A new study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Planets reveals that atmospheric gravity waves play a crucial role in driving latitudinal air currents on Mars, particularly at high altitudes. Phys.Org reports: The study applied methods developed to explore Earth's atmosphere to quantitatively estimate the influence of gravity waves on Mars' planetary circulation. [...] "On Earth, large-scale atmospheric waves caused by the planet's rotation, known as Rossby waves, are the primary influence on the way air circulates in the stratosphere, or the lower part of the middle atmosphere. But our study shows that on Mars, gravity waves (GWs) have a dominant effect at the mid and high latitudes of the middle atmosphere," said Professor Kaoru Sato from the Department of Earth and Planetary Science. "Rossby waves are large-scale atmospheric waves, or resolved waves, whereas GWs are unresolved waves, meaning they are too fine to be directly measured or modeled and must be estimated by more indirect means." Not to be confused with gravitational waves from massive stellar bodies, GWs are an atmospheric phenomenon when a packet of air rises and falls due to variations in buoyancy. That oscillating motion is what gives rise to GWs. Due to the small-scale nature of them and the limitations of observational data, researchers have previously found it challenging to quantify their significance in the Martian atmosphere. So Sato and her team turned to the Ensemble Mars Atmosphere Reanalysis System (EMARS) dataset, produced by a range of space-based observations over many years, to analyze seasonal variations up there. "We found something interesting, that GWs facilitate the rapid vertical transfer of angular momentum, significantly influencing the meridional, or north-south, in the middle atmosphere circulations on Mars," said graduate student Anzu Asumi. "It's interesting because it more closely resembles the behavior seen in Earth's mesosphere rather than in our stratosphere. This suggests existing Martian atmospheric circulation models may need to be refined to better incorporate these wave effects, potentially improving future climate and weather simulations."
New York police have arrested about 100 protesters calling for the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and a recent Columbia University graduate.
Jared Kushner's firm is now the biggest shareholder in the Israeli company which funds the construction of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran has summoned the envoys of the UK, France and Germany to Tehran over a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council regarding Tehran's nuclear program.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says a letter from US President Donald Trump had been delivered to him via an envoy from the United Arab Emirates.
US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, told NATO allies on 13 February 2025 in Brussels, the War [Ukraine] must stop; No more bloodshed, No NATO for Ukraine; No back to pre-2014 border; and “We …
“Once the principle is established that the government can arrest and jail protesters… officials will use it to silence opposition broadly.”—Heather Cox Richardson, historian You can’t have it both ways. You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state. You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship. You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law. There’s always a boomerang effect. Whatever dangerous practices … Continue reading →
You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.
You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.
You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
There’s always a boomerang effect.
Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.
The chilling of political speech and suppression of dissident voices are usually among the first signs that you’re in the midst of a hostile takeover by forces that are not friendly to freedom.
This does not seem to be a regime that respects the rights of the people.
Indeed, these ICE agents, who were “just following orders” from on high, showed no concern that the orders they had been given were trumped up, politically motivated and unconstitutional.
If this is indeed the first of many arrests to come, what’s next? Or more to the point, who’s next?
We are all at risk.
History shows that when governments claim the power to silence dissent—whether in the name of national security, border protection, or law and order—that power rarely remains limited. What starts as a crackdown on so-called “threats” quickly expands to include anyone who challenges those in power.
President Trump has made it clear that Mahmoud’s arrest is just “the first arrest of many to come.” He has openly stated his intent to target noncitizens who engage in activities he deems contrary to U.S. interests—an alarmingly vague standard that seems to change at his whim, the First Amendment be damned.
If history is any guide, the next targets will not just be immigrants or foreign-born activists. They will be American citizens who dare to speak out.
If you need further proof of Trump’s disregard for constitutional rights, look no further than his recent declaration that boycotting Tesla is illegal—a chilling statement that reveals his fundamental misunderstanding of both free speech and the rule of law.
What this means is that anyone who dares to disagree with the government and its foreign policy and express that disagreement could be considered a threat to the country’s “national security interests.”
