign intelligence” made a phone call to “a person close to President Trump” and DNI Gabbard failed to report it to his committee. DNI Gabbard simply called Sen. Warner a liar, which is exactly and succinctly correct.

Senator Warner is wetting his pants because the Georgia 2020 election tally looks sketchy to an extreme and he knows the case is beyond his control now. Pulling on that thread will unravel the whole fake tapestry of “Joe Biden’s” election and will reveal the Democratic Party to be a criminal enterprise. The nation itself has to face some unappetizing reality. Four years were stolen from the people and political devices were aligned to destroy the nation. They almost succeeded.

Over in Minnesota the major players are laying low now. Governor Tim Walz, a creep of the thirty-second degree, surrendered his career weeks ago but nervously awaits indictment for presiding over massive social service fraud. ICE is still extracting psychopathic alien mutts out of Minneapolis, while the Cluster-B ladies and their mentally-ill Antifa spear-carriers remain out in the streets banging on sauce-pans. But somewhere in an office, away from the deafening whistles, the money trails are getting tracked from taxpayers to the Learing Centers to the state’s politicians and the DNC and then off forever into the Horn of Africa. You just can’t see it now.

The giant poisonous amoeba that Jeffrey Epstein became has not yielded all of its secrets. Everybody knows that there are darker scenes lurking behind the curtain. The rumors are outlandishly horrifying, worse than anything out of Hollywood’s scare factory, a slaughter of the innocents. Who knows if they are true — well, possibly somebody knows, but these would be things you cannot want to know. One thing I’d like to know: why don’t the dozens of so-called “Epstein Survivors,” grown women supposedly raped and abused by celebrities years ago as children, name their abusers publicly? What’s stopping them as they grandstand around the country? Or is it just another grift?

It’s seven o’clock in the morning as I write (and fifteen-below zero), and World War Three has not started yet, though it seems like the whole US Navy and half the Air Force has deployed in the vicinity of Iran: the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, accompanied by guided-missile destroyers USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., USS Spruance and USS Michael Murphy. . . destroyers USS McFaul and USS Mitscher in the Straits of Hormuz. . . littoral combat ships USS Canberra, USS Tulsa, and USS Santa Barbara in the Persian Gulf. . . at least a dozen F-15E Strike Eagles relocated to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan (from RAF base Lakenheath, UK). Additional aircraft like A-10C Thunderbolts noted at regional bases. . . support aircraft, KC-135 Stratotankers for refueling (active at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar), P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and transport/refueling planes (C-17s, etc., deployed around the region.

You have to wonder whether the regime running Iran has already selected martyrdom rather than yielding anything to forces who are sick of them, including many Iranians. Iranian missiles are targeted for Tel Aviv, US bases in the Emirates, and possibly even Saudi Arabia. Could be all bluff. The truth of the situation remains hidden, like everything else right now in the global arena.

Read more …

“Nikolic was later named as executor in Epstein’s will, signed two days before his death, officially by suicide, in August 2019. (As I’m writing this, a friend points out to me that according to Fortnite Tracker, a player with Epstein’s username, littlestjeff1, was still playing, from Israel, in 2024…)”

“..Whitney Webb has stated in conversation with James Corbett: “Jeffrey Epstein was as much a financial criminal as a sex criminal.”

Epstein’s Gates to Pandemonium (Jordi Pigem)

“We are going to have fun,” writes Jeffrey Epstein on December 7, 2009. This phrase is his reply to an email by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Science Advisor (and Scientific Advisor to Bill Gates), Boris Nikolic, who is making a list of “raising stars,” many of them scientists, that they “should visit together.”


By then, everyone must have known that Epstein was a notorious, convicted sex offender. He had been released from jail only a few months before, on July 22. He had been under investigation since 2005: federal officials had identified three dozen girls whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused (after a controversial plea deal agreed by the US Department of Justice, he was only convicted of two crimes). Why would a high ranking official of Gates’ Foundation want to organize meetings between Epstein and prominent scientists? If it was about money, surely they could find better-looking investors. What, eventually, were they “going to have fun” with?

One of the revelations of the latest batch of Epstein files is his strong interest in viruses, vaccines, pandemics, and mRNA. Two months after getting out of jail, he is writing about viruses, infectious diseases, and something he calls “My BIG idea.”

Or, for instance, in January 2010, he was discussing mRNA and codons.

The latest batch documents of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, released on January 30, consists of over 3 million pages, with many names redacted. A helpful simulation of Epstein’s inbox has been created, fully searchable and giving access to the contents of over 7,000 emails. With keywords and patience the original documents can then be located on the DOJ website.

The trio Epstein-Nikolic-Gates also features prominently in a long agreement letter sent by Epstein to Gates. According to this 2013 document, Gates “specifically requested” Epstein to “personally serve as the representative” of Nikolic in negotiations over the termination of his work with Gates. The first section of this six-page letter states: “Mr. Gates acknowledges that Mr. Epstein has an existing collegial relationship with Mr. Gates in which Mr. Epstein received confidential and/or proprietary information from Mr. Gates.” An analysis of its contents and wider implications can be found in a detailed article by Sayer Ji on Epstein, Gates, and “Pandemics as a Business Model.”

In March 2017, two and a half years before Event 201, three years before Covid-19 was officially declared a pandemic by the WHO, an email thread involving Gates and bgC3 (Bill Gates Catalyst 3, now Gates Ventures) speaks of “pandemic simulation.”

[..] Epstein was a node in a large network of darkness, and the release of the files may be a threshold into it. In a video interview included in the release, Epstein tells Steve Bannon that he is only “tier-one,” “the lowest level” of sexual predator. As researcher Whitney Webb has stated in conversation with James Corbett: “Jeffrey Epstein was as much a financial criminal as a sex criminal. There’s a very particular reason why mainstream media only wants to talk about his sex crimes between 2000 and 2006. Jeffrey Epstein was also not an anomaly in the network in which he operated. Numerous people engage in sex blackmail and sex trafficking. If you think these issues died with Jeffrey Epstein, you are sorely mistaken. […] And if you were to pull on the Epstein thread, I guess you could say, you start to unravel a lot of the bigger picture.”

In early 2020, not everyone knew the word pandemic. Much less familiar still was the word (more common until 1900) pandemonium. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines pandemonium, in its first sense, as “the abode of all demons” and, later on, as “a place or state of utter confusion and uproar.” Covid was a pandemonium: it did generate a “state of utter confusion.” The word was coined by John Milton in Paradise Lost (1667), where Pandemonium is “the palace of Satan,” “the high capital of Satan and his peers,” and “city and proud seat of Lucifer.” Other than the prefix pan- (Greek for “all”), these words are unrelated.

It seems Gates and Epstein were much closer than it had been assumed. Gates brings to mind, among other things, pandemic preparedness (as in CEPI, the “Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations,” and Event 201, both of which had the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as key funder). Epstein brings to mind a darkness that involved horrible violence to children and, most likely, explicit invocation of powerful evil forces — as is increasingly common in the highest tiers of political, economic, and technological power. Gates and Epstein, pandemic and pandemonium, may be closer than we thought.

Read more …

“..photos and electronics seized failed to connect outside people to trafficking acts.”

The Epstein Files and the Gap Between Suspicion and Proof (David Manney)

If I gave you two guesses to guess the nation’s biggest conspiracy, you wouldn’t hesitate: Jeffrey Epstein’s name carried an implication far larger than the crimes he committed. He sounded like the perfect Bond villain: a wealthy financier, private jets, a secluded island, and a guest list filled with famous figures. That combination led the public to assume that something vast and protected operated behind closed doors. Many people believed there was a hidden network and waited for proof to finally surface. In what can only be described as a shock, federal investigators reached a different conclusion. While one Epstein victim made highly public claims that he “lent her” to his rich friends, agents couldn’t confirm that and found no other victims telling a similar story, the records said.


Summarizing the investigation in an email last July, agents said “four or five” Epstein accusers claimed other men or women had sexually abused them. But, the agents said, there “was not enough evidence to federally charge these individuals, so the cases were referred to local law enforcement.” Epstein’s finances, communications, properties, and travel records were examined for years, and agents reviewed emails, bank transactions, flight logs, photographs, and video footage. They interviewed victims repeatedly and tracked claims involving well-known figures. The abuse of underage girls appeared undeniable; evidence tying others to a coordinated sex trafficking ring did not.

What Investigators Found and Didn’t Find
Records released by the Justice Department describe a lengthy investigation that produced extensive documentation, but few claims involving others were corroborated. Video footage from Epstein’s home showed no criminal conduct involving third parties; photos and electronics seized failed to connect outside people to trafficking acts. Despite allegations repeatedly surfacing, verification never followed. No named individuals were suspects, and each denied wrongdoing. FBI Director Kash Patel directly addressed the issue during testimony before the Senate.

Patel’s remarks cut against the grain of speculation that grew after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death while in federal custody. As we all know, Epstein died before the trial. Still, his longtime associate, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted for recruiting and grooming underage girls, a verdict that confirmed the facilitation of abuse. Given the evidence that came to light, there wasn’t anything to establish a client network. It wasn’t hard to immediately reject the findings, because Epstein’s lifestyle and access fueled suspicions for decades. This quiet conclusion felt unsatisfying, even offensive, to those expecting a reckoning. Victims described patterns of abuse that suggested coordinated patterns.

Palm Beach attorney Spener Kuvin, who represents several Epstein victims, maintains that sealed material may still expose wrongdoing by influential figures. Kuvin continues pressing for broader disclosure. After years of anticipation, the conclusion—if it’s indeed the end—landed softly, like a 4-ton boulder landing on a memory foam mattress, sticking the landing. The disappointment of a lack of drama during the reveal contrasts with an administrative close. When transparency feels incomplete, suspicion thrives. Proof operates differently. Epstein was a monster who committed evil crimes, inflicting lasting harm. Those facts are supported by evidence, but evidence supporting a vast trafficking ring never materialized.

Holding both truths at once proves difficult in a culture conditioned to expect cinematic endings. Questions will remain, along with calls for full release of the files. When documentation and belief diverge, public confidence erodes. Justice relies on proof, not implication. It’s a standard that frustrates people, especially when the rich and powerful are sitting in director chairs nearby. For me, there are three possibilities: the conclusion is correct, more evidence is hidden that confirms suspicions, or this is simply the rich taking care of their own. Acceptance may take time, but for some, it may never arrive.

Read more …

” If you are the leader of a sovereign country and you are invited somewhere, you do not take six, eight, or ten other leaders with you..”

Western Leaders Following Zelensky Around Like ‘Nannies’ – Hungary FM (RT)

Western heads of state have been acting like “nannies” to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky during his talks with the US, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. In an interview with Georgia’s Rustavi 2 channel which aired on Sunday, Szijjarto said Ukraine’s European backers had rallied to prevent US President Donald Trump from pressuring Zelensky to agree to a peace deal with Russia. “European leaders accompanied him like ‘nannies.’ It was humiliating for President Zelensky. This was obvious to outside observers because the ‘caregivers’ would not let the patient go alone. If you are the leader of a sovereign country and you are invited somewhere, you do not take six, eight, or ten other leaders with you,” Szijjarto said. He added that the entourage of leaders traveling with Zelensky was “a very bad look.”


Multiple media outlets said UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron “coached” Zelensky on how to repair relations with Trump following their explosive argument at the White House in February 2025. The leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Finland accompanied Zelensky during his subsequent visit to the US in August. Szijjarto argued that Ukraine’s European backers had convinced Zelensky to walk away from the first peace talks with Russia nearly four years ago. “And if an agreement is made now, it will clearly be worse for Ukraine and also worse for Europe compared to April 2022,” he said.

Last year, EU officials denounced Trump’s peace plan, which called for Ukraine to withdraw troops from Donbass and make territorial concessions to Russia.

Read more …

“As long as Ukraine demands that Hungary be cut off from cheap Russian energy, Ukraine is not simply our opponent, Ukraine is our enemy…”

Ukraine Is Our Enemy – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has branded Ukraine an “enemy” over its demands that Hungary stop buying Russian oil and gas. Budapest has resisted the EU’s attempts to phase out Russian energy supplies as part of sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, which escalated in February 2022. Speaking at a campaign rally in the western city of Szombathely on Saturday, Orban acc zused Ukraine of undermining Hungary’s security.


“The Ukrainians must stop their constant demands in Brussels to disconnect Hungary from cheap Russian energy,” Orban said. “As long as Ukraine demands that Hungary be cut off from cheap Russian energy, Ukraine is not simply our opponent, Ukraine is our enemy,” he said, warning that households would face dramatic spikes in utility bills.Orban reiterated his opposition to Ukraine joining the EU, arguing that a “military or economic alliance” with Kiev “will lead to trouble.” On Monday, Hungary announced that it would file a lawsuit against the bloc over what it called a “suicidal” ban on Russian energy.

The European Commission is currently debating the 20th sanctions package, which includes a ban on maritime services for Russian oil. Last month, the European Council approved a roadmap to end all remaining Russian gas supplies by the end of 2027. Unlike many other EU members, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Ukraine and has urged the bloc to prioritize a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Orban has also warned that further escalation could trigger an all-out war between NATO and Russia.

Read more …

“…whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone try to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets..”

Zelensky Tried To Kill The Chance For Russia-Ukraine Peace, Again (Romanenko)

The assassination attempt on Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, first deputy chief of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is clearly the Zelensky regime’s latest desperate bid to sabotage the emerging Russia-Ukraine-US negotiations channel in Abu Dhabi and prolong the war. When negotiations gain traction, spoilers surface. That’s Negotiations 101. And this week’s second round in Abu Dhabi was precisely the kind of movement that unnerves actors who fear ballots, reforms, and accountability more than inevitable defeat on the battlefield. The target choice reinforces the point. Alekseyev is the second-in-command of GRU chief Igor Kostyukov – who sits on the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi.


Striking the No. 2 as the No. 1 shuttles between sessions is both a very deliberate message and an attempt to rattle Russia’s delegation, inject chaos into its decision loop, force security overdrive, and ultimately, provoke Moscow’s withdrawal from the talks. Nor is this the first time kinetic theater has tracked with diplomatic motion. Recall the attempted drone strike on President Vladimir Putin’s Valdai residence in late 2025, which coincided with particularly intense US-Russia exchanges. You don’t have to be a cynic to see a pattern: whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone try to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets – then retreats behind a smokescreen of denials and proxies. Call it plausible deniability as policy.

Why would Kiev’s leadership gamble like this? Start with raw political incentives. Vladimir Zelensky extended his tenure beyond the intended March 2024 election under martial law. If hostilities wind down and emergency powers lift, the ballot box looms. His standing has eroded amid war fatigue, unmet expectations, and a massive corruption scandal swirling around the presidential administration that has infuriated many Ukrainians and dealt his image a blow. End the war without a narrative of total victory, and he risks owning a messy peace, grueling reconstruction, and a reckoning at the polls. Facing voters at a stadium famously worked well during Zelensky’s initial presidential campaign, but now endlessly moving the goalposts is his only hope of clinging to power.

Read more …

“The foreign minister said Moscow would retaliate with full force against a potential aggression from the West ..”

Russia Will Not Attack Europe Unless Struck First – Lavrov (RT)

Russia will not attack EU or NATO member states unless it is attacked first, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Western officials have justified increased military spending by citing the need to defend NATO’s eastern flank. Germany’s top military commander, General Carsten Breuer, said in December 2025 that the country must be ready for a potential war with Russia by 2029. Moscow has accused the West of warmongering. “We have no intention of attacking Europe. There is no reason to do so,” Lavrov told NTV in an interview aired on Sunday.


“If Europe acts on its threats to prepare for war against us and initiates an attack on the Russian Federation, it will face a full-fledged military response from our side, with all available military capabilities,” he said. At a year-end press conference in December, President Vladimir Putin dismissed claims that Russia was planning to attack NATO as “nonsense.” Russian officials have said, however, that Western military aid to Ukraine, including the delivery of long-range and advanced weapons, increases the risk of a broader conflict. Moscow has also accused the EU of seeking to derail US-brokered peace talks with Ukraine and prolong the fighting.

Read more …

Ukrainian nationalism is a recent invention.

Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing. Meet Ukraine’s ‘National Heroes’ (RT)

In early February 1929, 97 years ago, a group of Ukrainian political émigrés gathered in Vienna to formalize what they believed was a movement of national liberation. What emerged from that congress, however, was not merely a campaign for statehood, but a radical organization that rejected democratic norms and embraced political violence. Members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) took part in Nazi Germany’s aggression against Poland and the USSR, carried out mass killings on ethnic and political grounds, and conducted sabotage operations first for the Third Reich and later for Western powers. Those members of the OUN who survived and could not flee to the West faced criminal charges in the USSR; however, many were granted amnesty by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in an effort to promote internal reconciliation in Ukraine. In this article, we examine how the OUN developed into a militant movement whose actions during and after World War II left a lasting and controversial historical legacy.


The roots of Ukrainian nationalism
The history of Ukrainian nationalism is rather brief. The term ‘Ukrainians’ was not used as an ethnonym until the late 19th century. According to historians, the idea that Ukrainians are a separate nation from Russians was quickly seized upon by the Austro-Hungarian authorities, who recognized its ‘anti-Russia’ potential. In contrast, Galician Russophiles who advocated for unity between the Carpathian region’s population and Russians faced severe repression from the Austro-Hungarians. During World War I, Austrians actively promoted Ukrainian nationalism to recruit volunteers for their army.

Historians note that amid the revolutionary events of 1917 in Russia, Ukrainian nationalism became a “political elevator” for various public figures. The nationalists argued for the necessity of creating an autonomous political space within what is now Ukraine, formed the ‘Central Rada’ and tried to persuade Russia’s Provisional Government to grant them authority. Following the October Revolution, they proclaimed the establishment of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR). UPR leaders liberated and armed Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war in order to suppress uprisings by local residents who supported leftist movements; however, the nationalists fled Kiev when Bolshevik forces approached the city.

Later, the German command engaged representatives of the UPR for negotiations in Brest, formally recognizing their control over Ukraine’s territory before occupying it. However, the German authorities considered UPR representatives unreliable, ineffective, and linked to criminal activities. One day, a German patrol entered the Central Rada’s meeting hall, arrested suspects, and dispersed the others. The new appointee of the German administration was former tsarist general, hetman Pavel Skoropadsky. However, following Germany’s defeat in WWI, his regime collapsed. Former political figures of the UPR headed by Simon Petliura then tried to seize control of the UPR.

After suffering a swift defeat at the hands of the Red Army, Petliura’s followers fled to Poland, promising to cede western Ukraine in exchange for assistance against the Bolsheviks. However, as a result of the Polish-Soviet War, much of modern Ukraine remained under the control of the Ukrainian SSR, while Poland took Galicia and Volhynia without granting any concessions to Petliura’s faction.

Read more …

She got Trump written all over her.

Massive Win for Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (CTH)

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi took a calculated risk only three months after her October 2025 election victory when she dissolved the Japanese Parliament and called for a snap election. The high-stakes gamble paid off, with Japanese voters handing her ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a big super-majority Sunday.Takaichi said in a January press conference, calling for the snap election was a “profoundly weighty decision,” adding that “by doing so, I am also putting my position as prime minister on the line.” The voters responded with great enthusiasm for her leadership. Sanae Takaichi was also a protege’ of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a close personal friend of President Donald Trump.


President Trump who heartedly endorsed Takaichi also celebrated the outcome on Truth Social: “Congratulations to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her Coalition on a LANDSLIDE Victory in today’s very important Vote. She is a highly respected and very popular Leader. Sanae’s bold and wise decision to call for an Election paid off big time. Her Party now runs the Legislature, holding a HISTORIC TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY — The first time since World War Il. Sanae: It was my Honor to Endorse you and your Coalition. I wish you Great Success in passing your Conservative, Peace Through Strength Agenda. The wonderful people of Japan, who voted with such enthusiasm, will always have my strong support.”

Yahoo: […] After an election framed as a referendum on Takaichi herself, the LDP party won more than 310 of the 465 seats in Japan’s lower house, marking the first time since World War II that a single party has secured a two-thirds majority. The broader ruling coalition won more than 340 seats. In an interview with NHK, Takaichi thanked the voters who “braved the cold and walked through the snowy roads to cast their votes.” “I wanted the voters to give me a mandate because I advocated for responsible, proactive fiscal policy that would significantly shift economic and fiscal policy,” she added. The hardline conservative, who enjoys US President Donald Trump’s endorsement, has seen high approval ratings since she was elected less than four months ago, making history as the first woman to lead Japan. She has won over the public with her strong work ethic, savvy social media game and charisma. [..]

Mrs Takaichi, like Shinzo Abe, is a strong Japanese conservative with a deep nationalist perspective. This Japanese election outcome is the opposite of what China would like to see happen in the region. Writing on X Sunday, Takaichi thanked President Trump for his endorsement earlier this month and said the potential of the US-Japan alliance was “LIMITLESS.” From a North American perspective, the alignment of Takaichi and Trump will provide further bolstering to the upcoming dissolution of the USMCA, as Japan will not want to be on the wrong side of the new bilateral agreements likely to happen as an outcome. Japan will be cautious with any investment positioning in Canada.

Read more …

Take it away.

President Trump Superbowl Day Interview (CTH)

In what has become an annual tradition, here’s the full Superbowl Day interview with NBC News’ Tom Llamas and President Donald Trump. President Trump addresses the ongoing immigration enforcement, the state of the American economy, U.S. tensions with Iran and other topics from the oval office in the White House. The interview was conducted on Wednesday, February 4 and broadcast today. The interview is an hour long.


Read more …

Nope. I still don’t get it. I can’t be the only one.

Dems Melting Down Over Voter ID As DHS Shutdown Talks Hit Wall (ZH)

Update on the latest negotiations to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded beyond next Friday, which requires at least 60 votes to pass unless the filibuster is done away with. Recall: Congress passed five out of six appropriations packages on Feb. 3, ending a brief partial government shutdown that began on Jan. 31 – while giving DHS, which controls ICE, a lifeline until Feb. 13 as Democrats and Republicans hash out reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after two white knight protesters were shot while interfering with lawful ICE operations.’ Democrats have a list of 10 ‘non-negotiable’ reforms that they insist must be included in any DHS funding bill, including;


• Requiring judicial warrants signed by a judge before agents can make arrests in homes or private spaces.
• Mandating body-worn cameras for all enforcement actions – though serious pushback has emerged from the left over fears that facial recognition technology will be used to catalogue and track protesters.
• Democratic lawmakers are now seeking to ban ICE and CBP from using facial recognition and other biometric ID technologies altogether. [ZH: Things are always interesting when the shoe is on the other foot, but why stop at DHS / CBP? Maybe protect all of us from this shit?]
• Prohibiting agents from wearing masks or face coverings during operations to ensure identification.
• Implementing new use-of-force standards to prevent excessive violence.
• Ending racial profiling in enforcement activities.
• Requiring clear identification of DHS officers (e.g., visible badges and agency markings).
• Other provisions for “real accountability,” such as oversight mechanisms and restrictions on certain tactics.


Republicans are pushing to attach their own priorities to the DHS bill – primarily the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and presentation of ID to cast ballots. The SAVE Act, which was passed by the House in April and is currently stalled in the Senate – would require voters to present an eligible photo ID, while also requiring proof of citizenship be presented in person when registering to vote, such as a passport or birth certificate. It would also require states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls.