Yet the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.
Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.
Unfortunately, the Deep State doesn’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.
This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.
Regardless of party, those in power have repeatedly sought to limit free speech. What’s new is the growing willingness to criminalize political dissent under the guise of national security.
Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is taking this hostility to new heights.
The government has a history of using crises—real or manufactured—to expand its power.
Once dissent is labeled a threat, it’s only a matter of time before laws meant for so-called extremists are used against ordinary citizens. Criticizing policy, protesting, or even refusing to conform could be enough to put someone on a watchlist.
We’ve seen this before.
The government has a long list of “suspicious” ideologies and behaviors it uses to justify surveillance and suppression. Today’s justification may be immigration; tomorrow, it could be any form of opposition.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.
Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.
This is not just about one administration or one set of policies. This is a broader pattern of governmental overreach that has been allowed to unfold, unchecked and unchallenged. And at the heart of this loss of freedom is a fundamental misunderstanding—or even a deliberate abandonment—of what sovereignty really means in America.
Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.
In other words, as the preamble to the Constitution states, in America, “we the people”—sovereign citizens—call the shots.
So, when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.
That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?
In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.
The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”
This is how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.
If we are to put an end to this steady slide into totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none, we must begin by refusing to allow the politics of fear to shackle us to a dictatorship.
President Trump wants us to believe that the menace we face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.
Don’t believe it. That argument has been tried before.
The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have all been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.
We are walking a dangerous path right now.
Political arrests. Harassment. Suppression of dissident voices. Retaliation. Detention centers for political prisoners.
These are a harbinger of what’s to come if the Trump administration carries through on its threats to crack down on any and all who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech and protest.
We are being acclimated to bolder power grabs, acts of lawlessness, and a pattern of intimidation, harassment, and human rights violations by government officials. And yet, in the midst of this relentless erosion of our freedoms, the very concept of sovereignty—the foundational idea that the people, not the government, hold ultimate power—has been all but forgotten.
“Sovereignty” used to mean something fundamental in America: the idea that the government serves at the will of the people, that “we the people” are the rightful rulers of this land, and that no one, not even the president, is above the law. But today, that notion is scarcely discussed, as the government continues its unchecked expansion.
We have lost sight of the fact that our power is meant to restrain the government, not the other way around.
Don’t allow yourselves to be distracted, derailed or desensitized.
International Man: For decades, mainstream financial commentators have dismissed gold as a “barbarous relic.” Federal Reserve officials and policymakers routinely downplay its importance, insisting that fiat currency and central banking make gold obsolete. Yet, despite this public stance, the US government still holds one of the world’s largest gold reserves. So, what’s really going on here? If gold is truly irrelevant, why does the government still treat it as a strategic asset? Doug Casey: Governments hate gold because it’s a discipline on the amount of currency they can create. Gold is money. Governments can’t create it out of thin air. You might … Continue reading →
International Man: For decades, mainstream financial commentators have dismissed gold as a “barbarous relic.” Federal Reserve officials and policymakers routinely downplay its importance, insisting that fiat currency and central banking make gold obsolete.
Yet, despite this public stance, the US government still holds one of the world’s largest gold reserves.
So, what’s really going on here? If gold is truly irrelevant, why does the government still treat it as a strategic asset?
Doug Casey: Governments hate gold because it’s a discipline on the amount of currency they can create. Gold is money. Governments can’t create it out of thin air. You might say that gold needs the government about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.
Gold is not a strategic asset. It shouldn’t be viewed as something to buy or sell, like land, copper, or a factory. You don’t buy or sell money; that’s almost a contradictory concept. Gold is money itself, although fiat currencies are treated as money in today’s world. Confusing gold with fiat currency is one of the terrible notions created by Keynesian economists. It’s allowed mainstream financial commentators to dismiss gold as a pet rock.
As you said, the Federal Reserve officials and policy makers routinely downplay the importance of gold. They believe that fiat currency and central banking have made gold obsolete. They’re 100% wrong.
Despite their theories and stated beliefs, governments around the world have been buying massive amounts of gold in recent years. They’re dumping dollars. For 25 years after World War II, the major asset of other central banks has been US dollars.
It made sense at the time because the dollars were convenient and guaranteed to be redeemed at $35 for an ounce of gold up to 1971. Now, however, the US government backs its dollars by nothing. Foreign governments can see that the US government is fiscally and monetarily totally out of control. They’ve seen the US arbitrarily confiscate assets, impose sanctions, and levy duties. They’re dumping dollars because it’s increasingly obvious they’re the unsecured liability of a bankrupt and unreliable government. They’re accumulating gold.
The only solution to today’s massive monetary problems is to go back to classical banking practices. What that means is gold and only gold is used as money. US Government debt should not be monetized. And fractional reserve banking has to be abolished.
There used to be a distinction between the two types of bank accounts—demand deposits (i.e., checking accounts) and time deposits (i.e., savings accounts). Banks have typically offered both, but they’re two totally separate and very different businesses.
With demand deposits, you pay the bank to store your gold securely. You have the right to withdraw it at a moment’s notice and write checks against it, making it simple to transfer it on the bank’s books to another person.
Time deposits are a totally different business. With these, you deposit money with the bank for X number of months. It must be for a fixed period of time to allow the bank to lend that money out for X number of months. The banks may pay you 3% and charge the borrower 7%, the 400 basis point difference covering overhead, risk of loss, and profit.
Today, however, there’s no longer any distinction between time and demand deposits. Banks lend demand deposits, which is a fraud. It’s as if you paid the Allied Van Company to store your furniture, and they then rented it to someone else.
Worse, when banks lend money today, it’s redeposited within the system. They lend it out again, it’s redeposited, they lend it out again, ad infinitum. It’s a giant daisy chain, an inverted pyramid of debt. It’s why banking is such a profitable business—until the inevitable happens. If any significant borrower goes bust, or if depositors want more than a minimum of cash, any given bank would be shown to be bankrupt.
That’s why Central Banks like the Fed are critical to maintaining the fraud. They stand ready to create fiat to maintain confidence in the system. And regulate commercial banks to keep them from abusing the system too badly.
Almost every bank in the world engages in fractional reserve practices. That practice puts them all in danger of bankruptcy. Sorry for the overly brief explanation. But the bottom line is that the entire system must be, and will be, reset.
International Man: Given the secrecy surrounding Fort Knox, do you think the US government still possesses the 261 million ounces of gold it claims to have?
Do you think the reluctance to conduct a full, independent audit is due to mismanagement, deception, or something more sinister?
Doug Casey: Chris Weber recently did an essay about that in his March 3 letter. His publication is one of my favorites; I suggest you subscribe.
You’ll see why I say that. In any event, go to weberglobal.net to get that letter, gratis. You should take advantage of a two-month trial for $60 as well.
In fact, there’s never been a formal audit of Ft Knox. I doubt that the US government has anything like 261 million ounces of gold that it says it owns. In fact, most of the gold in Fort Knox is not even in good delivery .999 form; it’s what we call coin melt.
The US government confiscated gold coins from the public in 1933. They were in wide circulation and everyday use. The government then melted them down—they’re 90% gold and 10% copper. There’s never been an actual audit of how much gold, of what purity, there is in Fort Knox. FWIW, the vault itself was inaugurated in 1936.
We don’t know who owns whatever gold there is in Ft Knox, ostensibly 147 million ounces, because any amount of it may have been hypothecated for who knows what reasons. For that matter, the same is true of the gold stored with the New York Fed, another 110 million ounces.
No one knows exactly how much there is, who owns what, or how much may have been loaned out. It impresses me as a dog’s breakfast. For many years, Ron Paul has fought to get an audit, but they’ve disregarded him.
Hopefully, DOGE will be the impetus to dig into it so we can find out exactly how much is there and exactly who owns it.
International Man: US citizens have virtually no financial privacy, facing severe penalties if they fail to disclose every detail of their financial lives to the government.