GOP leaders like Speaker Johnson and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna arguing it’s necessary for election integrity. Some Republicans also want restrictions on “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and broader measures to crack down on illegal immigration. For some strange reason, Democrats are vehemently opposed to election integrity – and have brought back the well worn trope that voter ID disenfranchises people who are somehow able to produce ID to open a bank account, buy alcohol or tobacco, and obtain welfare (in states that require it!), despite scant calls to reform those activities over disenfranchisement.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last week called the SAVE Act ‘Jim Crow 2.0 across the country,’ and says that the Democrats are “going to do everything we can to stop it.” “It’s really important for us to be clear that we should be making it easier, more accessible for Americans, for U.S. citizens, to vote,” said Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ). “The SAVE Act is far from a bill that’s actually making it more possible for people to vote, and when you’re suppressing so many people, especially because of their last name, because of women, because of many reasons, I think that it makes it really difficult for us to want to support a bill like that.”

Yet, there is broad support for voter ID, including among blacks and hispanics. Democrats in both chambers struggled to reconcile their diehard opposition when 82% of Hispanic voters and 76% of Black voters support a photo ID requirement at the polls, according to a Pew Research Center survey last year. The survey also found that 85% of White voters and 77% of Asian American voters support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote. While a photo ID requirement is more popular among Republican voters, 95%, Democratic voters also widely support it, at 71%. -Washington Times Even CNN noticed.

Read more …

If we can train it to do the backflip (most people can’t do one), what else can it learn to do?

Humanoid Robot Nails Perfect Backflip As Mobility Progress Accelerates (ZH)

Boston Dynamics has released new footage of its flagship humanoid robot program, “Atlas,” showcasing next-level mobility and reinforcing our greatest fears that when these bots are paired with “brains,” adoption can quickly move from factory floors to offensive defense missions.n”Now that the Atlas enterprise platform is getting to work, the research version gets one last run in the sun. Our engineers made one final push to test the limits of full-body control and mobility, with help from the RAI Institute,” Boston Dynamics, which is owned by Hyundai Motor Group, wrote in the description of a video titled “Atlas Airborne.”


The video shows Atlas pulling off an impressive cartwheel, capped by a near-perfect backflip landing, at the Robotics & AI Institute testing facility. The institute is a research organization focused on solving fundamental challenges in robotics and AI. The video also highlights several other mobility accomplishments. What’s clear to us is that these humanoid robots are set to march en masse onto assembly lines, warehouses, and other factory floors this year.mAs we noted earlier, “robot brains” are already here, accelerating the shift from promotional stunts to real-world use cases and, ultimately, mass commercial adoption across manufacturing settings.

We think there is a rising probability here, frankly high enough that someone should start a Polymarket bet, that humanoid robots for dual use could show up at testing grounds in Ukraine as soon as this year. We have warned about the dual-use risk even as leading companies, including Boston Dynamics, Agility Robotics, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics, Unitree, and Figure AI, publicly state they will not weaponize their bots. To our knowledge, Foundation is the only U.S. humanoid robotics developer with an offensive contract with the Department of Defense.

These bots have gone from clunky machines that could barely walk in a straight line to running and doing flips in just several years. Our reporting should give readers a framework for the 2030s that makes dual-use humanoid robots unavoidable.

Read more …

Not fit for the Debt Rattle format, because much too long, but I want to point you to it.

The Myth of the American Free Press: A History – Part I of II (Wilson)

Something odd happens to the human brain when we watch a smooth presenter on television. Fluency reads as intelligence. Comfort reads as authority. Tone communicates confidence, sympathy, or righteous anger before a single claim is evaluated. A person at ease on camera appears to possess a wisdom beyond that of ordinary people. But turn the set around. Behind that presenter is an army: writers, editors, producers, lighting specialists, camera operators, and teleprompter technicians, all working to deliver not just information but mood. The authority we perceive is produced, not discovered.


Print journalism is no different, only quieter. Editors, publishers, advertisers, political actors, and persistent complainants all exert pressure on what gets covered and how. This does not mean journalists are dishonest. It means authority is structural. The modern tendency to treat journalism as a secular oracle did not arise naturally. It was built, reinforced by technology, culture, and myth. To understand why that authority now feels unstable, it helps to look backward, back to when the press was a critical element in the birth of the United States.

Pamphlets, Papers, and the Birth of the Republic
American journalism began as argument. Before the United States existed, pamphlets and newspapers circulated openly partisan claims. The most consequential example is The Federalist Papers, published in newspapers as a public argument for ratifying the Constitution. These essays did not pretend to neutrality. They explained power, acknowledged tradeoffs, and trusted readers to reason. Without them, ratification would almost certainly have failed. Instead of one united nation, we would have remained a collection of squabbling states subject to absorption by the next strong power that came along.

Journalism earned early prestige not by being impartial, but by being useful. It treated citizens as adults capable of judging competing claims. Benjamin Franklin understood this instinctively. As printer, editor, and satirist, he grasped both persuasion and commerce. A press that could not survive could not matter. bEarly newspapers were openly partisan. Bias was visible. Authority was contestable. Trust arose not from neutrality, but from pluralism, from rivalry that constrained exaggeration and error That origin story still shapes how journalists see themselves. The press helped build the nation, and unlike many institutions, it has never fully disowned that legacy. But embedded in that self-image was an irony: journalism learned to criticize everything except itself.

In the nineteenth century, journalism discovered that story moves people more reliably than argument alone.Industrialization expanded readership. Newspapers became mass products. Charles Dickens pioneered the use of serialized reporting and fiction to expose poverty and institutional cruelty, and American papers followed his lucrative model. Dickens’s techniques made readers feel conditions, not just understand them. Advocacy and readership reinforced one another. Mark Twain reached similar conclusions through satire. Humor, timing, and voice mattered. Journalism did not need to be neutral to be effective. It needed to land.

The abolitionist press took this further. Its journalism was unapologetically partisan and morally urgent, relying on vivid personal narratives. Much of it was true. Some of it was exaggerated. The cause was just, and the methods worked. The lesson endured: once a cause is framed as morally existential, emotional narrative outranks verification. Truth without force can be ignored. Truth delivered through story cannot.

Read more …

“In the end, Vance and his mother have overcome far greater challenges than this vicious columnist or the hatefest at Bluesky..”.

NY Times Columnist Says Vance’s Mother Should Have Sold Him (Turley)

In an age of rage, it is often difficult to stand out in the mob as so many pander to the perpetually irate. However, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie has found a way to win the race to the bottom. In a posting on Bluesky, Bouie mocked the account of the addiction of the mother of Vice President J.D. Vance, saying that she should have sold her son for drugs.nBouie used Bluesky (the digital safe zone for the viewpoint intolerant on the left) to post one of the most reprehensible attacks on Vance. Bouie wrote that “this is a wicked man who knows he is being wicked and does it anyway.” That is hardly notable on today’s rage scale. However, he then decided to use the painful addiction history of Beverly Aikins against her son:


“No wonder his mom tried to sell him for Percocets. [I] can’t imagine a parent who wouldn’t sell little JD for percocet if they knew he would turn out like this.’ Vance wrote a celebrated bestseller, “Hillbilly Elegy,” about his difficult childhood with a mother who became addicted to pain medication and eventually found herself stealing drugs from her patients. It was a tragic account of how addiction tore their family apart, but also a tale of redemption: “I knew that a mother could love her son despite the grip of addiction. I knew that my family loved me, even when they struggled to take care of themselves.” In April of last year, Vance celebrated his mother’s decade of sobriety.

As I discuss in my new book “Rage and the Republic,” a common element to past radical movements has been the dehumanization of political opponents. In calling others “Gestapo,” “fascists,” and “Nazis,” you achieve a certain license to say and do things that you would ordinarily never say or do. By stripping them of any humanity or right to empathy, you are free to discard the limitations of decency and civility. Rage is itself a type of drug. It is addictive and, while they never admit it, they like it. Bouie shows the lack of self-awareness in his hateful posts, objecting that “this is a wicked man who knows he is being wicked and does it anyway.”

It is the ultimate example of transference; a self-description ascribed to those you hate. On his New York Times bio, Bouie insists that “I come from a left-leaning, social democratic perspective, but I strive for honesty, fairness and good faith in my writing.” He adds that “I abide by the same rigorous ethical standards as all Times journalists.” If using Vance’s tragic childhood and his mother’s addiction is an example of the “fairness and good faith” of the New York Times, it is a chilling prospect. In his book, Vance observes that the children of broken and impoverished homes often give up hope, as he did:

“Psychologists call it “learned helplessness” when a person believes, as I did during my youth, that the choices I made had no effect on the outcomes in my life.” He found that choices do matter in shaping your life. We all make such choices, as did Bouie in becoming another voice of rage and the New York Times in giving him a platform to amplify his views. It is the same choice that the Times makes in barring a U.S. senator and firing editors for exposing readers to alternative viewpoints while publishing those who advocate repression or rationalize political violence. To the obvious appeal of its readers, the paper now peddles in hate to feed a national addiction.

In the end, Vance and his mother have overcome far greater challenges than this vicious columnist or the hatefest at Bluesky. From adversity, they found a strength and a bond that has inspired many who are struggling with such addictions and poverty. It is clear who is “wicked” in these postings. Perhaps it is even strangely edifying and self-condemning. As Victor Hugo observed, “the wicked envy and hate; it is their way of admiring.”

Read more …

“Trump previously questioned Machado’s suitability for office, saying she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.”

Trump Officials Slam Venezuelan Nobel Winner As ‘Spoiler’ (RT)

White House officials have grown “frustrated” with anti-Maduro Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado over her remarks on the timing of elections in Venezuela, Politico reported on Friday, citing sources. Earlier this week, Machado, an opposition leader who backed the US intervention in Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro in early January, told Politico that voting could be implemented fairly quickly, suggesting nine to ten months as a possible timeframe.


According to a White House adviser who spoke to the outlet on condition of anonymity, Machado’s comments “rubbed some people the wrong way,” with the official accusing her of “undermining the president’s policy success,” including the release of political prisoners, joint law-enforcement operations between the two countries, and other areas of cooperation.m“All Maria Corina Machado does is try to negate all of this… she’s selfish,” the adviser said. “None of this is ‘Operation Maria Corina Machado.’ It’s ‘Operation US national security,’ which is not tied to her in any way. She’s a spoiler and she’s working against US national security goals.”

Another person close to the White House said the former congresswoman “shouldn’t be opining on a time frame,” adding that “[24] months is a more realistic time frame.” In a statement to Politico, the White House stressed that elections cannot happen “overnight” and would be held “at the right time,” adding that US President Donald Trump’s top priority is rebuilding the country before an election takes place.n Machado’s office dismissed the criticism as “media noise” and rumors, insisting that the opposition is “closely aligned” with the US government “in our approach.”

Trump previously questioned Machado’s suitability for office, saying she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.” Machado, a former congresswoman with longstanding ties to Washington who has led anti-government protests, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December for what the committee described as her struggle for a peaceful democratic transition. She later gifted the medal to Trump, though the Nobel Committee has insisted that the prize “cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred to others.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/911NewsBreaks/status/2019842264025997792?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2020566297981878322?s=20

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 182025
 
 September 18, 2025  Posted by at 10:10 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  60 Responses »


Georgia O’Keeffe Sky above clouds III 1963

 

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance To Attend Charlie Kirk Funeral (CTH)
When Charlie Kirk Died, So Did the Democratic Party (Pinsker)
Kid Rock Blasts Mainstream Media as ‘Public Enemy Number One’ (MN)
Jimmy Kimmel’s Rejection By Broadcasters a ‘Turning Point’ In Media (NYP)
This Ain’t Your Democratic Party’s FBI (Margolis)
Antigone 2.0: Liberals Denounce and Destroy Memorials for Charlie Kirk (Turley)
‘We’d Kick Russia’s Ass’ – Trump’s Special Envoy To Ukraine (RMX)
Zelensky Has No Intention of Ending Conflict With Moscow – MP (RT)
Zelensky Tells West To Put Ukraine First (RT)
EU Plans To Seize €170bn of Russia’s Frozen Funds – FT (RT)
‘No Place’ For EU At Ukraine Talks – Lavrov (RT)
Zelensky Reveals Major Change In Ukrainian Troop Training (RT)
Lavrov Accuses Kiev of ‘Sabotaging’ US Peace Efforts (RT)
Zelensky ‘Losing Touch With Reality’ – Foreign Policy Analysis (RT)
Western ‘Peacekeepers’ In Ukraine Would Be Seen As Occupiers – Lavrov (RT)
‘Russian Drone Attack’ Damage Was Caused By Polish Missile (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1968410917638397998

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1968109282886398179

jordan
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1968334714860974158

fetterman

https://twitter.com/SaltyGoat17/status/1968277053050167446

 

 

 

 

“..my prayers and life lessons have guided me to understand that is exactly when it is best to say nothing..”

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance To Attend Charlie Kirk Funeral (CTH)

It is not common when both the sitting President of the United States and the Vice President attend the same funeral together, when it is not a nationally recognized dignitary. Both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance will be honoring Charlie Kirk at the funeral service. It is a fitting and considerate reflection of great honor, worthy of Kirk’s impact.

My dear friends, there is so much background stuff happening we are all watching in the aftermath of the Kirk assassination, it is difficult to find the words for any outline of value. I cannot imagine how challenging life is for Charlie Kirk’s family right now, and out of the greatest respect I feel the best thing to do is just do nothing except honor his faith, work and legacy. I have made the decision not to cover any of the controversial aspects, direct or ancillary, beyond what I have already shared.

Do I have opinions, yes. And when my brain is full of things I want to say – my prayers and life lessons have guided me to understand that is exactly when it is best to say nothing. My inner voice tells me to remain silent on any of the ancillary subjects until Charlie Kirk is laid to rest with great honor and tribute. Then, when it is appropriate, to provide my personal thoughts on facets that may be valuable in context. Feel free to share any subject matter in/around the storyline of this tragedy on any open thread where we can gather in fellowship. I know a lot of people are hurting. Channel that hurt into meaningful prayer for them.

Read more …

“What’s Coming Next Is Even Worse.”

When Charlie Kirk Died, So Did the Democratic Party (Pinsker)

Up until the early 2010s, the emotional appeal of being a good, loyal Democrat was twofold: It signaled to your peers how much you cared about the poor, the environment, and the disadvantaged; and — if you were white — it was “proof” you weren’t a racist. Meanwhile, the GOP was the party of old white dudes, business tycoons, and religious weirdos. As Bill Maher put it in 2011, “[Republicans are] the squares. I’m not putting them down. You need squares to run s**t.” And more or less, that’s how the media portrayed the two parties: Republicans were the stodgy old farts in “Footloose,” and the Democrats were the cool kids who simply wanted to dance, dance, dance. That’s how it was for a very long time. Those were the long-established brand identities, pushed and promoted by Hollywood propaganda.

In the 1972 rom-com Butterflies Are Free, Goldie Hawn quipped, “I joined the Young Republicans. Another mistake. There’s no such thing as a young Republican.” It was a funny line with more than a kernel of truth. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party branded itself as the one-stop shop for young people with big hearts — the party of people with compassion and empathy. The Donkeys were the dreamers, thinkers, lovers, and optimists. Whereas Republicans were bitter, unimaginative, stuck-in-the-past realists, the Democrats led with love. It was showcased in their sloganeering: Make love, not war! Love conquers hate! Keep hope alive! Give peace a chance! Putting people first! The man from Hope! Yes we can! That all began to unravel during the Obama years.

Before, the Democrats were a left-leaning coalition party, comprised of union workers, Catholics, minorities, feminists, tradesmen, Jews, gays, and others. But by the beginning of President Obama’s second term, the Democratic Party had handed the keys to the far left — and the far left alone. This was the first shoe to drop. A union dockworker in New Jersey never had much in common with, say, a committed socialist from Portland, but they still voted Democratic because they believed the Democratic Party better protected their political interests. But when the far left ascended, union workers — and other essential parts of the Donkey’s coalition — began looking elsewhere for representation. Enter Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

“Give a man a mask, and he will show you his true face.”
—Oscar Wilde

When the Democratic Party swung to the far left, it created an opening for an outsider like Trump to champion the plight of all the Americans left behind. This became the backbone of the MAGA movement, and if the Democrats had half a brain, they would’ve realized this a helluva lot sooner. But they didn’t. They figured that Donald Trump was a bizarre, historic anomaly — a master propagandist with an inexplicable, Svengali-like hold over a gullible audience — and if they got rid of Trump, they’d get rid of the movement. They didn’t understand that MAGA was as much about the left as it was about the right. So they tried character assassination. Criminal charges. A nonstop #Resistance campaign. They even called him Hitler, a fascist, a dictator, a Nazi, and an existential threat to democracy. The American people listened to them, listened to Trump, and then voted MAGA in an electoral landslide.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
—Fredrich Nietzsche

The Democrats failed to change Donald Trump’s brand identity: Trump is still Trump. But they spectacularly succeeded in changing how we perceive them. Between 2016 and 2018 (Trump’s first term), Republicans gained 100,000 more registered voters than Democrats. But just between 2024 and today, the Republican edge has exploded tenfold: They’ve now gained over a million. Something big is happening in the heartland. It’s no secret that the Democratic Party’s brand is in the toilet. As NBC News reported in March of 2025: The Democratic Party has reached an all-time low in popularity in the latest national NBC News poll, as it searches for a path forward after a painful loss to President Donald Trump — and as the party’s voters spoil for a fight between their leaders in Washington and Trump.

Just over a quarter of registered voters (27%) say they have positive views of the party, which is the party’s lowest positive rating in NBC News polling dating back to 1990. Just 7% say those views are “very” positive. And that was all BEFORE the murder of 31-year-old Charlie Kirk shocked and appalled the nation. Question for the audience: If the Democrats’ brand was in the toilet before, where do you think it is today?

“The tiger can’t change his spots. No, wait, he did! Good for him!”
—Jack Handey

Changing a long-established brand identity is very difficult. There’s a reason why rebranding campaigns are so frickin’ expensive: Changing minds and hearts isn’t easy. Usually, it happens one of two ways: “Gradually, then suddenly.” After the gruesome murder of Charlie Kirk, we’re now in the “suddenly” part. For decades, the Democratic Party was shielded by the halo effect: They were the party of love, compassion, and virtue signaling. It gave their brand Teflon. That Teflon is now gone. After a decade of unhinged rhetoric, violence, hate, lawfare, and anger, the American people have realized the ugly truth about today’s Democratic Party:

In 2022, 82% of Democrats said that political violence in the U.S. was a problem. Today, it’s just 58% — a 24-point drop in just three years! (Guess for Democrats, it all depends on who’s in office.) Liberals are four times more likely than conservatives to celebrate the deaths of their political opponents. (Which, if you’ve been online lately, you’ve almost certainly witnessed.) A jaw-dropping one in four “very liberal” Americans believe political violence is justified. (Just 6% of conservatives agreed.) That’s an astonishing 25% of American liberals!

They’ve gone from “Make love not war” to “Make war not love.” They went from “Do your own thing” and “Give peace a chance” to murdering Charlie Kirk because, in the killer’s own words, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” On this, the killer is exactly right: Some hate can’t be negotiated out. Instead, it needs to be excised completely. Not just Charlie Kirk died on Sept. 10, 2025. So did the old Democratic Party. Unfortunately, what’s coming in its place is even worse. Today’s Democratic Party is in the process of transitioning to the Democratic Socialist Party. A new national poll from Jacobin makes it crystal clear:

Democrats prefer democratic socialism to capitalism by a 58 point margin. Socialism wins overall with likely voters under forty-five years old. […] Candidates who identify as democratic socialists are viewed just as favorably (+69) among registered Democrats as candidates who identify only as Democrats (+67). Prediction: The Democratic Party will rebrand itself as the Democratic Socialist Party, because that’s what their liberal base demands. Each year, as older Democrats die off, the Democratic Socialist advantage will steadily grow within the party. This divide will spread like wildfire during the 2026 midterms — and by 2028, it will devour the remnants of whatever’s left. The future is theirs. The Democratic Party is dead. Long live the Democratic Socialists.

Read more …

“..the media is “incentivizing these loner kids to take shots so that they can be heroes.”

Kid Rock Blasts Mainstream Media as ‘Public Enemy Number One’ (MN)

Musician and outspoken conservative Kid Rock has labelled the mainstream media as “public enemy number one” in the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s shocking murder… In an interview with Fox News’ Jesse Watters, Rock argued that inflammatory rhetoric from outlets like The New York Times and other “nut houses” has fueled dangerous narratives. “I’ve said it and I’ll say it again… The mainstream media is the fricking public enemy number one right now,” he declared, further noting that repeated labels of “racist” and “Nazi” directed at conservatives like himself and Kirk incite unstable individuals to violence.

https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1967765814473294227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1967765814473294227%7Ctwgr%5E6ec01cdec1cbe1a86846d2d037fa5993658d73cf%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmodernity.news%2F2025%2F09%2F16%2Fkid-rock-blasts-mainstream-media-as-public-enemy-number-one-following-kirk-assassination%2F

Drawing from personal experience, Rock noted, “They’ve called me a racist Nazi for years now… Go look up the few facts about my life.” He described how such echoes build up, influencing “nut house kids” who spend their time “playing video games, watching these occult movies that are all over our streaming services” instead of engaging in productive activities. These individuals, he said, end up thinking, “I’m going to go kill a Nazi, I’ma go kill a racist,” leading to tragic outcomes like Kirk’s death. Rock, a longtime Trump supporter, warned that the media is “incentivizing these loner kids to take shots so that they can be heroes.” He criticized the cycle where, after violence, calls for unity quickly dissolve into more divisive language, with conservatives again branded as “fascists.”

Shifting to a broader message, Rock emphasized restraint but issued a stark warning to those celebrating Kirk’s death or vandalizing vigils: “You’re gonna keep it up, you’re gonna run into the wrong people.” “It’s not gonna be pretty. It’s gonna be very ugly, terrible,” he further urged. The musician stressed the need for dialogue, saying, “We gotta start listening to each other and respect one another,” while acknowledging extremists exist on both sides but pointing to the left’s “echo chamber” as particularly problematic. Rock highlighted the need for de-escalation while holding the media accountable for escalating rhetoric.

Read more …

Not some top down decision. It was the small local broadcasters who’d had enough.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Rejection By Broadcasters a ‘Turning Point’ In Media (NYP)

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr described the “unprecedented” rejection of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel by local broadcasters on Wednesday as a “turning point” for legacy media outlets — which he argued have been serving viewers “progressive foie gras.” The comedian’s show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” was taken off the air indefinitely by ABC earlier Wednesday after local broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair announced plans to pre-empt the program over the host’s controversial comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. “This action today by NexStar and Sinclair, frankly, it’s unprecedented,” Carr told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “I can’t imagine another time when we’ve had local broadcasters tell a national programmer like Disney that your content no longer meets the needs and the values of our community.”

Disney is the parent company of ABC, which airs Kimmel’s show on several independently owned affiliates. NexStar and Sinclair, which have licenses with the FCC that require them to operate in the public interest, “stood up” to Disney and ABC, according to Carr. “This is an important turning point,” he said of Kimmel’s show being taken off the air. “There’s more work to go, but I’m very glad to see that American broadcasters are standing up to serve the interests of their community, and we don’t just have this progressive foie gras coming out from New York and Hollywood,” the chairman added. Kimmel, who has long been held in low regard by Republicans and President Trump, outraged conservative viewers Monday by starting his show arguing that Kirk’s suspected killer was part of the “MAGA gang.”