Why is financial disclosure a one-way street where citizens are forced to comply while the government operates behind closed doors?
Doug Casey: It’s naïve to believe that, just because some people call it “our democracy,” that we’re anything more than the capite censi—the “head count,” as the Romans termed the mob. The people who control the government, the Deep State, are the boss. I recognize that it’s very politically incorrect to say so, but the government is an entity onto itself with its own interests.
Even though America is unique in world history for having been founded on the principles of personal freedom and a strictly limited State, it’s degraded over time. That’s natural, I suppose; the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates in absolutely every sphere. But today, it’s a fiction, a myth, that citizens no longer democratically control the State. We’ve devolved into an unstable multicultural domestic empire. In fact, you’re a subject, a veritable serf—albeit one with a high standard of living.
At this point, the government is very much like The Wizard of Oz, hiding behind the curtain. The Wizard, you’ll recall, was not the friend of Dorothy and her companions.
International Man: President Trump recently stated, “We’re going to go into Fort Knox to make sure the gold is there.” If it isn’t, he warned, “we’re going to be very upset.”
What do you make of Trump’s comments? Do they signal genuine concern about US gold reserves, or are they just political posturing with no real intention of follow-through?
Doug Casey: If it’s true that something has happened to the gold, it will trigger a genuine earthquake which will echo around the world.
I’m afraid that if DOGE digs into the gold holdings in Fort Knox and the NY Fed, there won’t be anything near 261 million unhypothecated ounces of gold.
If that’s the case, it would create such an upset that I’m not sure they’d dare disclose it. It would overthrow the world’s financial system because it would show that no figures are reliable and that it’s all a sham. This is potentially a very big deal.
International Man: What are the investment implications of renewed scrutiny on US gold reserves—both in general and with the potential for a full audit of Fort Knox?
Doug Casey: As I’ve said many times before, at approximately $3,000, gold is reasonably valued relative to the historical cost of everything else—clothes, food, houses, cars. But because the world’s financial situation is so shaky at this point and gold is, in fact, the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously somebody else’s liability, it seems to me that you should continue buying gold. It’s much better to own gold coins than it is to own dollars, which are just the accounting fiction of an unsound bank.
As Matt Smith has pointed out recently—he explains all this in (LINK)—if gold was reinstituted as money, whether just between governments or in general society, it would probably have to be revalued at 25, 30, or $40,000 an ounce.
At this point, continue buying gold even at $3,000 an ounce. The general public is still totally uninterested in it. That’s going to change when panic breaks upon the economic world in the near future.
I get into too many conversations with family and friends regarding the Ukraine war. Too many because they are so tiresome. Often my interlocutors base their opinions solely on facts learned from only CNN, BBC, etc. I ask, do you believe Zelensky that Ukraine has 1/10th the casualties of Russia when Russia has extreme advantages in air power, air defense, artillery, etc.? They tell me Russia can’t be trusted, they broke the Minsk accords. I ask them if they had heard the interviews of Merkle, Holland, and Poroshenko admitting that Ukraine broke the accords to rearm? On and on it … Continue reading →
I get into too many conversations with family and friends regarding the Ukraine war. Too many because they are so tiresome. Often my interlocutors base their opinions solely on facts learned from only CNN, BBC, etc. I ask, do you believe Zelensky that Ukraine has 1/10th the casualties of Russia when Russia has extreme advantages in air power, air defense, artillery, etc.? They tell me Russia can’t be trusted, they broke the Minsk accords. I ask them if they had heard the interviews of Merkle, Holland, and Poroshenko admitting that Ukraine broke the accords to rearm? On and on it goes.
Finally, if I am not frazzled, I come to the ultimate point of the discussion. What exactly is the strategy of Russia’s adversaries? Those brainiacs of the rules based order located in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris, Berlin, not to mention those northern countries that seem to be suffering from winter madness, have an idea. Because Ukraine has lost the war, the final denouement to occur in one day or one month or one year, the next move in their 4D chess game to keep the conflict going is a particular idea. The idea is to get the US military into a direct conflict with Russia over Ukraine.
This idea is dumb. It is dumber than dumb. In fact, it is the dumbest idea ever conceived. In a display of an incredibly steep inverse relationship between arrogance and intelligence, they will pit the two countries with enough nuclear arms to totally destroy human civilization directly against each other. It takes a certain type of dimwit to argue that Putin would never use his enormous investment in nuclear weapons to protect what he considers vital to Russia, e.g., Crimea. And if not Putin, some oligarch much more prone to violence. He has said this directly. Any fool with even the most basic understanding of risk analysis would not do this. That is, to greatly increase the most dangerous event that could ever occur for an intermediate move to achieve the highly unlikely (and immoral) goal of ruling the world. Why not play hopscotch on an interstate highway at night wearing dark clothes.
You can listen to Pepe Escobar explain it all here.
Postscript and Clarification: I originally wrote the following post in an ironic tone. Reviewing reader comments, I realize that I should have made this clearer. To clarify: I believe that Byron, Travis, Roosevelt, and Ambrose Bierce were all suffering from 19th century romantic nationalism. As Byron himself ultimately understood, his misadventure in Greece was comically absurd. Travis obviously should have ditched the Alamo and lived to fight another day with Houston. William Randolph Hearst produced the worst kind of jingoistic Yellow Journalism, and Teddy Roosevelt was being a ridiculous showman. The character Peyton Farquhar in “Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” was … Continue reading →
Postscript and Clarification: I originally wrote the following post in an ironic tone. Reviewing reader comments, I realize that I should have made this clearer. To clarify: I believe that Byron, Travis, Roosevelt, and Ambrose Bierce were all suffering from 19th century romantic nationalism. As Byron himself ultimately understood, his misadventure in Greece was comically absurd. Travis obviously should have ditched the Alamo and lived to fight another day with Houston. William Randolph Hearst produced the worst kind of jingoistic Yellow Journalism, and Teddy Roosevelt was being a ridiculous showman. The character Peyton Farquhar in “Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” was a fool who hanged for it. The author of the story, Ambrose Bierce, “went to Mexico to die,” just like Fuentes wrote. Obviously, Americans have no real interest in who governs Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts. Please read my original post below in light of this clarification.
As a proud native Texan, my heart swelled with pride the first time I read William Barret Travis’s letter that he wrote from the Alamo Mission in San Antonio, addressed to “the People of Texas and All Americans in the World.”
Commandancy of the The Alamo
Bejar, Feby. 24th. 1836
To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World-
Fellow Citizens & compatriots-
I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna – I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man – The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken – I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls – I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch – The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country – Victory or Death.
William Barret Travis.
Lt. Col.comdt.
P. S. The Lord is on our side – When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn – We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.
Travis
At the time Travis sent his letter, the commander-in-chief of the Texas Republican Army, Sam Houston, was negotiating a treaty with Cherokee Indians who inhabited the northeast region of the territory and was unable to respond in time with reinforcements.
When I was a kid visiting the Alamo for the first time, I wondered if, had I been of fighting age at the time, I would have gone to the Alamo to join Travis. He, a young man of 26, knew that his refusal to surrender meant certain death. Would I have been prepared to die for the Alamo to keep it out of the hands of the vainglorious Santa Anna?
On a recent visit to San Antonio, I was surprised by how desolate the downtown area was at night. I drifted over to the Hotel Menger for a drink at the bar where Teddy Roosevelt recruited local cowboys for his valiant expedition to liberate Cuba from the Spanish in 1898. I found the place strangely empty.
The following photo is of Teddy and his Rough Riders at the top of San Juan Hill, which they had just successfully stormed.
Teddy was inspired by the reporting from Cuba of William Randolph Hearst’s New York World. Hearst’s crack reporters told “horrific tales of female prisoners, executions, valiant rebels fighting, and starving women and children.” Hearst then blamed the Spanish for sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana Harbor without presenting any evidence. Indications that the vessel exploded from accidental fire in the coal bunker were ignored.