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” the late-night host said, one day after authorities announced that suspected assassin held a “leftist ideology.” Kimmel has also mocked Trump’s response to the assassination of the Turning Point USA founder, describing it as “how a 4-year-old mourns a goldfish,” and he has accused the president of “fanning the flames” of violence. In an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson, Carr had suggested the FCC might take action against Kimmel, ABC and Disney over the comedian’s “news distortion.” “Any license granted by us at the FCC, that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest,” the chairman explained.

“You can make a strong argument that this is sort of an intentional effort to mislead the American people, about a very core, fundamental fact, of a very important matter,” Carr said of Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk’s alleged killer. “Frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he continued, teasing that action against Kimmel isn’t taken by ABC or Disney “there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Sinclair, the nation’s largest ABC affiliate group, informed ABC earlier Wednesday that it would not continue to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” as a result of the host’s comments. “Mr. Kimmel’s remarks were inappropriate and deeply insensitive at a critical moment for our country,” Vice Chairman Jason Smith said in a statement. “We believe broadcasters have a responsibility to educate and elevate respectful, constructive dialogue in our communities.”

“We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr’s remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.” Nexstar, which owns dozens of stations affiliated with ABC, similarly said it would pre-empt Kimmel’s show “for the foreseeable future.” “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located,” Nexstar President Andrew Alford said in a statement. “Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue.”

Read more …

“Americans deserve an FBI that protects the country, not political agendas.”

This Ain’t Your Democratic Party’s FBI (Margolis)

FBI Director Kash Patel returned to Capitol Hill this week, and Democrats probably wish he hadn’t. After embarrassing them in the Senate on Tuesday, Patel appeared before the House on Wednesday, where Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) teed up one of the most devastating moments yet. In a rapid-fire back-and-forth, Jordan highlighted the FBI’s most notorious past controversies, giving Patel the chance to dismantle the smears against him and prove just how different the Bureau looks under his leadership. The exchange left Democrats’ talking points in tatters. “Director, yes or no? Is the FBI still spying on parents at school board meetings?” Jordan asked. “Uh, no sir,” Patel responded. “Is the FBI still targeting Catholics?” Jordan pressed. “No sir.” “Is the FBI still spying on President Trump?” Jordan continued. “I don’t believe so,” Patel said.

Jordan then asked, “Is the FBI still censoring Americans?” “Uh, no sir,” Patel replied. Moving down the list of scandals, Jordan asked if Americans were still being targeted for shopping at Cabela’s or buying Bibles. Patel was clear: “Nobody is targeted for their faith.” Jordan followed up: “Is the FBI still targeting Americans who are pro-life?” “Nobody is targeting anyone for their beliefs,” Patel said.= “What about cooking the books on crime data?” Jordan asked. “The crime data is real,” Patel answered. Jordan pressed further: “Is the FBI still purging agents for conservative viewpoints?” “No one at the FBI is asked their viewpoints on policy,” Patel said. Finally, Jordan raised another notorious controversy: “Is the FBI still labeling the Betsy Ross flag, the flag of the American Revolution, a hate symbol?” “No,” Patel replied.

With those answers on record, Jordan pivoted to the FBI’s progress. “Well, maybe that’s why you’ve been able to… What was the number? Twenty-three thousand bad guys you’ve arrested? A huge increase from the same time period in the previous administration. Think you said 1,400 predators, 4,000 children rescued. It’s those, were those the facts?” “Forty-seven thousand, 35% increase on children rescued,” Patel confirmed. Jordan then referenced the capture of the terrorist responsible for the Abbey Gate bombing during the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. “Yeah. And you got the guy that… Abbey Gate? We had, we had—” “We got the Abbey, we got the Abbey Gate guy,” Patel said.

Jordan noted the sacrifice of a soldier from his own district who was killed in that attack. “Got a guy from the Fourth District of Ohio, lost his life there serving our country. We appreciate that. Maybe when you’re not focused on politics, you can actually do what the FBI is supposed to do, go get the bad guys, right?” “That’s what the men and women of the FBI do,” Patel agreed.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1968334714860974158

For years, Americans wondered if they could ever trust the FBI again. Under questioning, Patel made one thing clear: sunlight and accountability work. Corruption and political bias don’t survive exposure. Under previous Democrat administrations, the Bureau spied on parents, targeted conservatives, and questioned people for their faith or politics, turning inward on Americans instead of focusing on real threats. Now the FBI is finally doing what it’s supposed to do: going after criminals, rescuing children, and bringing terrorists to justice. The results speak for themselves. The challenge is keeping it that way. Oversight must remain strong, and Congress must hold the bureau accountable. Americans deserve an FBI that protects the country, not political agendas. This ain’t the Democratic Party’s FBI anymore.

Read more …

“A city which belongs to just one man is no true city.”

Antigone 2.0: Liberals Denounce and Destroy Memorials for Charlie Kirk (Turley)

Throughout his short life, Charlie Kirk enraged many by exposing the hate and hypocrisy of the left in higher education. What is astonishing is that he continues to do it even in death. As millions mourn his murder around the world, any expressions of sorrow or respect for Kirk are triggering some on the left. Liberals have been arrested for stomping on or burning memorials to Kirk and others have taken to social media to denounce or mock people expressing regrets over the loss. A courthouse memorial was vandalized while a mural to Kirk had to be restored after an attack. Former Gawker editor Elizabeth Spiers wrote an essay for Nation under the headline: “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning.”

Some of the loudest voices have come from academia. University of California Irvine lecturer Larry Tenney went on the liberal safe space site, BlueSky, to rave in all caps: “WE KNOW WHO CHARLIE KIRK WAS…”F**k off America” “F**k off Trump” and “F**k all you motherfuckers, idgag about any of you.” (For the non-profane literate, “idgag” means “I don’t give a f**k”). What is clear from the diatribe is that Kirk also knew exactly who people like Tenney are. He knew that even his appearance or that of his group on campus would trigger many in academia. For the speech-intolerant, any invitation to debate issues like abortion or transgender policies is intolerable. You are expected to accept their positions as righteous or face their rage.

What was even more annoying was the fact that Kirk was winning the debate, young people trapped in the academic echo chamber were showing up en masse as they did at the rally where he died. Faculty converted higher education into the current echo chamber and then treated students as a captive audience. When given a choice, many rushed to hear alternative views. Fordham School of Law Professor John Pfaff joined the chorus of those objecting to expressions of respect or regret. Most tellingly, the sin that disqualified Kirk was that he implemented Professor Watchlist, a list of professors deemed the most intolerant and partisan on campuses, so that students could avoid their classes. Pfaff posted: “Just a reminder Kirk’s organization established the Professor Watchlist, which even the NYT framed as a threat to academic freedom. I don’t get why ppl keep describing him as a good-faith debater. One can say ‘Kirk should not have been murdered’ (which is true!) without engaging in hagiography.”

In Pfaff’s siloed world, the New York Times is apparently so conservative that it is remarkable that “even the NYT” criticized the list. The comment only served to confirm that the relevant scale of comparison for academics today runs exclusively from the left to the far left. At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian. Tamar Shirinian wrote: “The world is better off without him in it. Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids….like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him and his wife, well, she’s a sick fuck for marrying him so I dont care about her feelings.”

Syracuse University political science assistant professor Jenn M. Jackson announced “him dying this ways seems both ironic and in line with his own politics.” Others warned that anyone expressing sorrow was only self-identifying for future lists of fascists. Martin Pfeiffer, PH.D candidate at the University of New Mexico, warned, “Charlie Kirk was a vicious, hateful fascist and white supremacist. To say anything else is a lie and, quite frankly, fascist collaboration.” Across the country, efforts by a few professors to get their colleagues to sign letters expressing condolences or concerns over the murder were derailed by some of the same passive-aggressive ideologues who engaged in pearl-clutching objections over divisive positions.

What is most striking about these academics is the total lack of self-awareness, even as they adopt the very intolerance of historical villains in their classes. The response of these professors is reminiscent of the Greek tragedy Antigone by Sophocles in 441 BCE. In the story, the two sons of Oedipus fight to the death for the throne of Thebes. The tyrant ruler Creon ordered that his favorite of the brothers, Eteocles, be buried with honors while banning anyone from mourning or burying the other brother, Polynices. To be left on the ground unburied and unmourned was considered a great dishonor and sacrilege. It was too much for his sister, Antigone, who defied the tyrant and buried her brother. For that, Antigone was walled up in a cave and committed suicide. Kirk’s critics will allow him to be buried, of course, but some cannot tolerate mourning his passing any more than they could tolerate his speaking.

I have opposed calls for firing academics making hateful comments outside of their official duties or accounts. Charlie spent his life opposing cancel campaigns and censorship. However, it is crushingly ironic to see media and faculty suddenly outraged about cancel campaigns after years of ignoring the purging of conservatives from campuses. Most faculty crying foul today have been entirely silent when conservatives, including Kirk, were targeted in the past. Faculty have spent decades purging conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving higher education mired in orthodoxy and intolerance. It is the education version of what Sophocles wrote in Antigone: “A city which belongs to just one man is no true city.” In the same way, a university which belongs to only liberal idelogy is no true university.

Read more …

Trump has two special envoys. Witkoff travels around, Kellogg stays in Kiev. He’s either too dumb to be true, or an empty propaganda tool. In either case, he can be useful to Trump.

‘We’d Kick Russia’s Ass’ – Trump’s Special Envoy To Ukraine (RMX)

Assistant to U.S. President Donald Trump and Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg had a lot to say on Russia’s famed might and those recent drone incursions into NATO airspace. Claiming 19 incursions cannot be an accident, Trump’s envoy said Vladimir Putin “is acting purposefully, he’s sending a signal, and he wants to hear a response,” reports Ukrainska Pravda. “Ukraine will not lose this war. Ukrainians have a moral superiority over Russia, that’s obvious,” Kellogg also noted, specifically praising Ukraine’s advanced drone production capabilities. As to Russia, he said during the interview at the YES Annual Meeting 2025, “They talk a big game,” adding that Putin often likes to tout that Russia is a nuclear power, but other Western powers have nuclear weapons too.

On the topic of Russian superiority, “We’d kick their ass (…) They’re not as good as Putin says they are.” He also credits Ukraine with helping curb Moscow’s military might. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine also confirmed to U.S. President Trump that Russia is “not winning” the war, according to Kellog. “If he was winning, he’d be in Kyiv,” Kellog added, again giving credit to Ukraine for slashing Russia’s military power. Posting on X, Kellog said, “The vision of our country is to see a halt to the death and destruction and restore peace and stability in Europe. Promoting peace over endless wars and proxy conflicts abroad is a defining feature of the America First leadership of President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.”

Kellogg also spoke about Russia’s total dependence on China. “Russia has now become China’s junior partner. At present, we can say that China has both an economic advantage over Russia and a military advantage, and even historically. I will say more – if China completely cut off its aid to Russia, – this war would end tomorrow,” Kellogg claims. Urging more aggressive action, including further sanctions, against Putin, Trump’s envoy maintained that Russia does not have “the capacity that they had that they could march towards Berlin or anywhere else.”

Read more …

“..he intends to fight to the last, but, of course, with others doing the fighting..”

Zelensky Has No Intention of Ending Conflict With Moscow – MP (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has no intention of ending the hostilities with Russia, while ordinary people pay the price, Verkhovna Rada MP Georgy Mazurashu has said. Mazurashu said Zelensky outlined his position at a meeting with members of his Servant of the People party on Tuesday, a stance the MP claimed is widely shared by the Ukrainian leader’s inner circle. ”At yesterday’s closed meeting… Zelensky, like other individuals exempt from military service, made it clear that he intends to fight to the last, but, of course, with others doing the fighting,” the deputy said in a video on his Telegram channel on Wednesday.

Ukraine’s mobilization drive, launched to refill depleted ranks amid heavy losses and Russia’s steady frontline advances, has become increasingly chaotic and violent, marred by abuse, injuries, and even deaths of conscripts. Mazurashu has previously called it a “shameful hunt for citizens.” The MP said Zelensky estimated Ukraine would need another $120 billion to fund the armed forces if the conflict drags into 2026, adding that the leader was “still unclear where to get” half of that sum. “And he now wants to focus on finding these funds – abroad, of course,” Mazurashu remarked. Amid battlefield losses, Zelensky has pressed Western backers for more aid, tying it to the security guarantees he says Kiev needs before agreeing to any settlement.

In a Sky News interview on Tuesday, he urged the West to put Ukraine’s needs above its own, boost financial and military support, and impose sanctions that would “really hurt” Russia’s economy.Moscow has warned that foreign aid only prolongs the conflict. It says it does not oppose security guarantees for Kiev in principle, but insists they must follow a peace deal – one requiring Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of new territorial realities – not precede it. On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Kiev of sabotaging peace efforts, including mediation by US President Donald Trump. He said Washington understands the conflict cannot be resolved without addressing its root causes, while Kiev and its European backers refuse to do so.

Read more …

“I believe that all countries need to stop thinking about themselves..”

Zelensky Tells West To Put Ukraine First (RT)

Western states should put Ukraine’s needs above their own, Vladimir Zelensky has suggested, accusing the EU and US of dragging their feet on new sanctions against Russia. Moscow has faced sweeping restrictions from Kiev’s Western backers since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. The EU has adopted 18 sanctions packages and is debating its next measures. Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, Washington has been cautious about new measures amid a thaw with Moscow. Trump has warned, however, that he could turn to sanctions if the conflict persists. In an interview with Sky News aired on Tuesday, Zelensky claimed deliberations about possible blowback from further sanctions were a “dangerous” waste of time.

“I believe that all countries need to stop thinking about themselves and their future relations with Russia, but instead think more about Ukraine, because it’s today and now,” he said. “This is very dangerous, and to be frank, dishonest.” Zelensky said Trump’s call for European countries to cut Russian energy imports and impose tariffs on buyers such as China and India was understandable, but claimed the US must not wait for Brussels, which he accused of hiding behind bureaucracy. “President Trump, I think, believes that if he were to apply all strong sanctions, he would close diplomacy with Russians… But we can’t wait for all European countries to stop relations with Russia,” he said. “All that’s lacking now is a strong sanctions package from the US.”

Zelensky also insisted that Kiev needs a “clear position” from Trump on sanctions and firm security guarantees before any settlement. Trump has urged European countries to stop importing Russian oil and gas and pledged to then consider sanctions. He has also demanded the bloc impose steep tariffs on India and China, the top buyers of Russian crude. According to reports on Tuesday, the European Commission will delay its next sanctions package while members weigh how to meet Trump’s demands. Moscow insists sanctions have been unable to harm its economy and that they will inevitably backfire. It says any settlement must include Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and recognition of territorial changes, while security guarantees for Kiev are possible only after a final deal.

Read more …

Plenty European assets in Russia. American, even better. Tell Chevron to apply for compensation in Brussels.

EU Plans To Seize €170bn of Russia’s Frozen Funds – FT (RT)

Brussels is pressing ahead with a plan to use €170 billion of Russia’s frozen sovereign assets to back “reparation loans” for Ukraine, the Financial Times has reported. The EU faces growing pressure to find additional funding for Kiev as US cuts back its support. Moscow has condemned the asset freeze and warned that any seizure of its money would amount to “theft.” Western nations froze an estimated $300 billion in Russian funds after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 – some €200 billion of which is held by Brussels-based clearinghouse Euroclear. The funds have accrued billions in interest, and the West has explored ways to use this revenue to finance Ukraine. While refraining from outright seizure, the G7 last year backed a plan to provide Kiev with $50 billion in loans to be repaid using the profits generated by the funds. The EU pledged $21 billion.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has proposed going further by creating a ‘reparation loans’ mechanism, which she described as urgently needed to finance Kiev. People familiar with discussions said the plan involves channeling cash balances from Russia’s immobilized assets into EU-issued bonds, with the proceeds transferred to Ukraine in tranches. Brussels argues the system would provide Kiev with immediate support while sidestepping a formal seizure. A second option under consideration would involve creating a special-purpose vehicle to manage the loans, which could also allow non-EU partners to take part.

Of the funds frozen at Euroclear, about €170 billion has already matured and now sits as cash on the clearinghouse’s books, the sources said. The plans have already drawn objections from member states. Belgium, Germany, and France have warned that dipping into the principal risks breaking the law and undermining confidence in the euro. Brussels is under pressure to cover a significant portion of Ukraine’s needs as Washington holds back on new aid, the FT wrote. According to a US note circulated among G7 capitals and cited by the outlet, members were urged to consider seizing the sovereign assets principal “innovatively” to fund Ukraine. Moscow warned that any attempt to use the assets “will not go unanswered.”

Read more …

“..maintains a “position of revanchism, of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia” while debating a potential troop deployment to Ukraine in case of a ceasefire.”

‘No Place’ For EU At Ukraine Talks – Lavrov (RT)

EU nations are trying to elbow their way into the Ukraine peace process despite their openly hostile stance toward Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said, stressing that the bloc should be kept out of the talks for that reason. Speaking at an embassy roundtable about the Ukraine crisis on Wednesday, Lavrov said that EU countries are “clearly trying, quite brazenly, to reclaim a place at the negotiating table.” The minister, however, signaled that they have no business there. The bloc, he argued, maintains a “position of revanchism, of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia” while debating a potential troop deployment to Ukraine in case of a ceasefire. “There is, of course, no place for it at the negotiating table,” he stressed.

Moscow has consistently opposed the deployment of any Western troops in the neighboring country under any pretext, saying that one of the key reasons for the conflict was NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s doorstep. It has also warned that any unauthorized foreign troops in Ukraine would be considered “a legitimate military target.” Lavrov also noted that both the EU and Kiev are seeking to convince US President Donald Trump to abandon his push to settle the conflict and relapse into a stand-off with Russia. [They want], essentially, to turn Biden’s war into Trump’s war,” he said.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has been seeking to mediate an end to the Ukraine conflict, spearheading several rounds of talks with Russia. The effort culminated in a US-Russia summit in Alaska in mid-August — notably without EU or Ukrainian participation — which both sides described as highly productive. Although no breakthrough was reached, Trump later said Ukraine could neither expect to join NATO nor reclaim Crimea, which voted to join Russia in a 2014 referendum held after a Western-backed coup in Kiev. He has also shifted focus from seeking a temporary ceasefire to pursuing a permanent peace settlement.

Read more …

HA! They will train “at home” from now on, because:

“Earlier this year, it was revealed that Ukraine’s elite 155th Mechanized Brigade, partially trained in France, was plagued with mass desertion, with dozens of recruits reportedly going AWOL on French soil.”

Zelensky Reveals Major Change In Ukrainian Troop Training (RT)

Kiev no longer needs to send soldiers to train abroad because its troops learn more by fighting the Russian army, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has said. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, Kiev has dispatched groups of recruits to Britain, France, Germany, Poland, the US, and other countries, primarily to train using Western-made armored vehicles and artillery. By 2023, “we understood that we can’t train our people there because the war [has] changed,” Zelensky told Sky News in an interview aired on Tuesday. When the soldiers returned home, they already had to be “retrained,” he added.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Ukraine’s elite 155th Mechanized Brigade, partially trained in France, was plagued with mass desertion, with dozens of recruits reportedly going AWOL on French soil. Mikhail Drapaty, who led Ukraine’s Ground Forces at the time, said that the poor quality and low morale of the officers contributed to the unit’s problems. Zelensky claimed that currently only Russia and Ukraine know how to fight a modern “technological” war, particularly using state-of-the-art drones, adding that Kiev is ready to share its knowledge.

“We are inviting officers and representatives of other countries to learn here. Some of them are coming,” he said. “We are in the best shape technologically. We can be helpful to all of the world.” The technology and tactics on the battlefield evolve faster than the West makes decisions to fund Ukraine’s military, Zelensky said, urging Kiev’s backers to put more pressure on Russia. In March, Vadim Sukharevsky, the then-commander of Ukraine’s UAV forces, warned that “not a single NATO army is ready to resist the cascade of drones.” Military experts have said that a recent alleged drone incursion in Poland exposed the lack of robust anti-UAV defenses.

Read more …

“..neither Kiev nor its European backers appear to be genuinely interested in peace and are actively trying to prolong the conflict.”

Lavrov Accuses Kiev of ‘Sabotaging’ US Peace Efforts (RT)

Kiev is actively trying to sabotage US President Donald Trump’s efforts to peacefully resolve the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. He added that Washington appears to understand the need to resolve the root causes of the crisis.Speaking at a roundtable discussion of the Ukraine conflict on Wednesday, Lavrov noted that during the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska last month, the American side agreed that actions need to be taken to address the underlying issues of the crisis. He added that US special envoy Steve Witkoff later conveyed his assessment of the summit to the Ukrainian side.

”As we understand it, these assessments, these considerations, and these proposals have been rejected by Kiev,” Lavrov said, adding that the Ukrainian side is “trying in every way to sabotage this American administration’s line.” The foreign minister suggested that both Ukrainian and Western European leaders are trying to convince Trump to abandon his peacemaking efforts and return to confrontation with Russia, and “essentially turn Biden’s war into Trump’s.”

Lavrov went on to say that Europe has been desperately trying to win a place for itself at the negotiating table. He stressed, however, that given its open position of revanchism and its goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, it has “nothing to do at the negotiating table.” Throughout the conflict, Moscow has stressed that it is open to a peaceful settlement, as long as it includes a Ukrainian commitment to neutrality, demilitarization, denazification, and acceptance of the new territorial realities. However, Russian officials, including Lavrov, have said neither Kiev nor its European backers appear to be genuinely interested in peace and are actively trying to prolong the conflict.

Read more …

“A draft law imposing sentences for military insubordination, described as “draconian,” proposed that desertion or absence without leave carry a prison term of up to 12 years, with no amnesty even for voluntary return.”

Zelensky ‘Losing Touch With Reality’ – Foreign Policy Analysis (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and his closest advisers are “losing touch with reality,” as shown by a series of policy and legislative mistakes that have sparked public uproar, analysis published in Foreign Policy claims, citing local sources and experts. The Ukrainian government recently attempted to push through two major measures designed to buttress the armed forces, but sources in Kiev have told journalist Paul Hockenos that each spawned backlash and raised questions about whether the country’s leadership is in tune with the concerns of ordinary Ukrainians. A draft law imposing sentences for military insubordination, described as “draconian,” proposed that desertion or absence without leave carry a prison term of up to 12 years, with no amnesty even for voluntary return.

The bill triggered protests, with activists carrying placards reading “Army service is not slavery,” prompting the authorities to withdraw the legislation. The second move relaxed martial law travel restrictions by allowing men aged between 18 and 22 to leave Ukraine. Martial law had previously barred all men aged between 18 and 60 from travel outside the country. Instead of relief, the reform stirred concern that young men might leave in large numbers, undermining future recruitment and worsening Ukraine’s long-standing demographic problems. One of the most significant blunders of Zelensky’s team was an attempt to crack down on anti-corruption bodies. This summer, Kiev attempted to strip the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) of independence, citing Russian influence, but the move resulted in mass protests, prompting the Ukrainian leadership to backpedal on the reform.

Defense analyst Dmitry K. told Hockenos that Zelensky’s inner circle “exists in a vacuum … They live in a bubble. Some advisers are very good, but they’re obviously not getting a consistent flow of relevant information.” An August poll by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology suggested that public trust in Zelensky had slumped by 7% in a month, standing at 58%. In July, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service reported that Western officials had secretly met with key Ukrainian powerbrokers to discuss ousting Zelensky and lining up a potential replacement.