Going back in time, another great adventure was Lord Byron’s attempt to liberate Greece from Ottoman rule in 1824. Wikipedia provides a pretty good summary:
By the end of March 1824, the so-called “Byron brigade” of 30 philhellene officers and about 200 men had been formed, paid for entirely by Byron.Leadership of the Greek cause in the Roumeli region was divided between two rival leaders: a former Klepht (bandit), Odysseas Androutsos; and a wealthy Phanariot Prince, Alexandros Mavrokordatos. Byron used his prestige to attempt to persuade the two rival leaders to come together to focus on defeating the Ottomans..
At the same time, other leaders of the Greek factions like Petrobey Mavromichalis and Theodoros Kolokotronis wrote letters to Byron telling him to disregard all of the Roumeliot leaders and to come to their respective areas in the Peloponnese. This drove Byron to distraction; he complained that the Greeks were hopelessly disunited and spent more time feuding with each other than trying to win independence.
Byron’s friend Edward John Trelawny had aligned himself with Androutsos, who ruled Athens, and was now pressing for Byron to break with Mavrokordatos in favour of backing the rival Androutsos.Androutsos, having won over Trelawny to his cause, was now anxious to persuade Byron to put his wealth behind his claim to be the leader of Greece.Byron wrote with disgust about how one of the Greek captains, former Klepht Georgios Karaiskakis, attacked Missolonghi on 3 April 1824 with some 150 men supported by the Souliotes as he was unhappy with Mavrokordatos’s leadership, which led to a brief bout of inter-Greek fighting before Karaiskakis was chased away by 6 April.
While Greece was ultimately liberated from the Ottomans by the combined forces of Great Britain, Russia, and France, the “Byron brigade” achieved nothing and Byron died of a fever in Missolonghi at the age of thirty-six. The concluding lines of his poem about swimming across the Hellespont captured the spirit of his young and romantic death.
Sad mortals! thus the gods still plague you!
He lost his labour, I my jest;
For he was drown’d, and I’ve the ague.
Another great story is that of the American writer Ambrose Bierce going to Mexico, perhaps to join Pancho Villa’s revolutionary army, in 1913. Especially stylish was the fact that Bierce was 71-years-old.
The adventure inspired Carlos Fuentes to write his novel The Old Gringo with its refrain, “The old gringo came to Mexico to die.” The pointless, romantic death of Peyton Farquhar in “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” seemed to presage Bierce’s death 24 years later.
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group Ever since the days of Herbert Hoover and the official start of the Great Depression the concept of trade tariffs has been readily demonized across most of academia and among the majority of modern economic ideologies. Is is actually one area where globalists and free market economists tend to align (though each group has very different reasons). Proponents of Adam Smith’s free market philosophy or Ludwig Von Mises and his Austrian school are Just as likely to be opposed to Donald Trump’s tariff plans as any globalist … Continue reading →
This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group
Ever since the days of Herbert Hoover and the official start of the Great Depression the concept of trade tariffs has been readily demonized across most of academia and among the majority of modern economic ideologies. Is is actually one area where globalists and free market economists tend to align (though each group has very different reasons).
Proponents of Adam Smith’s free market philosophy or Ludwig Von Mises and his Austrian school are Just as likely to be opposed to Donald Trump’s tariff plans as any globalist from the halls of Davos.
First and foremost we have to make it clear what tariffs are: Tariffs are taxes on international companies importing goods from other nations. These taxes are designed to force companies to import from countries outside of the tariff list or produce goods domestically. The primary targets of tariffs are actually corporations. The secondary targets are countries on the tariff list.
Austrian economists in their opposition to tariffs operate on the assumption that large corporations are “free market” entities. They also assume that globalism is a product of free markets.
Adam Smith might have witnessed the corruption of mercantalism, but he had no inkling of the monstrosity of modern globalism and how it would ultimately pervert the free market ideal. The same goes for Mises. Their support for global trade was contingent on the idea that government interference is always the root problem, the fly in the ointment.