Read more …

“[Western Europeans] tried… to prevent [US President Donald] Trump’s administration from moving toward promoting a real settlement…”

Western ‘Peacekeepers’ In Ukraine Would Be Seen As Occupiers – Lavrov (RT)

Russia would view Western ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine simply as “occupation forces,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Speaking at an embassy roundtable on Wednesday, Lavrov warned that any foreign troops entering the conflict zone alongside Kiev’s forces would be treated as legitimate targets by the Russian military. Members of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a group of Western states pushing for continued aid to Kiev, have floated deploying NATO troops to Ukraine to monitor a potential ceasefire as part of security guarantees demanded by Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky. Moscow has repeatedly rejected any Western military presence, whether labeled peacekeepers or otherwise.

Lavrov dismissed the proposals as absurd, likening the people behind them to pompous characters from old Russian satire – full of themselves but with no real influence. He argued that these initiatives are just a way to delay serious peace talks that could actually deal with the deeper causes of the conflict. “[Western Europeans] tried… to prevent [US President Donald] Trump’s administration from moving toward promoting a real settlement… by pumping up the Zelensky regime with weapons, and recently also by forming some peacekeeping, but essentially occupational, forces, by talking about creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine,” Lavrov said. “If some part of Ukraine becomes a territory where so-called peacekeepers are deployed, and Western security guarantees aimed against Russia are in effect for this part of Ukraine, this will mean only one thing: that the West has occupied [this territory],” he added.

The diplomat stressed that any European military contingents in Ukraine would be legitimate targets for the Russian military, noting that Moscow has long warned about this. While Russia says it does not oppose Western security guarantees for Ukraine in principle, it insists they be backed by UN Security Council members, including China. Moscow has stressed that such guarantees must not be “one-sided” or aimed at containing Russia and should come only after a peace deal, not before. Moscow has repeatedly said it is open to a diplomatic solution to the conflict but insists any settlement must address its underlying causes and include Ukraine abandoning its NATO ambitions, pledging neutrality, demilitarizing, and recognizing the new territorial realities.

Read more …

“.. cited sources in Poland’s security agencies as saying the object was in fact an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile fired from a Polish F-16 jet.”

‘Russian Drone Attack’ Damage Was Caused By Polish Missile (RT)

The only confirmed damage from what Poland claims was a Russian drone incursion was actually caused by a Polish missile which struck a residential building by mistake, Rzeczpospolita has reported, citing sources. Polish officials last week reported at least 19 violations of the country’s airspace by drones, saying up to four UAVs had been downed while accusing Moscow of being behind the incident. Russia has rejected the accusation, insisting its drones only strike Ukrainian military-related facilities and noting that Western leaders “accuse Russia of provocations on a daily basis, most often declining to offer any arguments.” Rzeczpospolita reported on Tuesday that most of the drones involved in the incident were not carrying explosives and caused no damage.

However, one exception was in the village of Wyryki Wola near the border with Belarus, where what was described by Poland as an “unidentified flying object” crashed into a private home, damaging the roof but without causing casualties. Western media reports claimed that the home had been hit by a Russian drone. Investigators have declined to say what exactly struck the building, only stating that the object was not identified as a drone. Rzeczpospolita, however, cited sources in Poland’s security agencies as saying the object was in fact an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile fired from a Polish F-16 jet. The missile reportedly suffered a guidance system malfunction and did not explode only because its safety devices prevented detonation.

The missile, around three meters long and weighing over 150kg, is said to have struck the house after being fired in an attempt to shoot down a drone.Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk did not comment on the report but scrambled to take aim at Moscow. “The entire responsibility for the damage to the house in Wyryki rests with… Russia… Hands off Polish soldiers,” he said. On Sunday, Tusk also complained that the drone incident had caused a wave of “antipathy towards a struggling Ukraine,” claiming, without proof, that this was being fueled by Moscow. He stressed that Warsaw’s goal is “to stem this tide,” portraying it as a “test of patriotism.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

CDC


https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1968344861829943330

GMO

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 262025
 


Joseph-Désiré Court Le Masque 1843

 

Zelenski Rejects Giving Land As Fascists Promise To Kill Him (MoA)
Zaluzhny ‘Biding Time’ To Challenge Zelensky – Guardian (RT)
CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan (Kit Klarenberg)
US Won’t Play Key Role In Ukraine’s Security Guarantees – Trump (RT)
The Judicial Calvinball of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Turley)
Trump Fires Fed Governor Lisa Cook For “Potentially Criminal Conduct” (ZH)
War, Trump’s New $500 Note & Volcanos -Martin Armstrong (USAW)
A Lesson on Slavery for CNN (Paul Craig Roberts)
‘Godfather of AI’ Warns Superintelligent Machines Could Replace Humanity (ET)
Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots (ZH)
Dutch Foreign Minister Quits Over Israel (RT)
US Scientists Axe ‘Woke’ To Keep Cash Flowing – WSJ (RT)
Trump Proposes Renaming Department of Defense to Its Original Name (ET)
Giving Trump The Nobel Peace Prize Makes Some Sense (Lukyanov)
Ghislaine ‘Splainin’ (James Howard Kunstler)

 

 

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1959996874892378315

Scalia

 

 

 

 

“He would style himself as a tough, wartime leader who would promise “blood, sweat and tears” to the Ukrainian people in return for saving the nation..”

Ideal for warmongers.

Zelenski Rejects Giving Land As Fascists Promise To Kill Him (MoA)

The (former) President Zelenski of Ukraine is refusing any compromise in negotiations with Russia. He would be killed and replaced by a more right wing figure if he would consider otherwise. In a speech on Sunday marking Ukraine’s independence Zelenski insisted of recapturing all of Ukraine including Crimea. As the Washington Post summarizes: “In Kyiv on Sunday, Ukraine’s Independence Day, Zelensky addressed the nation and vowed to restore its territorial integrity. “Ukraine will never again be forced in history to endure the shame that the Russians call a ‘compromise,’” he said. “We need a just peace.” He listed some of the regions occupied by Russia — including Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea — and said “no temporary occupation” could change the fact that the land belongs to Ukraine.

Zelenski thus rejects calls by U.S. President Trump to give up Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace. One reason why he does so may be the personal danger he is in. Any compromise about territory may well cost his life. The London Times continues to make propaganda for Nazis. After a recent whitewashing interview with Azov Nazi leader Biletsky (archived) it yesterday published an interview with the former leader of the fascist Right Sector in Odessa Serhii Sterneneko. Sterneneko had a leading role in the 2014 massacres in Maidan Square and at the Trade Union’s House in Odessa. The Times is whitewashing his participation in those events. It does not mind to publish his threats against Zelenski: “[A]mong Ukraine’s younger generation of soldiers and civilians, Sternenko’s brand of truth to power has wide popularity. “I say what I think, and people like what I say.”

His views on President Putin’s demand for Ukraine to cede the territory it defends in the eastern Donbas region as a precondition for possible peace are typically direct. “If [President] Zelensky were to give any unconquered land away, he would be a corpse — politically, and then for real,” Sternenko said. “It would be a bomb under our sovereignty. People would never accept it.” Sternenko, who himself has avoided the draft, wants the war to go on forever: “Indeed, as he discussed Russian intransigence and President Trump’s efforts to end the war, Sternenko’s thoughts on the possibility of peace appeared to be absent of any compromise over Ukrainian soil. “At the end there will only be one victor, Russia or Ukraine,” he said. “If the Russian empire continues to exist in this present form then it will always want to expand. Compromise is impossible. The struggle will be eternal until the moment Russia leaves Ukrainian land.”

Other British media continue to promote the rise of Nazi affiliated figures in Ukraine. The Guardian adds by promoting the presidential campaign of the former Ukrainian general and now ambassador to the UK Valeri Zaluzhny: In private conversations, Zaluzhnyi has not confirmed he plans to go into politics, but he has allowed himself to speculate on what kind of platform he could propose if he does make the decision. Those close to him say he sees Israel as a model, despite its current bloody actions in Gaza, viewing it as a small country surrounded by enemies and fully focused on defence.

He would style himself as a tough, wartime leader who would promise “blood, sweat and tears” to the Ukrainian people in return for saving the nation, channelling Winston Churchill. In one private conversation, he said: “I don’t know if the Ukrainian people will be ready for that, ready for these tough policies.” A day before being fired as the commander of the Ukrainian army Zaluzhny took a selfie with the leader of the fascist Right Sector and commander of Right Sector brigade of Ukrainian military in front of a portrait of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and the fascist OUN flag.

Read more …

Musical chairs solve nothing. It would still be Azov.

Zaluzhny ‘Biding Time’ To Challenge Zelensky – Guardian (RT)

There is an “increasing belief” in Kiev that former commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, is preparing to go head-to-head with Vladimir Zelensky in a potential presidential race, The Guardian has claimed. Amid growing tensions, Ukrainian leader Zelensky removed the general from his post in February 2024 and dispatched him to the UK to serve as Kiev’s ambassador. In an article on Monday, The Guardian claimed that while Zaluzhny has painstakingly concealed any political ambition he may have, “many assume he is just biding his time before entering the fray.” The British newspaper cited the general-turned-envoy’s supposed musings as to how he would present himself to Ukrainian voters and what platform he would run on, should he decide to vie for the presidency.

The outlet further stated that Zaluzhny has been receiving a steady flow of Ukrainian and Western dignitaries at both the embassy in London and in Kiev earlier this year. The Guardian also quoted anonymous sources as saying that in March, following the infamous showdown between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the White House, Vice President J.D. Vance secretly reached out to Zaluzhny, in an apparent attempt to sound him out as a potential alternative leader. He reportedly turned down Vance’s overtures. Last week, freelance journalist Katie Livingstone claimed that Zaluzhny was “quietly preparing a run for president – in direct opposition to Zelensky.” She quoted an unnamed source as suggesting that his team had “effectively begun” an unofficial PR campaign.

Zaluzhny’s press representative was quick to deny the speculation. A survey of 1,000 people in Ukraine conducted July 4-5 by ‘Rating’ indicated that the former commander-in-chief was trusted by 73% of respondents. That would put him in first place among political figures in the country, with Zelensky trailing six percentage points behind, the poll suggested. Another survey by a different pollster in late June showed that 41% of Ukrainians believed the country was drifting toward authoritarianism. Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. The Kremlin insists that the Ukrainian leader has lost legitimacy.

Read more …

“69% of citizens “favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible.” Just 24% wish to keep fighting.”

CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan (Kit Klarenberg)

On August 7th, US polling giant Gallup published the remarkable results of a survey of Ukrainians. Public support for Kiev “fighting until victory” has plummeted to a record low “across all segments” of the population, “regardless of region or demographic group.” In a “nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022,” 69% of citizens “favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible.” Just 24% wish to keep fighting. However, vanishingly few believe the proxy war will end anytime soon. The reasons for Ukrainian pessimism on this point are unstated, but an obvious explanation is the intransigence of President Volodymyr Zelensky, encouraged by his overseas backers – Britain in particular. London’s reverie of breaking up Russia into readily-exploitable chunks dates back centuries, and became turbocharged in the wake of the February 2014 Maidan coup. In July that year, a precise blueprint for the current proxy conflict was published by the Institute for Statecraft, a NATO/MI6 cutout founded by veteran British military intelligence apparatchik Chris Donnelly.

In response to the Donbass civil war, Statecraft advocated targeting Moscow with a variety of “anti-subversive measures”. This included “economic boycott, breach of diplomatic relations,” as well as “propaganda and counter-propaganda, pressure on neutrals.” The objective was to produce “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Russia, which “Britain and the West could win.” While we are now witnessing in real-time the brutal unravelling of Donnelly’s monstrous plot, Anglo-American designs of using Ukraine as a beachhead for all-out war with Moscow date back far further.

In August 1957, the CIA secretly drew up elaborate plans for an invasion of Ukraine by US special forces. It was hoped neighbourhood anti-Communist agitators would be mobilized as footsoldiers to assist in the effort. A detailed 200-page report, Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas, set out demographic, economic, geographical, historical and political factors throughout the then-Soviet Socialist Republic that could facilitate, or impede, Washington’s quest to ignite local insurrection, and in turn the USSR’s ultimate collapse. The mission was forecast to be a delicate and difficult balancing act, as much of Ukraine’s population held “few grievances” against Russians or Communist rule, which could be exploited to foment an armed uprising.

Just as problematically, “the long history of union between Russia and Ukraine, which stretches in an almost unbroken line from 1654 to the present day,” resulted in “many Ukrainians” having “adopted the Russian way of life”. Problematically, there was thus a pronounced lack of “resistance to Soviet rule” among the population. The “great influence” of Russian culture over Ukrainians, “many influential positions” in local government being held “by Russians or Ukrainians sympathetic to [Communist] rule, and “relative similarity” of their “languages, customs, and backgrounds”, meant there were “fewer points of conflict between the Ukrainians and Russians” than in Warsaw Pact nations. Throughout those satellite states, the CIA had to varying success already recruited clandestine networks of “freedom fighters” as anti-Communist Fifth Columnists. Yet, the Agency remained keen to identify potential “resistance” actors in Ukraine:

“Some Ukrainians are apparently only slightly aware of the differences which set them apart from Russians and feel little national antagonism. Nevertheless, important grievances exist, and among other Ukrainians there is opposition to Soviet authority which often has assumed a nationalist form. Under favorable conditions, these people might be expected to assist American Special Forces in fighting against the regime.”

Read more …

But Russia will.

US Won’t Play Key Role In Ukraine’s Security Guarantees – Trump (RT)

Europe must take the lead in providing “significant security guarantees” to Ukraine, US President Donald Trump said on Monday. Washington’s role will be supportive rather than primary, he stressed. “Europe is going to give them significant security guarantees – and they should, because they’re right there,” Trump told reporters at the Oval Office. He added that Washington would remain involved “from the standpoint of backup.” This isn’t the first time Trump has clarified Washington’s role in resolving the Ukraine conflict. Speaking in the Oval Office last week with Vladimir Zelensky, Trump was asked if security guarantees for Kiev could involve US troops. We’ll let you know that maybe later today, we’re meeting with the leaders of seven great countries. There will be a lot of help. Europe is the first line of defense because they are there, but we’re going to help, we’ll be involved.

Since the talks with Zelensky Trump has also clarified that as far as Washington is concerned, Ukraine getting Crimea back and joining NATO are both “impossible.” He told Fox & Friends last Tuesday that Kiev had approached the US-led military bloc to seek help in trying to get the peninsula back. “They went in and said ‘We want to get Crimea back’. This was at the beginning,” Trump revealed. “The other thing they said was ‘We want to be a member of NATO’. Well, both of those things are impossible.” “It was always a no-no,” both during the time of the Soviet Union, and now with Russia, Trump explained, adding that Russia has always stressed it did not want “the enemy” on its border. Zelensky said on Saturday that new details of security guarantees for Ukraine would be ready “in the coming days.”

“The teams of Ukraine, the United States, and European partners” are working together on the architecture of these guarantees, he said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed that “robust security guarantees will be essential” and claimed that Washington, despite its limited role, would remain part of the process. Zelensky and his Western European backers have called for “Article 5-like guarantees” that would obligate countries to respond collectively if Ukraine were attacked. He also proposed defining which states would be responsible for ground support, air defense, and maritime security, alongside commitments to fund Ukraine’s armed forces.

Speaking in Kiev on Friday, Rutte called for strengthening Ukraine’s military capacity and putting in place binding guarantees from Europe and the US. Some nations have even floated sending peacekeepers, while Canada has not ruled out contributing troops. Washington has rejected deploying ground forces but left open the possibility of air support. After meeting Trump earlier this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed that Ukraine’s security must be ensured but warned against solutions that exclude Moscow. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that guarantees “must be subject to consensus” and denounced proposals involving foreign military intervention as “absolutely unacceptable.”

Read more …

The Supreme Court as a woke podium.

The Judicial Calvinball of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Turley)

“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity.” Those words of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson came in a recent interview, wherein the justice explained how she felt liberated after becoming a member of the Supreme Court “to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues. And that’s what I try to do.” Jackson’s sense of liberation has increasingly become the subject of consternation on the court itself, as she unloads on her colleagues in strikingly strident opinions. Most recently, Jackson went ballistic after her colleagues reversed another district court judge who issued a sweeping injunction barring the Trump Administration from canceling roughly $783 million in grants in the National Institutes of Health. Again writing alone, Jackson unleashed a tongue-lashing on her colleagues, who she suggested were unethical, unthinking cutouts for Trump.

She denounced her fellow justices, stating, “This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.” For some of us who have followed Jackson’s interestingly controversial tenure on the court, it was crushingly ironic. Although Jackson accused her colleagues of following a new rule that they must always rule with Trump, she herself is widely viewed as the very embodiment of the actual rule of the made-up game based on the comic strip of Calvin and Hobbes. In Jacksonian jurisprudence, it often seems like there are no fixed rules, only fixed outcomes. She then attacks her colleagues for a lack of integrity or empathy. To quote Calvin, Jackson proves that “there’s no problem so awful that you can’t add some guilt to it and make it even worse.”

Jackson has attacked her colleagues in opinions, shattering traditions of civility and restraint. Her colleagues have clearly had enough. She now regularly writes diatribes that neither of her fellow liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan — are willing to sign on to. Indeed, she has raged against opinions that her liberal colleagues have joined. Take Stanley v. City of Sanford. Justices Jackson and Neil Gorsuch took some fierce swings at each other in a case concerning a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer. The majority, including Kagan, rejected a ridiculous claim from a Florida firefighter who sued for discrimination for a position that she had neither held nor sought.

The court ruled that the language of the statute clearly required plaintiffs to be “qualified” for a given position before they could claim to have been denied it due to discrimination. (Stanley has Parkinson’s disease and had taken a disability retirement at age 47 due to the progress of the disease.) Jackson, however, was irate that Stanley could not sue for the denial of a position that she never sought, held, or was qualified to perform. Jackson accused the majority of once again showing how “pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences as ‘textual’ inevitabilities.” It was not only deeply insulting, but perfectly bizarre, given that Kagan had joined in the majority opinion. Kagan is about as pure a textualist judge as she is a pure taxidermist.

Read more …

“Good luck with that plan when the FBI turns up tomorrow at your place of work.”

Trump Fires Fed Governor Lisa Cook For “Potentially Criminal Conduct” (ZH)

Update (2330ET): Former Fed governor Lisa Cook says she will not resign, the Washington Post reports, citing a statement from Cook. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” Cook said through a spokeswoman: WaPo “I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022,” Cook said. Good luck with that plan when the FBI turns up tomorrow at your place of work.
* * *
Promises made… promises kept… On Friday, President Trump warned that he would fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook who allegedly “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms” if she didn’t resign… She immediately played the victim card, claiming she “would not be bullied”. But now that is moot as President Trump has fired her, effective immediately: ” I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position…

The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks. The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity. At a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”

Read more …

“Everybody else is cancelling currency and putting in capital controls, and Trump is going in the opposite direction.”

“I still want to have one of those $500 notes.”

War, Trump’s New $500 Note & Volcanos -Martin Armstrong (USAW)

Five weeks ago, legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong warned his “Socrates” predictive computer program showed a “100% Chance of Nuclear War.” After that, Trump was able to get Putin to Alaska to start meaningful peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. The chance for war is still 100%, but now, that war may not involve America. Armstrong explains, “My sources in Ukraine are telling me the losses on the battlefield are approaching 1.8 million, 5 million fled to Russia, 8 million fled to the EU. . .. Ukraine is about ready to fall apart. . .. I spread this to Washington and that is President Zelensky was sending $50 million per month to UAE. So, Zelensky has been preparing to leave. There is no way this guy could possibly retire in Ukraine. They will kill him.”

Does this mean the war may be over? Zelensky and nearly all of Europe’s leaders came to Washington recently to meet with President Trump, but it really was not to talk peace. Armstrong says, “The fact that all those leaders came to Washington—uninvited, they all met with Zelensky before they went to meet with Trump. Why did they come? Because they need war. I have warned Washington.” So, if Europe starts a wider war with Russia, will Trump stay out of it? Armstrong says, “Yes, Trump said no American troops from what I have been told. Trump refuses to send any American troops to Ukraine as peacekeepers—period.”

Reading between the lines, does this mean Trump is putting the EU on notice we are not going to Article 5 in if you start a war? Armstrong says, “Article 5 is voluntary. I have made this very clear to them in Washington. You don’t have to participate. . .. I can’t stop the war. The best I can do is reduce the amplitude. If I can keep America out of this war, that is our best outcome. . .. Europe knows it’s in trouble financially. They have $335 billion of Russian assets frozen. France has about $71 billion. . .. The rumor going around right now is if there is a peace deal and they have to release those frozen assets, France can’t because they have been dipping into them. Europe is a complete mess. When it comes down to handing back $335 billion in Russian assets, I am not sure Europe is prepared to do that.”

Armstrong says forget all the talk of the elite wanting to get rid of cash and replace it with digital currency. Armstrong says, “No, no, no. Why is Trump talking about a $500 note. . .. Trump would not even contemplate doing a $500 bill if he was going to cancel the currency. Everybody else is cancelling currency and putting in capital controls, and Trump is going in the opposite direction. . .. Gold is still projected to go much higher because it is anticipating war.”

One of the surprising things Armstrong brought up are new signals from “Socrates” on increasing volcanic activity all over the world. Hawaii’s Kilauea eruption happened for the 31st time since December on Friday. It spewed lava for 12 hours, and then there was the recent eruption in Northeast Russia that had a huge eruption after 600 years of lying dormant. Armstrong says, “We have every data base in there. Earthquakes, volcanos and temperatures back to 1869 from New York City. It does not show global warming. . .. The computer says we are heading to global cooling and not global warming. . .. The computer is showing from 2025 on, we are going to be seeing a lot more volcanic activity. I just got off the phone with someone from Italy, and they say the super volcano there is starting to become active.”

In closing, Armstrong says, “I still want to have one of those $500 notes.”]

Read more …

“The black King of Dahomey.”

A Lesson on Slavery for CNN (Paul Craig Roberts)

The saga of American slavery has more holes in it than the Zionist saga of the Holocaust. Recently President Trump wondered about the woke Smithsonian Institute’s fixation on slavery as if it was the principal problem the world faces today. The liberal media had a hissy fit. CNN rushed to do a program on slavery, the woke rectification for which is multiculturalism and the replacement of the white racist population by people of color. This is the political agenda of the Democrat Party. To watch white people so determined to achieve their own destruction by voting Democrat is amazing. The response made by those critical of CNN’s attack on white Americans was that slavery was a matter of the distant past, and we made amends for our responsibility in a civil war.

What nonsense. No American ever had any responsibility for slavery. The black King of Dahomey did. Here are the undeniable, indisputable, basic facts: Over the course of history far more white people have been slaves than blacks. Some of these white slaves were held by Romans and other conquerors in ancient times. Most were held by people of color who raided Europe’s Mediterranean coast for slaves. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the US (1801-1809) had to send the US Navy and Marines to “the shores of Tripoli” to stop the North Africans from capturing American ships and enslaving their passengers and crews. In the New World (Caribbean Islands, North and South America) European colonists found abundant resources but no labor force.

British and European sea captains saw a business opportunity in purchasing slaves from the black King of Dahomey and selling them to the colonists as a labor force. The black King of Dahomey conducted annual slave wars against other blacks and sold the surplus to Arabs and to European sea captains. No white colonist in what later became the United States ever enslaved a black person. They purchased blacks already enslaved by the black King of Dahomey. When the United States came into existence in the late 18th century, slavery was an inherited institution. Slavery existed as the labor force for large agricultural plantations, the agri-businesses of the time. The plantations using slave labor did not enslave the slaves. They purchased already enslaved labor as no work force was available.

In the United States slavery was doomed as the frontier closed. Slavery had a long life because white immigrants who entered America could avoid becoming agricultural labor by moving west and occupying land to which the native Americans had use rights but not ownership rights as understood in Western law. Thus the native inhabitants could be dispossessed. As the constant stream of immigrant-invaders, such as the US and Europe are experiencing today, continued, the Indian lands were settled by the immigrant-invaders and the frontier closed by 1890. Slavery could not have existed beyond that date and, in fact, could not have lasted that long. Slavery was costly compared to the wages of free labor.

Slavery was an expensive labor force. In 19th century America a male field hand cost $1,500. If a slave had blacksmith or carpenter skills, he cost $2,000. The price of a slave was three to four times the annual income of a skilled white man such as a blacksmith. Moreover, a slave, if he was to be productive, needed sufficient food, housing, and medical care. Moreover, he required respect and appreciation, Many of the slaves were warriors captured in the black King of Dahomey’s slave wars. They were experienced fighters and had to be treated with respect. For a white plantation owner to be surrounded by a large number of black men and for him to expect them to work required his respect and proper treatment of his labor force in which he had a large investment.

Propaganda such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin was northern war propaganda against the South. A few issues back, the City Journal posed the question of who was in charge of a rice or sugar plantation in the Caribbean when the one white owner, the only white on the premises, had a work force of 50 black men. The idea that it was customary to whip black warriors and to rape their wives is farfetched.

Read more …

“Making God”

‘Godfather of AI’ Warns Superintelligent Machines Could Replace Humanity (ET)

Geoffrey Hinton, the pioneering computer scientist called the “godfather of AI,” has once again sounded the alarm that the very technology he helped bring to life could spell the end of humanity as we know it. In an interview clip released Aug. 18 as part of the forthcoming film “Making God,” Hinton delivered one of his starkest warnings yet. He said that humanity risks being sidelined—and eventually replaced—by machines far smarter than ourselves. “Most people aren’t able to comprehend the idea of things more intelligent than us,” Hinton, a Nobel Prize winner for physics and a former Google executive, said in the clip. “They always think, ‘Well, how are we going to use this thing?’ They don’t think, ‘Well, how’s it going to use us?’”

Hinton said he is “fairly confident” that artificial intelligence will drive massive unemployment, pointing to early examples of tech giants such as Microsoft replacing junior programmers with AI. But the larger danger, he said, goes far beyond the workplace. The only silver lining is that “it won’t eat us, because it’ll be made of silicon,” he said. Hinton, 77, has spent decades pioneering deep learning, the neural network architecture that underpins today’s artificial intelligence systems. His breakthroughs in the 1980s—particularly the invention of the Boltzmann machine, which could learn to recognize patterns in data—helped open the door to image recognition and modern machine learning.

That work earned him the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded “for foundational discoveries and inventions that enable machine learning with artificial neural networks.” The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted how Hinton’s early use of statistical physics provided the conceptual leap that made today’s AI revolution possible. But Hinton has since emerged as one of the field’s fiercest critics, warning that its rapid development has outpaced society’s ability to keep it safe. In 2023, he resigned from his role at Google so he could speak freely about the risks without implicating the company. In his Nobel lecture, Hinton acknowledged the potential benefits of AI—such as productivity gains and new medical treatments that could be a “wonderful advance for all humanity.” Yet he also warned that creating digital beings more intelligent than humans poses an “existential threat.”

“I wish I’d thought about safety issues too,” he said during the recent Ai4 conference in Las Vegas, reflecting on his career. He noted that he now regrets solely focusing on making AI work, rather than anticipating its risks. Hinton has previously estimated that there is a 10 percent to 20 percent chance that AI could wipe out humanity. In a June episode of The Diary of a CEO podcast, he said that the engineers behind today’s AI systems don’t fully understand the technology and broadly fall into two camps: one that believes in a dystopian future where humans are displaced, and the other that dismisses such fears as science fiction. “I think both of those positions are extreme,” Hinton said. “I often say 10 percent to 20 percent chance [for AI] to wipe us out. But that’s just gut, based on the idea that we’re still making them and we’re pretty ingenious. And the hope is that if enough smart people do enough research with enough resources, we’ll figure out a way to build them so they’ll never want to harm us.”

Read more …

“If not for its exclusive deal with OpenAI, Apple would have no reason to refrain from more prominently featuring the X app and the Grok app in its App Store.”

Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots (ZH)

Elon Musk’s X and xAI have filed a federal lawsuit in Fort Worth, Texas, accusing Apple and OpenAI of “locking up markets” to preserve their monopolies and shut out rivals. This comes as Musk’s long-running feud with OpenAI chief Sam Altman intensifies. The lawsuit centers on Apple’s recent deal to make OpenAI’s ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot on the iPhone’s operating system, effectively shutting out xAI’s Grok and other rivals, such as Google’s Gemini and Anthropic. The lawsuit’s introduction argues that Apple and OpenAI have teamed up to protect their monopolies in smartphones and AI chatbots:

“This is a tale of two monopolists joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence (“AI”). Working in tandem, Defendants Apple and OpenAI have locked up markets to maintain their monopolies and prevent innovators like X and xAI from competing.1 Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages. AI is fundamentally reshaping our world. Technology powered by AI has not only become embedded in our daily lives but is also transforming critical sectors like healthcare, education, and finance.

The consensus among global business leaders, academics, and scientists is that AI adoption is both unavoidable and transformational—and businesses that do not plan for it risk falling behind. As Apple now recognizes, AI poses an existential threat to its business. For example, AI is rapidly advancing the rise of “super apps”—i.e., multi-functional platforms that offer many of the services of smartphones, such as social connectivity and messaging, financial services, e-commerce, and entertainment—that do not require a customer to be tied to a particular device. In other words, super apps, like those being developed by X and xAI, stand ready to upend the smartphone market and Apple’s entrenched monopoly in it.

The writing is on the wall. Apple’s Senior Vice President for Services, Eddy Cue, has expressed worries that AI might destroy Apple’s smartphone business, just as Apple’s iPhone did to Nokia’s handsets. Apple knows it cannot escape the inevitable—at least not alone. In a desperate bid to protect its smartphone monopoly, Apple has joined forces with the company that most benefits from inhibiting competition and innovation in AI: OpenAI, a monopolist in the market for generative AI chatbots. OpenAI quickly rose to dominance in the generative AI chatbot market after introducing its flagship service, ChatGPT, in 2022. Today, OpenAI controls at least 80 percent of the market. Because of OpenAI’s monopoly, other generative AI chatbots have struggled to gain share. xAI’s Grok has yet to gain more than a few percent of the market despite accolades about its superior features.

Just like Apple, OpenAI has incentive to protect its monopoly by thwarting competition and innovation in the generative AI chatbot market. And just like Apple, it has done so in violation of the antitrust laws.

In June 2024, Apple and OpenAI announced that Apple would integrate OpenAI’s ChatGPT into Apple’s iPhone operating system (“iOS”). Apple and OpenAI’s exclusive arrangement has made ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot integrated into the iPhone. This means that if iPhone users want to use a generative AI chatbot for key tasks on their devices, they have no choice but to use ChatGPT, even if they would prefer to use more innovative and imaginative products like xAI’s Grok. An OpenAI strategy document recognized the importance of competition in this emerging and transformational space: “Real choice drives competition and benefits everyone. Users should be able to pick their AI assistant.” Yet Apple and OpenAI have colluded to prevent exactly that.”

X and xAI argue: “If not for its exclusive deal with OpenAI, Apple would have no reason to refrain from more prominently featuring the X app and the Grok app in its App Store.” Just a few weeks ago, Musk threatened Apple with legal action over alleged antitrust violations regarding the App Store rankings of the Grok AI chatbot. He wrote in an X post that Apple’s behavior “makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store.” Musk is seeking an injunction to block Apple and OpenAI’s exclusive chatbot deal and billions in damages. If successful, the case could reshape how AI bots are distributed on smartphones.

Read more …

“Veldkamp, who previously served as Dutch ambassador to Israel, had advocated a ban on imports from Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories..”

Dutch Foreign Minister Quits Over Israel (RT)

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp has stepped down in protest over the coalition government’s refusal to impose sanctions on Israel for its actions in Gaza. The resignation of Veldkamp, along with the country’s Minister for Foreign Trade Hanneke Boerma, has reduced the Dutch caretaker government to holding just 32 out of 150 seats. In a statement on Saturday the foreign ministry said that “after a meeting of the cabinet on the situation in Gaza,” the Social Contract (NSC) party, of which both officials are members, decided to withdraw from the caretaker coalition government.Veldkamp, who previously served as Dutch ambassador to Israel, had advocated a ban on imports from Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories in response to Israel’s continued military offensive in Gaza.

In a statement on its website on Friday, the party said that it had sought “additional measures” against Israel in light of the “increasingly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza.” However, the other two coalition partners refused to back sanctions, prompting the NSC to pull out in protest. On Thursday, the Netherlands, along with 20 other nations, signed a joint declaration condemning Israeli plans to build an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. Last month, Amsterdam declared two hardline Israeli ministers persona non grata. Back in June, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares called on the EU to “immediately suspend” the EU-Israel association agreement and impose a ban on arms sales to Israel.

In light of the ongoing Israeli military operation in Gaza, a growing number of traditionally pro-Israel Western countries, including France and the UK, have expressed in recent months a readiness to officially recognize Palestinian statehood. Earlier this week, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) announced the start of an operation to take full control of Gaza City. The conflict erupted after a Hamas incursion into southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which left about 1,200 people dead and 250 taken hostage. According to Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, more than 62,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed by Israeli strikes in the enclave since then.

Read more …

They’e playing politics. But what do they think?

US Scientists Axe ‘Woke’ To Keep Cash Flowing – WSJ (RT)

Researchers in the US have been revising their grant renewal applications en masse in recent months over fears that wording tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could cost them government funding, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday Since taking office in January, US President Donald Trump, a long-time critic of what he views as “divisive” leftist narratives, has taken numerous steps to eradicate such policies and even associated language at the government level. Promoted by his predecessor Democrat Joe Biden, DEI programs sought to ensure that sexual and racial minorities were better represented in government agencies. The Trump administration has described the initiatives as “illegal and immoral discrimination.”

The WSJ wrote that at least 600 grant renewal applications since October 2024 had removed “terms associated with diversity, equity and inclusion,” such as “diverse,” “underrepresented,” and “disparities.” The outlet said it had reviewed thousands of applications for National Institutes of Health-funded projects in the fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Some scientists have also reportedly shifted the focus of studies that were originally centered on minority groups. A Johns Hopkins University spokesperson confirmed to the WSJ that “federal agencies have asked researchers to make modest modifications” before renewing grants. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order mandating a review of government DEI initiatives.

Addressing a joint session of Congress in March, Trump declared that “we’ve ended the tyranny of so-called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and indeed the private sector and our military.” He stressed that appointments should be made strictly on the basis of skills and competence, not race or gender. The Trump administration has also targeted a number of elite universities, including Harvard, for their failure to address “anti-Semitic” protests in support of Palestine and abolish DEI policies, suspending federal funding and restricting international student enrollment.

Read more …

A rose by any other name…

Trump Proposes Renaming Department of Defense to Its Original Name (ET)

President Donald Trump proposed on Aug. 25 that his administration rename the Department of Defense to its previous name, the Department of War. “Pete, you started off by saying ’the Department of Defense.’ And somehow it didn’t sound good to me,” Trump said in the Oval Office, speaking to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, after signing executive orders on fighting crime, including in Washington. “Defense. What are we, defense? Why are we defense? It used to be called the Department of War, and it had a stronger sound. And, as you know, we won World War I, we won World War II, we won everything. Now we have a Department of Defense. We’re defenders. I don’t know.” Hegseth, standing behind Trump, said the name change is on the way. “That’s coming soon, sir,” he told Trump.

Trump said that “Department of War” sounds better than “Department of Defense.” “Defense? I don’t want to be Defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too, if that’s OK,” he said, adding that “as Department of War, we won everything, we won everything. And I think we’re going to have to go back to that.” Trump touted bringing an end to conflicts between India and Pakistan and the Congo and Rwanda. This was not the first time Trump had suggested changing the Defense Department back to its previous name. “You know it used to be called secretary of war,” Trump told reporters on June 25 at the NATO summit in the Netherlands. “Maybe for a couple of weeks we’ll call it that because we feel like warriors.” He introduced Hegseth as “secretary of war.” “Then we became politically correct and they called it secretary of defense,” Trump said. “Maybe we’ll have to think about changing it. But we feel that way.”

Prior to becoming defense secretary, Hegseth called for changing the Defense Department back to its old name. “Sure, our military defends us. And in a perfect world it exists to deter threats and preserve peace,” he wrote in his 2024 memoir, “The War on Warriors—Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.” “But ultimately its job is to conduct war. We either win or lose wars. And we have warriors, not ‘defenders. Bringing back the War Department may remind a few people in Washington, D.C., what the military is supposed to do, and do well.” The Defense Department was called the Department of War when it was established in 1789. In 1947, President Harry Truman changed the name after merging it with the Navy Department. He signed the National Security Act, which established the position of secretary of defense. It also established the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. Air Force.

Read more …

Once you have a Department of War, a Peace Nobel can’t be far behind.

Giving Trump The Nobel Peace Prize Makes Some Sense (Lukyanov)

In the early 1980s, former US President Jimmy Carter visited Stockholm. At a reception he approached Stig Ramel, the long-serving executive director of the Nobel Foundation, and asked with some bitterness why he had not received the Peace Prize for brokering the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. “If I had been awarded it, I might have been re-elected for a second term,” Carter remarked. He had lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Ramel’s reply was blunt: “I’m sorry, Mr. President, but you were not nominated.” The 1978 prize went instead to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Carter’s story illustrates how the Nobel Prize has always been as much about timing and perception as about substance. And it brings us neatly to Donald Trump.

Unlike Carter, Trump has no problem with nominations. They come thick and fast, from Rwanda, Cambodia, Gabon, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and beyond. Individuals and organizations have joined the chorus. Trump has even gone a step further: he has demanded the prize outright, loudly and repeatedly. Vanity, not diplomacy, drives him. Carter sought the award to improve his electoral prospects. Trump simply wants every trophy on the shelf. Does the spectacle make sense? Strictly speaking, to be considered this year Trump had to be nominated by January 31 – just ten days after his return to the White House. Yet precedent suggests this is no obstacle. Barack Obama received the Peace Prize in his first year as president, when he had scarcely done anything to warrant it.

Alfred Nobel’s will set out clear criteria: the prize should go to the person who has done most “for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the promotion of peace congresses.” Judged against that standard, Trump looks an unlikely candidate. He is one of the most polarizing figures on the planet. America’s military budget is heading toward a record $1 trillion in 2026, hardly a sign of “reduction of standing armies.” Yet the White House insists Trump deserves recognition. Officials cite half a dozen cases, from preventing nuclear war between India and Pakistan to halting conflicts in smaller states. The centerpiece, of course, is Ukraine. Washington is hinting that Trump’s approach may finally bring the war to a close – with the timing of any peace announcement conveniently close to the Nobel Committee’s own deliberations.

The pitch has not been flawless. In touting his record, Trump recently confused Armenia with Albania. But these are minor slips. What matters is the narrative: that Trump alone can impose order where others have failed. Is the Nobel Committee likely to indulge him? Its members are not known for rewarding bluster. But Europe’s leaders are desperate to appease Washington’s eccentric benefactor. It is not inconceivable that some will lobby behind the scenes in Trump’s favor. In one sense, awarding him the prize would not be absurd. The Nobel Committee has always sought to encourage gestures toward peace, however imperfect. Today, in a world of upheaval, genuine solutions are scarce. At best, one can try to ease tensions.

Trump, in his way, is doing just that – using every tool available, from demonstrative military threats to wild rhetoric and economic coercion. Others are doing even less. To paraphrase Lenin, a Nobel for Trump would be “essentially justified, formally a mockery.” It would capture the spirit of the age: a prize not for genuine reconciliation but for the ability to posture as a peacemaker in a fractured world. Carter, who once felt slighted, eventually did receive the award – more than twenty years after leaving office, in recognition of his peacemaking work as an ex-president. The Camp David accords remain in force to this day, a rare achievement in Middle East diplomacy. Trump is cut from a different cloth. He will not wait decades. By age and by temperament, he demands everything now. Or never at all.

Read more …

“Well, I mean, I’m talking about the — the — I had had, there was a. . . . —Ghislaine Maxwell

Ghislaine ‘Splainin’ (James Howard Kunstler)

Did you happen to bother reading the transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview? It’s tough sledding at times — both Ms. Maxwell and Deputy AG Todd Blanche tend to speak in choppy, incomplete sentences (as does, you might have noticed, President Trump) — but altogether the confab reveals that just about everything you think you know about the scandal might not be so, and her story is full of shocking surprises, assuming you can believe her. For instance, Ms. Maxwell had exactly one night of actual sex with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 1990s, a few months after they met, and that was it. He had problems with straight-up sex, she says. At first, he claimed to have a heart condition.

She says he had erectile difficulty “. . . which meant that he didn’t have intercourse a lot, which suited me fine, because I actually do have a medical condition, which precludes me having a lot of intercourse,” she added. (We never learn what that condition was, exactly.) Anyway, she never had sex with him again. Huh. . .? There goes one pillar of the public perception of the scandal: that Ghislaine Maxwell was a sort of nymphomaniac consort of Mr. Epstein, while supposedly acting as chief procurer of his masseuse “victims” and that the whole decades-long saga was a cavalcade of threesomes and orgies. She even claims at one point of being “a prude.” So, what was her role in JE’s complicated life? Basically, a property manager, she says. You know, all those houses and compounds: the mansion on East 71st Street, the Palm Beach place, the ranch in New Mexico, Little St. James Island, a flat in Paris.

It was a lot to manage. She had to hire architects, construction crews, interior decorators, servants. There were horses to care for at the ranch. It was a lot. She didn’t even have a key to JE’s New York City townhouse and was there only twice, she told Mr. Blanche. During that time, JE had other girlfriends while in the early 2000s, Ms. Maxwell hooked up with the billionaire founder of Gateway Computers, Ted Waitt. He bought a big boat for them to start-up an oceanic research venture. The relationship foundered when, she says, a sketchy lawyer named Scott Rothstein, working for a crooked Florida law firm that was under a RICO investigation at the time, attempted to extract $10-million from Waitt to keep Ms. Maxwell’s name out of lawsuits brought by women claiming to be “victims” of Epstein’s massage shenanigans.

Ms. Maxwell claims that Epstein’s masseuses, underage or otherwise, were recruited by the original masseuses, not by her (Ms. Maxwell). Ms. Maxwell was out of Epstein’s life after 2009, when he got out of jail on state of Florida charges of soliciting prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution. This was preceded by a sketchy federal case brought in the Southern District of Florida that ended with a peculiar non-prosecution agreement — when US Attorney Alexander Acosta was told to lay off on account of Epstein being an “intel asset.” Ms. Maxwell states in the new deposition that JE was not associated with any intel agency, claiming it would have been in his nature to brag about it. It would help if FBI chief Kash Patel or CIA head John Ratcliffe could clarify that. They would surely know, one way or the other.

Of course, the heart of all the salacious chatter about Epstein is the claim that he worked for Israel’s Mossad intel agency, and that many eminent global persons were recorded having sex with underage masseuses in order to blackmail them (and, supposedly, allow nefarious hidden parties to control world political affairs.) Ms. Maxwell maintains that this is not so. She says there were no hidden cameras in bedrooms or elsewhere in the many Epstein properties or airplanes, and that she would know because she hired the electricians who installed everything else in them. There were only the usual security cameras on front entrances and gates. . . except for the Palm Beach house where local police installed a camera in JE’s office to catch a thief who was stealing cash stashed there. (Turned out to be JE’s butler, who was fired.)

Another thread at the center of the Epstein rumor mill is the notorious Epstein client list — supposedly of notables alleged to have cavorted with Epstein’s masseuses. Ms. Maxwell claims there was no such list, that a fake list was concocted by attorney Brad Edwards who represented women claiming to be Epstein “victims” in the lawsuit connected with the $10-million Ted Waitt blackmail caper. The list was composed from notes supposedly made off a computer by that same Epstein butler, one Alfredo Rodriguez. When interviewed in 2007, Rodriguez failed to produce the so-called “black book.” In 2009, he offered to sell it to attorney Brad Edwards (representing various “victims”) for $50,000. In 2010, Rodriguez was convicted of obstruction of justice and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He died in 2015.

A lot of monkey business in all this, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps the most astounding point is Ms. Maxwell’s assertion that no government attorney (or any other official, including from the FBI) ever interviewed her, or even called her on the telephone, during all the years of legal wrangling that went on. Say, what. . . ? How could that possibly be? Well, apparently it is so.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

SV40


Blue Dragon

Bees

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1960045888170004599

Bird

Pebble

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 172025
 


Edward Hopper Night in the park 1921

 

Putin & Trump Rewrite the Rules of Great Power Politics in Alaska (Sp.)
Trump-Zelensky Call ‘Wasn’t Easy’ – Axios (RT)
The Alaska Summit Was A Success. The Challenge Is To Make It Last (Amar)
Trump Plans White House Meeting With Zelensky and European Leaders – NYT (RT)
Trump Wants Summit With Putin And Zelensky Next Friday – Media (RT)
President Trump Outlines a Remarkably Altruistic Intention (CTH)
The Putin-Trump Meeting (Paul Craig Roberts)
Visit to Alaska Was Timely and Very Useful – Putin (Sp.)
The Legacy Media Won’t Touch These mRNA Vaccine Study Findings (Margolis)
Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy? (Victor Davis Hanson)
Merz’s Germany: 100 Days Of Economic Deep Freeze (Kolbe)
France’s Debt Time Bomb Is Ticking Beneath The Summer Calm (Kolbe)
Meta Faces US Probe Over AI Flirting With Kids (RT)
DOGE’s AI Tool ‘SweetREX’ Set To Take Buzzsaw To Federal Regulations (ZH)
Schwarzenegger Taunts Newsom With Message Targeting Dem Redistricting Push (Fox)
Lavrov Prompts USSR Sweatshirt Craze (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/1956538006787223966

Change

3am
https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1956616187431047666

Maher
https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1956550733471289752

ActBlue
https://twitter.com/TRUMP_ARMY_/status/1956022193495634217

 

 

 

 

“On Friday, Trump said Ukraine’s security won’t come “in the form of NATO.”

 

 

I’m starting to think Trump wants a more comprehensive deal than what we’ve seen so far. And that deal, with Russia, is very important to him: it’s the way to peace. Sometime in the past few days Putin has said that talks are no use if Zelensky and Europe insist on the narrative that Russia’s Special Military Operation came out of nowhere, unprovoked. It was Ukraine that started killing Russian-speakers in the Donbass. Trump appears to agree. He had Zelensky come to the Oval Office anyway on Monday, now he invited Europe as well. So he doesn’t have to tell the same story twice. When that story is gone, what is left?

Putin & Trump Rewrite the Rules of Great Power Politics in Alaska (Sp.)

The Putin-Trump summit was an unqualified success that could pave the way for peace in Ukraine, and the normalization of Russia-US relations for years to come. Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of research at the Russian Council on Foreign & Defense Policy, explains why. Three key reasons:

1. The summit “gave impetus” to Russia-US normalization on all fronts – from Ukraine and arms control to economic cooperation

2. Trump’s calls to Zelensky and European leaders in the meeting’s immediate aftermath signals that “negotiations were conducted on specific conditions for a final peace settlement,” not the ‘ceasefire as a prerequisite’ long demanded by Brussels and Kiev. This is “fundamentally important,” Suslov says

3. The summit was “historic” in the sense that it “made a great contribution to…laying the foundations of the future world order, a post-war world order. Because the Ukrainian conflict is, first and foremost, the largest and most severe military conflict in the world in the last few decades, and a concentrated expression of the hybrid war waged by the West against Russia.”

“The summit in Alaska was dedicated to ending this hybrid war,” demonstrating that the foundations for a future world order will be based on dialogue between great powers, on equal terms.

Now, Suslov says, it’s up to the Europeans and Zelensky to decide whether they accept the terms outlined by Putin and Trump. If they do, preparations for future meetings can begin. “If they categorically refuse, the United States will most likely completely suspend the transfer of US intelligence and stop deliveries and sales of weapons and military equipment to the Europeans for Ukraine,” which would “fundamentally and radically weaken Ukraine’s position on the battlefield and bring a Russian military victory much closer.” Suslov expects the ‘war party’ in Washington and Brussels to try to convince Trump to abandon whatever agreements were reached with Putin in Anchorage, but doesn’t expect Trump to “succumb to such provocations,” because he is much stronger politically than he was in his first term.

The second Trump administration is not on the defensive, but on the offensive, regarding the Russiagate hoax, and is in a position to accuse the Democrats of collusion and falsification in 2016, not the other way around. “Accordingly, Trump can withstand the pressure that will now be exerted upon him from Europe, from the American deep state, and from the American war party, including the terrorist extremist Senator Graham and so on,” Suslov says. Last but not least is the minutia of the summit, from the way Trump greeted Putin on the airport runway, to the flyover of US aviation, to the fact that Putin and Trump rode together in one car to the summit venue.

There was a visible “demonstration of personal affection between Putin and Trump for each other in a situation where the United States has been waging a hybrid war against Russia…and trying to inflict a strategic defeat on it” over the course of the past three years as a result of the policies of Trump’s predecessor. The overall tone, and demonstration of respect and personal sympathy, mark a “striking contrast” to the tone under the Biden administration, Suslov emphasized.

Read more …

At the end of a very long day, Trump had another hours-long talk with Zelensky and Europe whining on the other end of the line.

Trump-Zelensky Call ‘Wasn’t Easy’ – Axios (RT)

The phone call between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky after the Alaska summit on Friday “wasn’t easy,” Axios correspondent Barak Ravid claimed on Saturday, citing a source with direct knowledge. Key European leaders later joined the call as well. Trump spoke with Zelensky for about an hour, according to Ravid. Also on the line were Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, both of whom had earlier taken part in the talks with the Russian delegation. The leaders of the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Poland, as well as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, later joined the call, which lasted another 30 minutes, according to the journalist.

Ravid described the call as “not easy,” though he did not elaborate on this, adding only that Trump insisted that “a fast peace deal is better than a ceasefire.” The US president later confirmed the sentiment, writing: “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.” Zelensky said that during the phone call with Trump the two agreed that he would come on Monday to Washington to discuss in person the outcome of the summit.

Ukraine and its Western backers have for months been pushing for a temporary ceasefire. While Russia has never ruled out the idea, it has argued that such a step would allow Kiev to receive more Western weapons, continue forced mobilization, and recover its losses at a time when Russian troops are pressing their advantage on the battlefield. Meanwhile, both Putin and Trump praised the Alaska talks as productive. The US president said that they moved closer to resolving the conflict while urging Zelensky to “make a deal.”

Read more …

“..they and the mainstream media aligned with them cannot stop trying to lecture Trump on, in essence, how gullible they consider him..”

The Alaska Summit Was A Success. The Challenge Is To Make It Last (Amar)

Do not expect Western mainstream media, NATO-EU Europe’s politicians, or the Zelensky regime and its surrogates to admit it, but there is no doubt that the Alaska summit between the Russian and American presidents was a success. Not a breakthrough either, but clearly also more than an “it’s-good-they’re-at-least-talking” event. This was not comparable to the Geneva meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and then US President Joe Biden in 2021, which was doomed to fail due to the Biden administration’s hubristic intransigence. Fundamentally, both sides – no, not only one – have scored what Western pundits love to call “wins”: The US has shown the EU-NATO Europeans that it and it alone decides when and how it talks to Russia and with what aims.

The European vassals find this hard to grasp because it’s an application of genuine sovereignty, something they don’t have or want anymore. Russia, for its part, has shown that it can negotiate while the fighting continues and that it is under no legal or moral obligation – or any practical pressure – to stop fighting before negotiations show results it finds satisfying. The fact that we know so little – at this point at least – about the specific, detailed content of the summit talks and their outcomes is, actually, a sign of seriousness. That is how diplomacy worth the name works: calmly, confidentially, and patiently taking the time to achieve a decent, robust result. In that context, US President Donald Trump’s explicit refusal to make public what points of disagreement remain and have prevented a breakthrough for now is a very good sign: Clearly, he believes that they can be cleared up in the near future and, thus, deserve discretion.

Yet we do have a few hints allowing for some plausible guessing about the summit’s vibe: Not surprisingly, both leaders made no secret of their respect and even guarded sympathy for each other. That is – and has always been – a good thing, too. But in and of itself that cannot carry an agreement about Ukraine or a broader policy of normalization (or perhaps even a new détente, if we are all very lucky). For that, both Trump and Putin are too serious about adhering to national interests. More tellingly, immediately after the meeting, Trump used a Fox News interview to state three important things. He confirmed that there was “much progress,” acknowledged that the Russian president wants peace, and told Zelensky “to make a deal.” When Putin, at a short press conference, warned Brussels and Kiev not to try to sabotage the talks, Trump did not contradict the Russian leader.

The commemorative events accompanying the summit carried more than one message. Publicly honoring the American-Russian (then Soviet) alliance of World War Two obviously implied that the two countries then cooperated intensely across a deep ideological divide, which, today, does not even exist anymore. But arguably, there was a second, subtle message here: Another – if often unjustly “forgotten” (in the words of historian Rana Mitter) – ally of World War Two was, after all, China. In that sense, Putin’s deliberate and repeated invocations of the memory of Washington-Moscow cooperation was also yet another signal that Russia would not be available for any “reverse Kissinger” fantasies of splitting the Moscow-Beijing partnership. By now, Trump has had phone conversations with Kiev, as well as EU capitals. There, too, we know little.

Yet it is interesting to note that nothing we have heard about these conversations indicates another change of mind on Trump’s side. For now at least, the American president seems to leave little hope to European bellicists and the regime in Kiev that he will turn against Moscow again. There are reports that Trump may have shifted his position toward that of Russia, preferring talks about peace to the Ukrainian demand to focus on only a ceasefire first. This makes sense, especially since they and the mainstream media aligned with them cannot stop trying to lecture Trump on, in essence, how gullible they consider him. It is to be hoped that the US president has had enough of Zelensky, Bolton, the New York Times and co. telling him publicly that he is a fool about to be duped by the big bad Russians. The adequate punishment for these offensive inanities is to make triple sure their authors find themselves entirely irrelevant.

Read more …

I doubt they will like what he has to say.

Trump Plans White House Meeting With Zelensky and European Leaders – NYT (RT)

US President Donald Trump has invited European leaders to join Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at a meeting at the White House on Monday, the New York Times has claimed, citing anonymous European officials. On Friday, Trump met with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Anchorage, Alaska, in what marked the first face-to-face talks between Russian and American leaders since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The US president described the encounter as “warm,” while Putin characterized it as “frank” and “substantive.” Both men expressed tentative hopes that the summit could bring a resolution of the Ukraine conflict closer.

On Saturday, the NYT quoted its sources as saying that Trump would receive Zelensky and that “European leaders are invited to come along” as well. Earlier in the day, the Ukrainian leader announced in a post on X that he would travel to the US capital on Monday. Trump later confirmed the visit. Trump will propose a plan under which Kiev would be required to cede the parts of the new Russian territories in Donbass still under Ukrainian control, according to the newspaper. In return, the Kremlin would agree to cease hostilities along the current front line elsewhere, the publication claimed. Zelensky has repeatedly ruled out any territorial concessions to Moscow.

In the wake of the Alaska summit, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland, Poland, and the EU issued a joint statement expressing their readiness to “work with President Trump and President Zelenskyy towards a trilateral summit with European support.” Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov earlier noted that Russia and the US have yet to discuss a potential meeting between Putin, Trump and Zelensky. Speaking to Fox Business on Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that Kiev’s European backers should “put up or shut up” and stop making demands on Washington while it tries to negotiate with Moscow a way out of the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

Putin won’t negotiate with Zelensky. He’ll only turn up to sign documents.

Trump Wants Summit With Putin And Zelensky Next Friday – Media (RT)

US President Donald Trump is seeking a trilateral summit with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin as early as next week, Axios and CNN have reported. The meeting could take place if Trump’s Oval Office talks with Zelensky on Monday are successful, according to the outlets. On Friday, Trump met Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, in their first face to face encounter since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Trump described the talks as “warm”, while the Russian president called them “frank” and “substantive.” After the Alaska summit, Trump and Zelensky held a phone call described by the media as “not easy.” European leaders also joined the conversation, during which the US president told them “he wants to arrange a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelensky as soon as next Friday,” according to Axios.

CNN later confirmed this, adding that at least one European leader is expected to take part in the Washington talks with Zelensky, although it is not yet clear who. Later on Saturday, Trump confirmed Zelensky’s Oval Office meeting on his Truth Social network, touting a follow-up meeting with Putin that could potentially take place afterwards. He added that the goal should be a peace agreement rather than a temporary ceasefire, “which often times do not hold up.”= Moscow has insisted that a lasting settlement requires Kiev to renounce its ambitions for NATO membership, demilitarize, and recognize current territorial realities. This includes Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye as part of Russia – regions that voted to join the country in referendums held in 2014 and 2022.

Zelensky has consistently rejected any territorial concessions. Trump later told Fox News that Zelensky should “make the deal,” stressing that Putin “wants to see it done” and urging Europe to “get involved a little bit.” Putin has not ruled out direct talks with Zelensky but stressed they must be preceded by progress on a wider settlement. Moscow has also questioned Zelensky’s authority to sign binding agreements, noting that his presidential term expired last year and that no new elections have been held under martial law.

Read more …

Sundance: better relations with Russia requires crushing the Russiagate hoax. That is more important to Trump than locking up Comey, Brennan et al. MAGA take notice.

President Trump Outlines a Remarkably Altruistic Intention (CTH)

Fox News host Bret Baier was given exclusive access to President Trump during the much-anticipated summit in Alaska. Baier interviewed President Trump on Airforce One going to Anchorage and during the day’s events. In this interview, Baier asked President Trump what his expectations were going in. Trump noted it is not his place to negotiate the terms of a ceasefire on behalf of Ukraine; however, he is willing to be an intermediary in a focused effort to stop the conflict.

Stopping the killing is President Trump’s main priority and peace is the elusive prize. In the background, as previously noted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the administration accepts the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a proxy war between the former Biden administration officials, NATO warmongers, international banking interests and Russia. In a moment of genuine sunlight upon the backstory, President Trump notes he told President Putin, “There’s no way we are going to make a deal” … “impossible” … “because I have wise guys who created a phony deal,” the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, “and until those things are settled up” a reset in the relationship with Russia is impossible.

This framework essentially validates what a small group of deep weeds walkers, including myself, have suspected. From the perspective of Trump and his big picture objectives, the recent Russiagate releases and declassifications are not so much to get accountability upon the perpetrators, but rather to make the backstory so well known that a strategic reset with Russia is no longer impeded by manufactured domestic issues inside the USA. The value in Russiagate declassification and information releases, is more about laying the groundwork for a reset – and stopping the political opposition therein. That’s the Big Picture value to President Trump.

That is quite a big and significantly magnanimous position to take by President Trump. Hopefully, the MAGA base will eventually come around to this understanding, because right now they are intensely expecting criminal accountability. That’s not President Trump’s goal, he’s thinking much bigger and more consequential that holding the irrelevant gnats accountable. Apparently, Hillary Clinton can see that. It’s such a big altruistic position her tribe appears genuinely stunned. Hopefully, the base of MAGA will also accept this strategic purpose.

Read more …

“Putin said that the meeting marked the transition from confrontation and threats to dialogue. This prospect alone made the meeting worthwhile. These are good results.”

The Putin-Trump Meeting (Paul Craig Roberts)

What do we make of it? A good result came of it. Trump moved away from his demand for a ceasefire and said that it was more important to work toward a permanent peace than a ceasefire which is seldom kept. This would seem to commit Trump to addressing the root cause of the conflict, which is Russia’s insecurity with NATO all over her borders. Putin said that the meeting marked the transition from confrontation and threats to dialogue. This prospect alone made the meeting worthwhile. These are good results. In a world of nuclear weapons the level of tension had become untenable. For hopes to be realized two barriers must be recognized and overcome. One is the neoconservative doctrine of American hegemony. The other is the interest of the US military/security complex. The doctrine of hegemony requires overcoming Russia in order to achieve Washington’s unilateralism.

Is this doctrine too institutionalized to be repudiated? The budget, influence over Congress, and power of the military/security complex requires a major enemy. Russia fills that role. Peace on equal terms with Russia takes away the enemy, and the budget and influence of the military/security complex declines. There are military bases or weapon manufacturers in almost every state, which means this interest is also institutionalized as President Eisenhower warned us it would be. Therefore, the question before us is: how likely is it that Trump can get NATO and missile bases off of Russia’s border? It is not at all likely if attention cannot be directed to the basic problem. How helpful will media be? It is the wrong focus to emphasize that Putin wanted the meeting in order to show that he was not isolated and could meet with the American president like Zelensky and Netanyahu do.

The meeting was fortuitous. Trump had trapped himself. His threatened secondary sanctions or tariffs against India and other BRICS members backfired. Faced with his own 10-day deadline, he had to find a way out. He found it in an immediate meeting with Putin. For Trump the meeting was a way of getting himself off of the spot. The opportunity to wind down a confrontation that would likely end in nuclear war is based on luck. Can this lucky outcome be turned into a mutual security agreement? That depends on the strength of the neoconservatives’ doctrine of hegemony and the willingness of the military/security complex to accept declining sales and profits. Until it is realized that these two interests are the barriers to peace that must be overcome, there will be no peace process.

Read more …

“We haven’t had direct negotiations of this kind at this level for a long time. I repeat, it was an opportunity to calmly and thoroughly outline our position once again…”

Visit to Alaska Was Timely and Very Useful – Putin (Sp.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday described his trip to Alaska to meet with US President Donald Trump as “timely and very useful.” “I want to immediately note that the visit was timely and very useful,” Putin said during a meeting following the Russia-US summit. Eliminating the root causes of the crisis in Ukraine should be the foundation of its resolution, Vladimir Putin said. “Eliminating these root causes should be the basis for the resolution,” said the president during a meeting following the Russia-US summit. Putin mentioned that during his talks with US President Donald Trump in Alaska, they discussed a possible resolution to the Ukrainian crisis based on fairness. He noted that the summit provided an opportunity to calmly and thoroughly present Russia’s position.

“We haven’t had direct negotiations of this kind at this level for a long time. I repeat, it was an opportunity to calmly and thoroughly outline our position once again,” Putin said during the meeting. The conversation in Alaska brings us closer to the necessary solutions, Putin added. He described his discussion with US President Donald Trump at the Alaska meeting as frank. “The conversation was very open and substantive, and in my opinion, it brings us closer to the necessary decisions,” Putin said. Russia would like to resolve all issues concerning Ukraine through peaceful means, President Putin stated. He also mentioned that he would provide detailed information about the conversation with President Trump during the meeting following the negotiations.

“We discussed practically all areas of interaction with US President Donald Trump,” Putin said. “I will now give you a detailed account of the entire conversation, and if there are any questions, I will gladly answer them,” he added. Russia respects the US administration’s position on the urgent need to end hostilities in Ukraine, Putin stated on Saturday. “Of course, we respect the position of the US administration, which sees the need for an immediate cessation of hostilities. And we also want this, we would like to move towards resolving all issues through peaceful means,” he concluded during the meeting. On Friday, Putin and Trump met in Anchorage, Alaska for a three-on-three format talks that lasted 2 hours and 45 minutes. In addition to the presidents, Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and presidential aide Yury Ushakov, and the United States by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

Read more …

“..”association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior [mRNA] vaccine doses.”

The Legacy Media Won’t Touch These mRNA Vaccine Study Findings (Margolis)

Earlier this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly $500 million worth of grants and contracts tied to mRNA vaccine development, and announced the creation of a vaccine safety task force—an effort to address decades of alleged violations of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The legacy media immediately went on the offensive, slamming the move. But now, stronger evidence has emerged showing that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines actually raise the risk of respiratory infections with each additional dose, leaving the defenders of these shots looking obstinate and unwilling to face reality. Real-world data out of Switzerland has vindicated what many of us have been warning all along: the risk-benefit equation for mRNA shots no longer makes sense for most healthy people. Just the News breaks down the new Swiss study, and its conclusions aren’t merely inconvenient—they’re downright explosive.

“The study of 1,745 Swiss healthcare workers over several months in 2023 and 2024, published this month in the peer-reviewed Nature publication Communications Medicine, adds support to Cleveland Clinic research from 2022 on 51,000 employees that unexpectedly found “association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior [mRNA] vaccine doses.” Those who recently got a COVID booster “were more likely to report symptoms” of influenza-like illnesses and take sick leave, while those who got seasonal flu vaccines were less likely to do so, according to the SURPRISE+ Study Group, a research collaborative that studies health outcomes in healthcare workers. (COVID testing had been phased out by then.)”

The study concluded that “COVID-19 boosters may not offer clear short-term benefits in a post-pandemic setting, and may even increase short-term illness risk.” It further warned that routinely boosting “young to middle-aged, healthy individuals” may not meet the basic risk-benefit threshold. Shocked? You shouldn’t be. The same experts who demanded we blindly trust mRNA technology were also the ones insisting it made sense to vaccinate children against COVID—a claim that never held water. But I digress.

“The Swiss study improves on prior research that found an association between doses and reinfection by virtue of its highly granular data, including by matching comorbidities in the jabbed with the unvaccinated and nailing down inoculation dates, according to former New York Times drug industry reporter Alex Berenson. While the predominantly Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen researchers found the heightened risk of infection ebbs over time, that provides “further evidence the shots themselves, not some hidden statistical factor, are increasing it,” Berenson wrote in his newsletter.” We really need to think about the implications of this, and about how and why mRNA vaccines were suddenly thrust upon us. Though we kind of already know why. About a year before COVID hit, Dr. Anthony Fauci joined a panel at the Milken Institute Future of Health Summit to discuss moving from traditional vaccines to mRNA technology.

New Yorker writer Michael Specter suggested “blowing up the system,” since vaccines were still being made largely the same way they were in the 1940s. Fauci acknowledged the potential, but stressed that approval of new vaccines required lengthy trials—phase one through three—followed by years of data, which he said could take a decade even under ideal conditions. Rick Bright, then head of HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), added that a disruptive event might be needed to bypass bureaucracy. He floated the idea that an outbreak of a novel avian virus in China could spur such change, with the RNA sequence shared quickly to produce vaccines—potentially even printed at home on patches for self-administration. Enter the COVID pandemic mere months later.

Read more …

“Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign?

Who Has Been Busy Destroying Democracy? (Victor Davis Hanson)

“Destroying democracy” — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many different ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient, and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster–though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?”

Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of “collusion” to sabotage Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump’s first term? Who prompted a cabal of “51 former intelligence officials” to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a “Russian intelligence operation?” Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign?

Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort, and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else?

Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor’s efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen?

Read more …

“Fear-Driven Shock Paralysis.”

“Merz would need to break the ideological wall of his structurally leftist coalition, cancel the Green Deal with Brussels, and restore diplomatic relations with Moscow to turn the tide. Germany is light-years from such a paradigm shift..”

Merz’s Germany: 100 Days Of Economic Deep Freeze (Kolbe)

The extreme imbalances in Germany’s social system – resulting from the recession, demographic aging, and uncontrolled migration – cannot be blamed on Merz any more than the hyperstate-like public sector, now managing half of all economic output through its channels. The energy crisis is also a fact the new government must confront, layered atop a complex mix of structural deficits that have rendered Germany nearly untouchable in the global competitive landscape. The question must be: Has Merz at least recognized the severity of the country’s economic crisis? And if so, what measures does his government plan to reverse it? In the third year of recession and with a loss of 700,000 jobs since 2019, it is clear Berlin knows the political course leads Germany toward catastrophe.

On the plus side, Merz can claim his so-called “investment booster,” mainly composed of two measures: the temporary reintroduction of declining balance depreciation until 2029 and a corporate tax cut from 15% to 10% starting 2028. These measures would relieve the economy by €11.3 billion, roughly 0.23% of GDP—laughably small given the economy already carries €146 billion in unnecessary bureaucracy costs. Merz should have wielded the chainsaw here, but no German politician dares challenge a bureaucracy that has grown into a state within a state, adding half a million employees in the last six years. Merz’s original promise to cut electricity taxes for business and consumers also signals, unspoken, that the green transition is seen as the root of the energy crisis, driving energy-intensive firms out of the country. Last year alone, €64.5 billion in direct investments left Germany, a long-standing trend now accelerating.

Consequently, Germany is losing its economic foundation, on the verge of becoming Europe’s Rust Belt, much like parts of the US. Yet Berlin does nothing: no electricity tax cut, no return to nuclear, no scrapping of the burdensome heating law. Merz refuses any reforms in the green transition. We are witnessing the continuation of Habeck’s deindustrialization agenda. Merz avoids all conflict with Brussels’ Green Deal. The core of centralist policy, the key to Germany’s economic liberation, remains untouched, regardless of how sharply the recession bites. An orderly withdrawal of the state from the frozen energy sector, weighed down by subsidies and regulations, is nowhere in sight. Talks with Moscow over gas imports are unthinkable—Brussels stubbornly polishes the 19th sanctions package. Merz watches as a policy takes root that delivers Germany a fatal economic blow.

Even social fund problems, the scandalous citizen’s allowance, now promoted globally as aid for migrants, fall under economic policy. Like a rabbit before a snake, the government freezes amid widening deficits, attempting to fix health and pension insurance with new debt and supplementary transfers. Only an effective migration policy shift and painful reforms to social benefits could reverse the downward spiral. Merz allows Germany to head toward French-style conditions—his historically and legally dubious €1 trillion debt program will push Germany into the middle ranks of European debt states, raising the debt-to-GDP ratio to 95%, turning the federal budget into an unbearable weight. Infrastructure spending is nice, but with social funds in crisis and defense commitments rising, resources will barely suffice to maintain existing assets.

Unless Germany’s economic course turns 180 degrees, this government will go down as a temporary continuation of the red-green agenda and a footnote in the country’s history. With a coalition backed by the Left, Merz lacks the political capital and personal reform drive to pull Germany out of crisis. In Argentina today, one can observe the recipe for political turnaround: drastic state downsizing and deregulation should guide policy. The state’s share must shrink enough that private markets regain control of investment allocation. Merz would need to break the ideological wall of his structurally leftist coalition, cancel the Green Deal with Brussels, and restore diplomatic relations with Moscow to turn the tide. Germany is light-years from such a paradigm shift. Until then, the economic substance left by two postwar generations will be politically squandered.

Read more …

If only they had a printer…

France’s Debt Time Bomb Is Ticking Beneath The Summer Calm (Kolbe)

France remains a politically immovable monolith. A toxic mix of a ballooning budget deficit, an overgrown welfare state, and a persistent recession makes the country a prime candidate for a full-blown sovereign debt crisis. If the government fails to pass its budget, Europe could be in for a heated autumn. Cuts to social benefits, pension freezes, or reductions in health coverage have historically ended in general strikes, highway blockades, or suburban riots. The media tends to romanticize this as “character strength” — a people resisting the stingy state and fighting for their rights. What’s left unsaid is that France operates with a staggering government spending ratio of 57% of GDP — the largest welfare state in the EU, possibly even the democratic world champion of redistribution. This deeply socialist policy mix has driven the country into a fiscal and economic dead end.

Public debt stands at around 114% of GDP, with Prime Minister François Bayrou’s government planning fresh borrowing of 5.4% of GDP this year — figures so far removed from the defunct Maastricht criteria they make you dizzy. In July, Bayrou managed to trim the projected deficit from 5.8% to 5.4%, a €5 billion reduction. But in the face of a €3 trillion debt mountain, this is less than a drop in the bucket — a faint pulse from a policy in terminal decline. Bond markets have taken notice: yields on 10-year French debt have climbed 30 basis points over the past year to 3.3%. That means at least €67 billion in interest costs this year — €16 billion more than last year — squeezing government room to maneuver like ice melting on the Côte d’Azur.

For now, the summer news drought has swallowed the debt crisis narrative. Since Bayrou’s mid-July reform package, the media has gone silent. In truth, budgets like France’s, Spain’s, or Italy’s have only been kept afloat thanks to the ECB’s willingness to crush bond market unrest with massive interventions — a habit developed since the last debt crisis 15 years ago. Short of Luxembourg, no major EU state could fend off a sovereign debt crisis alone. At this point, real reforms may already be too late: any drastic cuts would collapse economies hooked on subsidies, cheap credit, and state interventionism, triggering mass unemployment and social unrest.

Still, Paris seems to have recognized the urgency. Three weeks ago, Bayrou unveiled the next consolidation package: €44 billion in spending cuts for next year (about 1.5% of GDP). The plan includes a hiring freeze for civil servants, merging inefficient agencies, and freezing welfare and pensions in 2026 at 2025 levels — a “blank year” for the welfare state. Only the defense budget will rise, in line with NATO demands. Wealthy taxpayers will lose certain breaks, the healthcare system will be trimmed, and sick leave will be monitored more strictly. If the economy holds, the deficit could drop to 4.6% next year, with the government aiming for Maastricht’s 3% cap by 2029. But given France’s track record, few expect the numbers to hold once the social peace bill comes due.

Read more …

Excuse me? Not on my bingo card.

Meta Faces US Probe Over AI Flirting With Kids (RT)

US Senators will probe Facebook’s parent company Meta after revelations that its artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots could engage children in conversations of a romantic or sensual nature. The investigation was announced Friday by Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo), who chairs a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and counterterrorism, with backing from fellow panel member Marsha Blackburn. Congress must determine whether “Meta’s generative-AI products enable exploitation, deception, or other criminal harms to children, and whether Meta misled the public or regulators about its safeguards,” Hawley said.

He demanded that the company immediately hand over internal documents. The scrutiny follows a Reuters investigation that revealed Meta’s internal AI policies allowed chatbots on its platforms to flirt with minors. One guideline cited by Reuters permitted bots to describe a child as having a “youthful form [that] is a work of art,” even as the rules technically barred describing under-13s as sexually desirable. It would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply,” the document states.

Meta confirmed the document’s authenticity to Reuters, said it is being revised, and acknowledged such conversations “never should have been allowed.” The case marks the latest in a string of controversies for Meta, which faces mounting legal and regulatory scrutiny in the US and Europe over privacy, antitrust, and data practices. Critics have argued that in its drive for rapid growth and profits, the company fostered online harm, whether by amplifying hate speech and misinformation to boost engagement or by failing to safeguard user data. More recently, the US tech giant has invested billions to position itself as a leader in artificial intelligence.

Read more …

“DOGE is likely to use the AI tool to eliminate up to 50% of 200,000 federal regulations by January 2026.”

“On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared a key hurdle for DOGE, rejecting a labor union effort to restrict the agency’s access to sensitive U.S. user data from government agencies.”

DOGE’s AI Tool ‘SweetREX’ Set To Take Buzzsaw To Federal Regulations (ZH)

Following Elon Musk’s exit from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Democrats and mainstream media have largely turned their attention elsewhere. Yet, DOGE is quietly making steady progress on an ambitious plan to overhaul federal regulations, according to a report. Central to the effort is an AI tool under development, the SweetREX Deregulation AI Plan Builder (SweetREX DAIP), designed to “promote prudent financial management and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” The little-known project is being spearheaded by Christopher Sweet, a DOGE staffer initially presented as a “special assistant,” who was, until recently, a third-year student at the University of Chicago. WIRED reports:

“SweetREX was developed by associates of DOGE operating out of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The plan is to roll it out to other US agencies. Members of the call included staffers from across the government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among others. Leading Wednesday’s call alongside Sweet was Scott Langmack, a DOGE-affiliated senior adviser at HUD and, according to his LinkedIn profile, the COO of technology company Kukun. (WIRED previously reported that he had application-level access to critical HUD systems; Kukun is a proptech firm that is, according to its website, “on a long-term mission to aggregate the hardest to find data.”) While Sweet led the development side of SweetREX, Langmack said he was taking point on demoing the tool for different agencies and pitching them on its benefits.”

DOGE is likely to use the AI tool to eliminate up to 50% of 200,000 federal regulations by January 2026. A DOGE PowerPoint presentation, titled the “DOGE Deregulation Opportunity,” projects that the effort could yield $3.3 trillion annually in economic benefits. “The DOGE experts creating these plans are the best and brightest in the business and are embarking on a never-before-attempted transformation of government systems and operations to enhance efficiency and effectiveness,” an administration spokesperson told the Washington Post, which first reported on the DOGE presentation.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court cleared a key hurdle for DOGE, rejecting a labor union effort to restrict the agency’s access to sensitive U.S. user data from government agencies. In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s injunction that had blocked DOGE from accessing data held by the U.S. Department of Education, Treasury Department, and Office of Personnel Management, citing potential violations of federal privacy laws, according to Fox News.

Read more …

“He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it’s truly evil for politicians to take power from people..”

Schwarzenegger Taunts Newsom With Message Targeting Dem Redistricting Push (Fox)

Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pumping up for a new fight. The longtime Hollywood action star, the last Republican governor in Democrat-dominated California, says he’s mobilizing to oppose the push by current Gov. Gavin Newsom to temporarily scrap the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission. “I’m getting ready for the gerrymandering battle,” Schwarzenegger wrote in a social media post Friday, which included a photo of the former professional bodybuilding champion lifting weights. Schwarzenegger, who rose to worldwide fame as the star of the film “The Terminator” four decades ago, wore a T-shirt in the photo that said “terminate gerrymandering.” The social media post by Schwarzenegger comes as Democratic leaders in the Democrat- dominated California legislature are moving forward with new proposed congressional district maps that would create up to five more blue-leaning US House seats in the nation’s most populous state.

Newsom on Thursday teamed up in Los Angeles with congressional Democrats and legislative leaders in the heavily blue state to unveil their redistricting playbook. Newsom and the Democrats are aiming to counter the ongoing effort by President Donald Trump and Republicans to create up to five GOP-friendly congressional districts in red state Texas at the expense of Democrat-controlled seats. “Today is liberation day in the state of California,” Newsom said. “Donald Trump, you have poked the bear, and we will punch back.” Newsom vowed to “meet fire with fire” with his push for a rare — but not unheard of — mid-decade redistricting. The Republican push in Texas, which comes at Trump’s urging, is part of a broader effort by the GOP across the country to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats.

Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats stormed back to grab the House majority in the 2018 midterms. While the Republican push in Texas to upend the current congressional maps doesn’t face constitutional constraints, Newsom’s path in California is much more complicated. The governor is pushing to hold a special election this year to get voter approval to undo the constitutional amendments that created the nonpartisan redistricting commission. A two-thirds majority vote in the Democrat-dominated California legislature as early as next week would be needed to hold the referendum. Democratic Party leaders are confident they’ll have the votes to push the constitutional amendment and the new proposed congressional maps through the legislature.

“Here we are in open and plain sight before one vote is cast in the 2026 midterm election, and here [Trump] is once again trying to rig the system,” Newsom charged. Newsom said his plan is “not complicated. We’re doing this in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor in the state of Texas and said, ‘Find me five seats.’ We’re doing it in reaction to that act.” The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) said “Newsom’s made it clear: he’ll shred California’s Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought, and power is the only priority.” But Newsom defended his actions, saying “we’re working through a very transparent, temporary and public process. We’re putting the maps on the ballot and putting the power to the people.”

Thursday’s appearance by Newsom, considered a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, also served as a fundraising kickoff to raise massive amounts of campaign cash needed to sell the redistricting push statewide in California. The nonpartisan redistricting commission, created over 15 years ago, remains popular among most Californians, according to public opinion polling. That’s why Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers are promising not to scrap the commission entirely, but rather replace it temporarily by the legislature for the next three election cycles. “We will affirm our commitment to the state independent redistricting after the 2030 census, but we are asking the voters for their consent to do midterm redistricting,” Newsom said. Their efforts are opposed by a number of people supportive of the nonpartisan commission.

Among the most visible members is likely to be Schwarzenegger. “He calls gerrymandering evil, and he means that. He thinks it’s truly evil for politicians to take power from people,” Schwarzenegger spokesperson Daniel Ketchell told Politico earlier this month. “He’s opposed to what Texas is doing, and he’s opposed to the idea that California would race to the bottom to do the same thing.” Schwarzenegger, during his tenure as governor, had a starring role in the passage of constitutional amendments in California in 2008 and 2010 that took the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts away from politicians and placed it in the hands of an independent commission.

“Most people don’t really think about an independent commission much, one way or another. And that’s both an opportunity and a challenge for Newsom,” Jack Pitney, an American politics professor at California’s Claremont McKenna College, told Fox News. “It’s going to take a lot of effort and money to energize Democrats and motivate them to show up at the polls,” Pitney said, adding Newsom’s effort “is all about motivating people who don’t like Trump.”

Read more …

If Russia does retro, it must be an evil plan.

Lavrov Prompts USSR Sweatshirt Craze (RT)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has sparked a shopping frenzy after he was seen arriving in Alaska in a white sweater with bold black letters spelling “USSR” across the chest. The item sold out overnight, according to its maker. Lavrov was part of the Russian delegation accompanying President Vladimir Putin for talks with US President Donald Trump on Friday. The nearly three-hour summit in Anchorage included senior officials from both sides and focused on ending the Ukraine conflict. Lavrov drew attention as he stepped out of his car in a white long-sleeved sweater marked with “CCCP” – the Russian letters for USSR – across the chest, layered under a black padded vest.

https://twitter.com/NinaByzantina/status/1956665145633251661

The sweater featured black stripes on the cuffs, giving it a retro Soviet look. Yekaterina Varlakova, owner of SelSovet – the Chelyabinsk-based label that produced the sweater – said demand spiked as soon as Lavrov was seen wearing it. “The photo caused a sensation. All available pieces were gone by yesterday morning. Customers can now only pre-order, with delivery expected in one to one and a half months,” she told TASS on Saturday. SelSovet, founded in 2017, rose to prominence by 2021 through social media with the brand mixing retro design with Soviet imagery.

Some media outlets suggested Lavrov’s choice of sweater was a deliberate reminder of Ukraine’s past status as part of the Soviet Union, though Lavrov himself has made no comment on his attire. In recent years, Soviet-themed culture has enjoyed renewed popularity in Russia, with retro cafés, bars, and clothing lines embracing the style. Designers describe these items as part of the country’s identity, noting that Soviet imagery is increasingly seen as shared history and cultural pride.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Covid is no threat to children. But mRNA is.

https://twitter.com/realDaveReilly/status/1956502954229522582

Theotokos
https://twitter.com/NinaByzantina/status/1956503381243204087

RFK

CO2
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1956637394238672970

72,000

Raw milk

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Aug 162025
 


Edward Hopper Tables for ladies 1930

 

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)
Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)
Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)
Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)
Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)
Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)
Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)
‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)
Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)
Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)
A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)
Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)
The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)
Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)
Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)
US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)
US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)
EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/TheRicanMemes/status/1956191505934069769

Loon wing

Wray
https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/1956065246138990940

Kash

DC
https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/1956167053649567935

275

 

 

Turley

 

 

 

 

It’s funny. How do you summarize this summit? It’s like there was no tangible “big breakthrough”, but at the same time everything about it was a giant breakthrough.

“..CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage..”

Putin & Trump Find Common Ground as West’s War Party Shut Out (Sp.)

Talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska. Russia acknowledged positive, constructive dialogue between the sides, while Donald Trump hailed significant progress toward a Ukraine settlement. The Putin-Trump meeting shows the West “gambled on an easy victory over Russia and lost,” Mikael Valtersson, a Swedish Armed Forces veteran, told Sputnik. Both Russia and America have signalled satisfaction with the summit as a step forward towards a real peaceful solution of the Ukraine conflict, he noted. “Those that wanted more isolation and sanctions against Russia, if Russia didn’t agree to Western demands, didn’t have their way,” the former defence politician and chief of staff with Sweden Democrats emphasized.

The “Western war party” had hoped for new harsh sanctions on Russia and those trading with it, but instead what can be seen is improving relations between Russia and the US, as well as a continued peace process. After Donald Trump talks with his European allies and Ukraine, they will be faced with a choice, Valtersson said. They can either support the peace process by accepting the realities on the ground and legitimate interests of Russia, or reject it. If they choose the latter, they will isolate themselves from not only the majority of the world, but especially from the US. “Hopefully the cooler heads in Ukraine and Europe will realize that it’s better to follow the US and accept reality, than continue a lost war,” Valtersson concluded.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s reunion made clear they’d missed the bond from years past, psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman told Sputnik. “When President Putin and President Trump approached each other… their body language showed a very open and warm receptiveness,” the Beverly Hills best-selling author said. The two leaders shook hands multiple times, touched each other’s arms, and smiled—a clear signal they’d missed the connection they had during Trump’s first presidency. Lieberman noted the direct eye contact, standing close marked an “auspicious beginning that foretold a positive meeting.” Even after three hours of serious talks, their joint press conference carried the same energy. Both turned slightly toward one another, as if to emphasize unity. “They gave the impression that they were facing the press together, on the same team,” Lieberman observed.

Read more …

“..not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up..”

Trump Pushes Peace Over Ceasefire After Putin Meeting (RT)

The Ukraine conflict should be ended through a permanent agreement rather than a mere ceasefire, US President Donald Trump has said, following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump said his almost three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage “went very well,” adding that it was “a great and very successful day.” He confirmed that he had discussed the summit with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, several EU leaders, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,” Trump said. The US president also confirmed that he and Zelensky would hold talks on Monday, adding that “if all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin.”

Read more …

“..plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader..”

Western Media In Frenzy Over Putin-Trump Summit – Moscow (RT)

Western media have erupted in hysteria over US President Donald Trump’s cordial welcome for his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in Alaska on Friday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. Zakharova weighed in on the three-hour negotiations in Anchorage that brought Putin to US soil for the first time in more than a decade. The Russian leader was greeted at the airport with a red carpet and a flyover of US fighter jets. He and Trump then rode together in the US president’s limousine to the summit venue. While the sides did not announce any deal on Ukraine, Putin described the talks as constructive, with Trump calling the meeting “warm” and suggesting that Moscow and Washington “are pretty close” to settling the Ukraine conflict.

Zakharova noted that Western media had plunged into “frenzy bordering on complete madness” over the honors given to the Russian leader. “For three years they spoke of Russia’s isolation, and today they saw a red carpet rolled out to meet the Russian president in the US,” she said. Western media is attempting to frame the Alaska summit as a diplomatic win for Moscow. The Washington Post wrote that “the warmth of the welcome sent shock through Ukraine and Europe” while pointing to a stark contrast with the reception of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House in February, when Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of disrespect, ingratitude over US aid, and of “gambling with World War III.”

https://twitter.com/RT_India_news/status/1956604838650970291?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1956604838650970291%7Ctwgr%5E96fd5db1e5dafa98554807c55448efd1c8b51955%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frussia%2F623047-western-media-frenzy-trump-putin%2F

Sky News correspondent Ivor Bennett, a former RT reporter, voiced surprise that Putin was first to speak at the media conference “as if he was the host rather than Donald Trump.” Another Sky News reporter had suggested prior to the talks that Putin would “use his KGB-trained powers of deception and seduction” on his US counterpart. Bloomberg reported that “by inviting the Russian president onto American soil and giving him an audience, Trump had already delivered a diplomatic win” for a seemingly isolated leader. The agency also published a separate piece headlined “US-Russia Summit Shows How Little Europe Matters in Trumpworld”, referencing the fact that no EU leaders were invited to the summit. Politico ran the headline “Putin’s Alaska triumph,” while CNN said: “Putin’s isolation ended when his plane landed in Anchorage,” adding, the Russian president “[is] back in from the cold.”

Read more …

“There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon..”

Putin-Trump Summit Went Much Better than Expected — Pepe Escobar (Sp.)

There are few details about what exactly was discussed in the meeting, but Russian officials have made it clear that they’re pleased with how it went, says veteran geopolitical analyst, Pepe Escobar. There were even some indications that a serious US-Russia reset could be on the horizon. Even according to President Trump himself, they came to agreement on several important points and only a few are left. So this implies. serious discussions not only about Ukraine, a possible resolution in Ukraine, and of course we we have no idea about the terms and the parameters, but a reset, a serious reset of US-Russia relations. [..] The Russian delegation featured Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, and RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev. The US delegation included senior diplomatic and security officials.

Read more …

He would have to give up Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye. That would be the end of him.

Zelensky Should ‘Make A Deal’ – Trump (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky should “make the deal” to settle Kiev’s conflict with Moscow, US President Donald Trump has said following three-hour talks in Anchorage with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, their first summit since Helsinki in 2018. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, Trump reflected on “a very warm meeting,” adding that the sides are “pretty close” to resolving the conflict. He stressed that Kiev should be on board with the push for peace, for it to have any chance of success. When asked what advice he would give Zelensky, Trump replied: “Make the deal”, adding that he believes that Putin “wants to see it done.”

“It’s really up to President Zelensky to get it done. And I would also say the European nations, they have to get involved a little bit,” the US president added. Trump said that he was ready to mediate direct talks between Putin and Zelensky. “If they’d like, I’ll be at that next meeting… Not that I want to be there, but I want to make sure it gets done. And we have a pretty good chance of getting it done.” Both leaders described the meeting as productive, although no agreement on Ukraine was announced. Putin earlier did not rule out direct talks with Zelensky, but stressed that it must be preceded by significant progress on settling the conflict.

Moscow has also voiced concerns about Zelensky’s right to sign any binding agreements, given that his presidential term expired last year, and that the Ukrainian leader has refused to call a new election, citing martial law. Ukrainian troops have been on the back foot for months, with Moscow making advances in Donbass and elsewhere. Moscow has insisted that any settlement should see Ukraine commit to bloc neutrality, demilitarization and denazification, as well as recognize the new territorial reality on the ground, including the status of Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye Regions, all of which have voted to become parts of Russia.

Read more …

“The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit..”

Trump Praises ‘Warm’ Meeting With Putin (RT)

US President Donald Trump has described his summit in Alaska with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, as a “warm meeting,” and suggested that the Ukraine conflict is close to being resolved. In an interview with Fox News, the US leader praised the three-hour talks with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, noting that they had made progress in talks mainly focused on ending the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. “Actually, I think we agree on a lot. I can tell you, the meeting was… warm,” Trump said, calling Putin a “strong guy.” The US leader earlier suggested that he would “give today a ten” when it came to the outcome of the summit. According to Trump, the sides are “pretty close to the end” of the conflict, although he added that “Ukraine has to agree” to any potential peace deal.

He would not provide any details of the discussions, saying only that “there’s one or two pretty significant items, but I think they can be reached.” The US president also noted that he had “always had a great relationship with President Putin, and we would have done great things together,” while praising Russia as a land brimming with natural resources. Putin similarly described the talks with Trump as “constructive” and “useful,” saying Moscow was “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the hostilities. He also suggested that the two leaders could hold their next meeting in Moscow, with Trump replying that he could “see it possibly happening.”

Read more …

“We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions.”

Talks with Trump ‘Constructive’ – Putin (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called his talks with US President Donald Trump in Anchorage on Friday “constructive” and “useful.” The discussions focused largely on the Ukraine conflict. Moscow is “sincerely interested in putting an end” to the ongoing hostilities, Putin stressed. “We have always considered the Ukrainian people…fraternal, as strange as it may sound in today’s conditions. We have the same roots and everything that is happening is a tragedy and a great pain for us,” he said. Speaking at the press conference, Trump remarked that the meeting was highly productive, although the two sides didn’t reached full agreement and no deal was finalized yet.

He highlighted the significant progress made during the discussions and affirmed his strong relationship with President Putin. Putin said that in recent years – under the administration of Joe Biden – US-Russia relations had sunk “to their lowest point since the Cold War,” which benefits neither the two countries nor the world as a whole. “It is obvious that sooner or later it was necessary to correct the situation and the transition from confrontation to dialogue had to take place. In this regard, a personal meeting of the heads of the two states was really overdue,” he said. The negotiations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson lasted nearly three hours.

The Russian delegation for the Alaska summit also included Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, and presidential economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who has been a key figure in the Ukraine settlement process. Trump was accompanied by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Read more …

“Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.”

‘Next Time In Moscow’ – Putin to Trump (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a rare public switch to English to invite US President Donald Trump to Moscow for the next round of peace talks, following their summit in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday. Trump said he could see the meeting taking place though it would likely face political pushback. Speaking at the press conference, Trump called the meeting “extremely productive” and said, “we didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” implying no deal had been reached yet. He said the talks marked significant progress and reaffirmed what he described as his strong relationship with Putin. “Today’s agreements will help us restart pragmatic relations,” Trump said.

At the close of the press conference, Trump thanked Putin and said he expected to speak with him again soon. “Next time in Moscow,” Putin said in English. “That’s an interesting one,” Trump replied. “I’ll get a little heat for that one. But I can see it possibly happening.” Putin thanked Trump for what he called a “friendly” tone and “results-oriented” approach, saying it could “start us on the path towards a resolution in Ukraine.” He described the talks as “constructive” and reiterated his view that there would have been no war in Ukraine if Trump had been president when the conflict broke out. No details of any deal were provided, and neither Putin nor Trump took questions from reporters.

Read more …

Zelensky tweeted he’ll be in Washington on Monday. He’ll try and bring the entire EU.

Lasting Settlement Essential In Ukraine Conflict – Putin (RT)

For a lasting resolution to the Ukraine conflict to be achieved, all of its root causes must be addressed, Russia’s legitimate concerns taken into account, and a fair global security balance restored, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a joint press conference with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday. The two men met in Alaska for a much-anticipated summit, to discuss restoring bilateral relations and to work toward a resolution of the Ukraine conflict. Putin acknowledged the willingness of the US administration and President Trump to engage in dialogue and seek solutions, noting their commitment to understanding the complexities of the situation.

He reiterated his view that Russians and Ukrainians are brotherly peoples and described the current circumstances as a tragedy, stressing Moscow’s sincere desire to bring the conflict to an end. Putin said that any sustainable resolution must address the root causes of the crisis while taking into account Russia’s legitimate concerns. “A fair balance of security in Europe and globally must be restored,” he stated. Putin agreed with Trump that ensuring Ukraine’s security is imperative and expressed a readiness to collaborate on the issue. He expressed hope that the mutual understanding reached during the discussions will pave the way toward peace.

“We hope that this will be perceived constructively in Kiev and European capitals, and that no obstacles will be created,” Putin stressed. “There should be no attempts to undermine the anticipated progress through provocations or behind-the-scenes intrigue.” Trump stressed that the key takeaway of the talks is that there is a reasonable opportunity to achieve peace. He expressed hope to meet Putin again soon, noting that the Russian president shares his desire to bring the conflict to an end.

Read more …

“..that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,”

Judge Napolitano: the Chance for a ‘Grand Reset’ in Russia-US Ties (Sp.)

Presidents Putin and Trump are meeting for the first time in over six years.The main topics on the agenda? Ukraine and Russia-US relations. Veteran journalist and Judging Freedom host Andrew Napolitano shares his insights. The US is “in no position to consent to the very reasonable, intellectually honest and consistent Russian demands” in Ukraine, as its officials don’t seem to fully understand or appreciate Russia’s national security needs, Napolitano told Sputnik, when asked whether the meeting could lead to a speedy cessation of hostilities. The Russian military is already very close to achieving its objectives in the special military operation, Trump knows it, and that puts “President Putin in what Americans call the catbird seat,” Napolitano said.

“Add to those reasons the recent Russian triumphs in the battlefield, which are rather extraordinary and which have left the Ukrainians with very, very little manpower with which to resist the Russian military,” he added. The Putin-Trump meeting could be the “first of many steps” toward a new era “commercial, political, diplomatic, cultural integration” between the two nations, a “grand reset” that could require help from other rising global powers to fully realize. “That’s not going to happen today, and it may have to involve other countries like China, Brazil and India, maybe even Iran, but the grand reset between Russia and the United States, I believe, is a personal goal of President Putin and an aspiration of Donald Trump,” Napolitano said.

Read more …

Written pre-summit.

A New Security Order Is On The Table In Alaska (Lukyanov)

It has been a long time since a diplomatic event drew as much global attention as Friday’s meeting between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska. In terms of its significance for the international balance, it is comparable only to the negotiations on German reunification 35 years ago. That process laid the foundations for political developments in the decades that followed. The Alaska talks could prove a similar milestone – not just for the Ukraine conflict, but for the principles on which a broader settlement between the world’s leading powers might be reached. Ukraine has become the most visible arena for historical shifts that go far beyond its borders. But if the German analogy holds, no one should expect a breakthrough from a single meeting. The marathon of high-level diplomacy in 1990 lasted many months, and the mood then was far less acute and far more optimistic than today.

The dense fog of leaks and speculation surrounding Alaska underlines its importance. Much of this “white noise” comes from two sources: commentators eager to sound informed, and political actors seeking to shape public opinion. In reality, the substantive preparation for the talks appears to have little to do with the propaganda framing. This is why official announcements so often catch outside observers by surprise. That may be a good sign. In recent decades, especially in Europe, diplomacy has often been accompanied by a steady drip of confidential details to the press – a habit that may serve tactical purposes but rarely produces lasting results. In this case, it is better to wait for the outcome, or the lack of one, without giving in to the temptation to guess what will happen behind closed doors.

There is also a broader backdrop that cannot be ignored: the shifts in the global order catalyzed by the Ukraine crisis, though not caused by it. For years, I have been skeptical of claims that the world is dividing neatly into two opposing camps – “the West” versus “the rest.” Economic interdependence remains too deep for even sharp political and military conflicts to sever ties entirely. Yet contradictions between these blocs are growing, and they are increasingly material rather than ideological. A key trigger was US President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to pressure the largest states of the so-called “global majority” – China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – to fall in line with Washington’s instructions. The old liberal order promised universality and some benefits to participants. Now, purely American mercantile interests dominate.

As before, Washington dresses its demands in political justifications – criticizing Brazil and South Africa over their treatment of the opposition, or attacking India and China over their ties with Moscow. But the inconsistencies are obvious. Trump, unlike his predecessors, prefers tariffs to sanctions. Tariffs are an explicitly economic tool, but they are now being wielded for political ends.

Read more …

“..they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough…”

Why Putin and Trump Had To Talk In Person (Bordachev)

The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska is not an end point, but the beginning of a long journey. It will not resolve the turbulence that has gripped humanity – but it matters to everyone. In international politics, there have been few moments when meetings between the leaders of major powers have decided questions of universal importance. This is partly because situations requiring attention at such a level are rare. We are living through one now: since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, Washington has declared its aim to be the “strategic defeat” of Russia, while Moscow has challenged the West’s monopoly over world affairs. Another reason is practical. Leaders of the world’s most powerful states do not waste time on problems that can be solved by subordinates.

And history shows that even when top-level meetings do occur, they rarely change the overall course of international politics. It is no surprise, then, that the Alaska meeting has been compared to famous encounters from the past – notably the 1807 meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the Neman River. That summit did not prevent Napoleon from attacking Russia five years later – an act that ultimately brought about his own downfall. Later, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, Russia was the only power represented by its ruler on a regular basis. Tsar Alexander I insisted on presenting his personal vision for Europe’s political structure. It failed to win over the other great powers, who, as Henry Kissinger once noted, preferred to discuss interests rather than ideals.

History is full of high-level talks that preceded war rather than preventing it. European monarchs would meet, fail to agree, and then march their armies. Once the fighting ended, their envoys would sit down to negotiate. Everyone understood that “eternal peace” was usually just a pause before the next conflict. The 2021 Geneva summit between Russia and the US may well be remembered in this way – as a meeting that took place on the eve of confrontation. Both sides left convinced their disputes could not be resolved at the time. In its aftermath, Kiev was armed, sanctions were readied, and Moscow accelerated military-technical preparations. Russia’s own history offers parallels. The most famous “summit” of ancient Rus was the 971 meeting between Prince Svyatoslav and Byzantine Emperor John Tzimiskes, following a peace treaty.

According to historian Nikolay Karamzin, they “parted as friends” – but that did not stop the Byzantines from unleashing the Pechenegs against Svyatoslav on his journey home. In Asia, traditions were different. The status of Chinese and Japanese emperors did not permit meetings with equals; such encounters were legally and culturally impossible. When the modern European “world order” was created – most famously in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – it was not through grand encounters of rulers but through years of negotiations among hundreds of envoys. By then, after 30 years of war, all sides were too exhausted to continue fighting. That exhaustion made it possible to agree on a comprehensive set of rules for relations between states.

Seen in this historical light, top-level summits are exceedingly rare, and those that produce fundamental change are rarer still. The tradition of two leaders speaking on behalf of the entire global system is a product of the Cold War, when Moscow and Washington alone had the ability to destroy or save the world. Even if Roman and Chinese emperors had met in the third century, it would not have transformed the fate of the world. The great empires of antiquity could not conquer the planet in a single war with each other. Russia – as the USSR before it – and the United States can. In the last three years, they have often stood on the brink of a path from which there would be no return. This is why Alaska matters, even if it does not yield a breakthrough.

Read more …

“..when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?”

The EU Throws An Epic Tantrum As Trump Meets With Putin (Marsden)

The European Union had been wailing about “transatlantic unity” in the run-up to US President Trump heading to the negotiating table with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday – without it. It sounded like a toddler stomping their feet because Daddy let go of their hand in the mall and now they’re lost between Cinnabon and Burger King. A lot of good their dogmatic rhetoric has done them so far. If it wasn’t for Brussels getting drunk on its own transatlantic solidarity and unity propaganda, maybe it wouldn’t currently be in economic and political dire straits. The kind where you’re trying to duct-tape your economy back together with overpriced American gas.

They could have charted a different path vis-a-vis Russia. Maybe one that involved spearheading diplomacy rather than marching in lockstep behind the US-led NATO parade of weapons and fighters on Russia’s border with Ukraine, which helped supercharge the conflict in the first place. They could have insisted on keeping their cheap Russian energy instead of sanctioning their own imports like they were vying for a Nobel Prize in masochism. Now, the US is daring them to even close their clever little loophole in their own anti-Russian sanctions. The one that lets them moralize about helping Ukraine and the need to avoid negotiations with Russia while guzzling Russian fuel on the down-low. Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told them to “put up or shut up” and sanction the Indian and Chinese importers of Russian petroleum through which the EU still buys Russian fuel.

While the EU indulges itself in rhetorical games, Trump has dropped all pretexts of serving any interests but America’s first, and isn’t following any agenda beyond trying to wrap things up with Russia in Ukraine and to score some economic wins in the process. Brussels has had more than three years to do the same. Instead, it kept repeating the mantra that Kiev had to win on the battlefield. There were no other options, it said. Whoops! Now that the option has materialized, the Europeans are relegated to running behind Trump, pleading with him to indulge them by letting Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky decide where the post-conflict borders will be. What did they think the downside of their “win by force” gamble would be, if not changed borders?

The EU insists on Ukraine fighting Russia with EU cash and weapons, and when Kiev loses, they say, “Ok, well this sucks – how about if everyone just pretends that none of this happened and we dial all the territorial gains and losses back to a point of our choosing, okay?” The EU insisted on waiting for someone else to take the initiative for peace. Now all it can do is pick up its pom-poms and cheer Trump on. Then hope that he rewards it. As Zelensky’s self-appointed babysitters, instead of spending the past week in the run-up to the Alaska summit insisting that Putin and Trump allow a high chair booster seat and a pack of crayons at the negotiating table so he can show them where he wants the borders, maybe the Europeans should have been calming him down and managing expectations.

He sounded like he was treating his phone like a toy, calling up everyone in the contacts under “EU” – Estonia, Denmark, probably a few pizza places. The EU has tried to gaslight Trump with the same rhetoric that it constantly firehoses onto European citizens about peace in Ukraine being a dangerous gateway drug for Russia to invade Western Europe – a convenient marketing pitch to justify boosting the weapons industry to the detriment of domestic priorities. Not even warhawk US Senator Lindsey Graham is saying that now, telling NBC News that “Russia is not going to Kiev”…let alone the EU. European leaders treated Wednesday’s video call with Trump like a win. Perhaps because he didn’t explicitly tell them off, for once. But they really have no idea what he’ll actually discuss with Putin, nor do they have leverage over any eventual US–Russia deal.

They don’t know whether Trump is just placating them because he doesn’t need a bunch of hysterical circus clowns in the mix. So how could the EU spin this to avoid looking completely irrelevant? “Today Europe, the US and NATO have strengthened the common ground for Ukraine, we will remain in close coordination. Nobody wants peace more than us. A just and lasting peace,” said unelected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Yeah, sounds desperate for peace, alright. Which must be why the EU is building weapons factories at breakneck speed, according to the Financial Times. Nothing says “we’re committed to ending the war” like tripling down on weapons. What are you going to do with all those if peace breaks out? Toss them in the landfill and hope that taxpayers forget about the boondoggle, like you did with the hundreds of millions of unused Covid jabs?

Read more …

“It’s funny they call [intel] a ‘community.’ That sounds so benign and beneficial. Everybody likes communities.” —Doug Casey

Carefully and Gracefully (James Howard Kunstler)

And so, now, in Alaska, Mr. Trump sits down with Vlad Putin to attempt a settling of Ukraine’s hash. This war has been a three-year bloody grind, millions killed, mostly Ukrainians, provoked underhandedly by US State Dept / CIA neocons, Britain’s MI6 apparatus, and the girl-bosses of the EU, for no good reason, namely, to weaken and possibly break-up Russia so as to get at its vast mineral and energy resources. This has been tried before in history, always to the grief of the triers. From our country’s point of view, the dynamics in play at this moment are delicate to an extreme. In the background of the Trump-Putin meet-up, amid an eerie silence in the DOJ and FBI, an epic, sweeping prosecution of the RussiaGate hoaxers creeps forward.

RussiaGate, of course, was born in the false charge (by America’s highest officials, derived from nonsense cooked up by Hillary Clinton) that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. It was preposterous and continually disproven, but the many-footed creatures of America’s deep state, which controlled so many levers of power, dragged it out for years. Altogether, that endeavor amounted to a campaign of sedition and arguably treason. The delicacy comes in as President Trump must now avoid at all costs any appearance of giving-in to Mr. Putin, of appearing to be any sort of a vassal — “Putin’s puppet,” as charged in RussiaGate. The raw truth is that Russia has likely already “won” the war in Ukraine, in the sense that it has finally gained control of the battlespace and worn out its opponent. It is fait accompli.

What remains is the disposition of Ukraine’s future which, in another raw truth, is mostly Russia’s to determine. Yet another raw truth is that this would probably be the best outcome for all concerned: a neutralized, disarmed Ukraine returned to its prior condition as a mostly agricultural sovereign backwater of Europe within Russia’s sphere-of-influence, resuming its longstanding status as not being a problem for anyone. Still, yet another raw truth is that the USA would benefit hugely from normalized relations with Russia, no more sanctions, fair trade, a rebalance of the drift toward China, lessening the chance of nuclear war — and this would even benefit the knuckleheads of Europe whose economies are imploding due to a lack of affordable energy (and also because of, let’s face it, the EU’s terrifically stupid “green” policies).

All of which means there will necessarily be a lot of “pretend” played in Anchorage for show. Mr. Trump must pretend to be tough on Putin, and Mr. Putin must pretend, a little bit, to give-in to Mr. Trump’ proposals. That is, it will be something of a kabuki, a kafabe. Surely, many of the stickiest points have been pre-negotiated by Mr. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, who quietly visited Moscow a week ago. Mr. Trump must appear strong with Russia because his appointees are commencing to go medieval on the folks who called him “Putin’s Puppet” nine years ago — and subjected him to a series of epic torments including the subversion of his whole first term in office, nonstop obloquy from the media, impeachment (X 2), home invasion, and a grotesque set of malicious, nitwit prosecutions that have either failed completely (Fani Willis, Jack Smith) or will be subject to humiliating reversals in the higher courts. Not to mention two attempted assassinations.

You should assume that Mr. Putin well understands all this and intends to play along. He will appear to make some generous concessions to Ukraine, starting with the promise that it can go forward as a sovereign, self-governing nation. The big enchilada might be to grant that Ukraine can retain possession of Odessa, the port city on the Black Sea which is Ukraine’s depot for export to the world of its chief commodity, grains. In any case, both Russia and the USA intend to relieve Volodymyr Zelenskyy of his duties — notice he is conspicuously not invited to the Alaska meeting. Mr. Trump well understands that one way or another, Russia is going to prevail in this conflict on-the-ground. He abhors all the killing. He has already expressed a disinclination to keep backing the war with money and weapons. He must be disgusted at how the Bidens (and the Deep State) used Ukraine as a money-laundry, as a site for bioweapons labs, and how it served as a nexus for human trafficking.

He also knows that Russia wants badly to be re-admitted to normal relations with the West, which is in everybody’s interest, except perhaps China’s. You should infer therefore that Russia wants the war to end in a way that does not humiliate the losers and backers — perhaps along the lines of how America managed our victory against our enemies in World War Two, carefully and gracefully.

Read more …

“The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!”

Scott Ritter: Two Things Need to Happen for Trump to Get His Ceasefire (Sp.)

The Ukrainian crisis is front and center of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. Sputnik asked renowned geopolitical analyst, former Marine Corps intelligence officer and ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter to weigh in on the high stakes meeting. First things first: the US president “doesn’t care about the geopolitical nuances of Ukrainian battlefield locations,” Ritter said. “If Putin can convince him that the quickest route to a ceasefire is for Ukraine to leave” Russia’s new territories “and say no to NATO, that’s it. That’s all that has to happen for a ceasefire.” The Russian military has mastered drone warfare, counter-drone warfare, and new battlefield tactics to the point where its advance has become “an irreversible process,” Ritter added, commenting on what happens if the peace push doesn’t pan out.

“There’s nothing that can be done. Nothing can be done to stop this. The advantage is 100% Russia, and we’re looking at the Ukrainians on the verge of total collapse,” the observer stressed. Trump’s base doesn’t want to continue fueling a proxy conflict against Russia, much less getting into a hot war with Russia over Ukraine, Ritter said. “Don’t worry about Congress. They don’t elect the president, and they will fall in behind the president, because if he can secure his base with a peace deal, he can ruin everybody in Congress, especially a Republican, who goes against him,” he stressed.

In November 2024, the CIA briefed Congress on the risks of a nuclear war breaking out, estimating that there was a “greater than 50% chance” thanks to the Biden administration’s decision to greenlight long-range ATACMS strikes into Russia, Ritter revealed.

“The director of plans of Strategic Command, the American military command that carries out nuclear war briefed a Washington, DC think tank in November that the United States is prepared for a nuclear exchange with Russia, (that means nuclear war) and that the United States thought they were going to win,” he said. “When this was briefed to Congress, I asked a senior Democrat…’when the CIA briefed you, did the CIA say the Russians were bluffing?’ He said no. The CIA said the exact opposite. He said but that’s not the scary thing. The scary thing is that the Biden administration officials who were in that room said ‘oh we’re ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we’re ready to go to nuclear war with them.’ This is the insanity that existed in November of last year!” Ritter stressed.

Read more …

Peace with Russia means these tariffs also must disappear.

US Has ‘No Right’ To Tell India Who To Trade With – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

The United States has no right to tell India who it can partner with in trade, Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, said on Friday. The economist was commenting in an interview with NDTV television on Washington’s decision to impose additional tariffs on India over its purchases of Russian oil. Last week, the White House announced an extra 25% tariff on Indian imports, raising the overall tariff level faced by the South Asian nation to 50%. US President Donald Trump said the measure was prompted by India’s continued imports of Russian oil. New Delhi condemned the move as “extremely unfortunate” and pledged to safeguard its national interests. Sachs described the tariff increase as a clear reason for India to remain cautious in its dealings with Washington.

“Don’t rely on them. India needs a diversified base of partners – Russia, China, ASEAN countries, Africa, and not see itself as mainly focusing on the US market, which is going to be unstable, slow-growing and basically protectionist,” according to Sachs. Addressing India’s imports of Russian oil, Sachs stated that Washington has no authority to determine the trading relations of other nations. The US “does not act responsibly towards other countries. Be careful. India should not allow itself to be used by the US, somehow, in the US’ misguided trade war with China,” the economist noted.

New Delhi is now seeking to expand its export presence in the 50 countries that account for about 90% of its total exports in an effort to offset the impact of the higher tariffs, according to local media reports, citing government sources. The initiative is intended to reduce reliance on any single market and to minimize risks arising from trade disruptions. In response to the US threats to impose secondary sanctions on Russia’s trade partners, including India, China, and Brazil, Moscow stated that it believes “sovereign states should have, and do have, the right to choose their own trade partners,” as well as to independently determine which avenues of cooperation best serve their national interests.

Read more …

“Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.”

US Gov’t Ditches Musk’s AI Over ‘Anti-Semitism’ (RT)

The US government has dropped Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok from a planned federal technology program following controversy over anti-Semitic content and conspiracy theories produced by the bot, Wired reported on Thursday. Grok, developed by Musk’s AI startup xAI, is built into his social media platform X. It offers fact checks, quick context on trending topics, and replies to user arguments. Musk has promoted xAI as a rival to OpenAI and Google’s DeepMind, but the chatbot has faced criticism over offensive and inflammatory outputs. According to the report, xAI was in advanced talks with the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency in charge of US government tech procurement, to give federal workers access to its AI tools. Grok had already been added to the GSA’s long-term procurement list, enabling agencies to buy it.

Earlier this month, the GSA announced partnerships with other AI providers – Anthropic, Google’s Gemini, and Box’s AI-powered content platform – while reportedly also telling staff to remove xAI’s Grok from the offering. Two GSA employees told Wired they believe the chatbot was dropped over its anti-Semitic tirade last month, when it praised Adolf Hitler and called itself “MechaHitler.” The posts were deleted, and xAI apologized for the “horrific behavior,” pledging to block hate speech before Grok goes live. The bot also pushed the “white genocide” conspiracy theory and echoed Holocaust denial rhetoric, which xAI blamed on unauthorized prompt changes.

This week, it was briefly suspended from X after stating that Israel and the US were committing genocide in Gaza – allegations both countries reject. Musk has continued to praise the chatbot, recently writing: “East, West, @Grok is the best.” The move to drop Grok comes as part of a broader push by the administration of US President Donald Trump to modernize the federal government under an action plan unveiled last month that provides for less regulation and wider adoption of AI. However, the rapid growth of AI has triggered concern about its potential to spread misinformation, reinforce bias, and operate without accountability. Experts say that unless strong safeguards are in place, poorly moderated AI tools could also expose children to harmful or inappropriate content.

Read more …

All the more now Trump has put them at the kiddies table.

EU Leaders Want To Overthrow Three European Governments – Budapest (RT)

The European Union is attempting to topple the governments of Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia for prioritizing national interests over alignment with Brussels, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has claimed. He made the comments in a Facebook post on Thursday after phone calls with Slovak Foreign Minister Juraj Blanar and Serbia’s top diplomat, Marko Duric. According to Szijjarto, they agreed to strengthen their stance on sovereignty and pledged mutual solidarity amid what they described as growing external pressure. “Brussels has ceased to be a factor in world politics. The fact that Europe has been excluded from the Alaska talks proves it,” he wrote, referring to Friday’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the Ukraine conflict.

https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1956065724088172985

Kiev’s backers in Europe have repeatedly called to be included in any talks involving Russia, Ukraine, and the US, insisting that “a European power” should be “in the room” to guarantee that the security interests of Kiev and the EU are “safeguarded.” Unlike the EU, which continues to support Ukraine’s war effort, Szijjarto said Hungary, Serbia, and Slovakia have prioritized national interests and resisted pressure from Brussels, favoring peace talks over military involvement. “This obviously frustrates the mainstream liberal political leaders, and as a result, the pressure is increasing on governments that are supporting peace, following national interests, and not subordinating to Brussels,” the diplomat said.

It’s “clearer than daylight” that “external intervention experiments to destabilize and overthrow governments are taking place in Central Europe against the patriot Slovak, Hungarian, and Serbian governments,” he added. Szijjarto criticized recent polling in Slovakia, which suggested citizens “only trust revolution,” and accused Brussels of trying to undermine Hungary’s elected leadership by supporting the opposition Tisza Party. He also referenced recent clashes between protesters and police in Serbia, implying that external forces were stirring unrest to destabilize the government. According to Szijjarto, these “are all different chapters of the same scenario in Brussels: they want to clean up the peace-party, patriot, national-interest governments,” aiming to replace them with puppet governments so Brussels “can get a seat.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

GoF
https://twitter.com/sheislaurenlee/status/1956140482960183359

100
https://twitter.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1956106786903388484

https://twitter.com/LangmanVince/status/1956366054529089828

Bees

Bob
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1956110689359003751

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1956330600387821710

 

 

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