They did not take into account the blurring of lines between corporations, governments and NGOs – They did not consider the corporate shadow government of Davos and the manipulation of markets in the name of “free trade”. They couldn’t have even fathomed the creation of organizations like the IMF, World Bank, the BIS, etc. at the time they came up with their economic theories.
After the Bretton Woods conference Mises would go on to question the motives of the new “global order” and the trade agreements being put in place. He would also oppose at least some aspects of globalism before his death, leaving Austrians to debate the merits of “good globalism” vs “bad globalism”.
The reality is that today there is no “good globalism”. It doesn’t exist because the entities dictating global trade collude rather than compete. They are not actually interested in free markets, they are interested in global monopoly. And corporations are the key to this monopoly.
Adam Smith criticized the idea “joint stock companies” (corporations), but there are a lot of Austrians and Anarcho-capitalists that defend international companies as if they are an inherent evolution of free market progress. This is simply not so. Global corporations (and central banks) are pure socialist constructs chartered by governments and given special protection. Their immunity to constitutional restrictions serves government interests and government legal chicanery serves corporate interests.
This is the opposite of free markets. I’ll say it again – Under the current conditions, global conglomerates are NOT free market organizations. They destroy free markets by using government partnerships to erase competition.
The covid event and the rise of woke propaganda in the US are perfect examples of the collusion between companies and governments to institute social engineering and erase free economic participation. Anyone not suspicious of these entities after everything that happened is beyond help at this point.
These corporations also act as wealth siphons; sucking up consumer cash in one country only to deposit it in other countries instead of cycling that wealth (after their cut) back into the economy they rely on for sales. In other words, global corporations act as a kind of wealth redistribution machine that takes money and jobs from Americans and spreads them around the world to the detriment of the American public.
As the middlemen of this wealth redistribution scheme, companies generate vast profits while people on both sides of the exchange get very little in return. Mexico might seem like it benefits from the NAFTA trade imbalances, but this is a mistake – The Mexican people and their standard of living enjoy minimal benefits; the companies that use them for labor get the advantage, along with some government officials on the take.
In turn, US GDP and our supposed national wealth continues to rise due to global corporations. But the majority of that wealth increase is not going to Americans, it’s going to the .0001% of elites. The longer globalism carries on the wider the wealth gap becomes. This is an undeniable fact and I think people on the left and the right mostly agree on this issue, but nobody wants to make the hard decisions and do something about it.
Leftists think bigger government and more regulation is the answer. Conservatives think smaller government and less regulation is the answer. Conservatives are closer to the mark, but neither solution confronts the core problem of collusion between governments and conglomerates.
Keep in mind, the US operated on tariffs for hundreds of years. The “T-word” did not become a bad word until the creation of corporations, the Federal Reserve system and the income tax.
So, I stand with my Austrian School economist friends on most things, but when they cry foul on Trump’s tariffs I have to remind them that the situation is not as simple as “government interference bad”. The current system is long overdue for a course correction and fiscal Libertarianism is not going to provide it. They think they’re defending free markets, but they’re not.
Another key problem of globalism is forced interdependency. If each nation is producing an ample supply of their own necessary resources, they have resilient domestic job creation, and they decide to trade excess goods with each other then global markets make sense. But, what happens then when each nation is pressured though trade agreements to rely on every other nation for the basic economic needs of their populace?
Then we must reexamine the value of globalism in general.
International economic interdependency is a form of slavery, especially when corporations and NGO middlemen are involved. Only resource redundancy and localism foster true free markets and individual liberty. Tariffs can help to energize local production and trade and make communities more self reliant. That said, there’s going to be a cost.
The comparisons made between Donald Trump and Herbert Hoover are rampant and have been since 2016. I warned during Trump’s first term that accelerating fiscal decline and growing stagflation could be dropped in his lap and blamed on conservative policies. That is to say, anti-globalism would be blamed for the financial destruction caused by globalists. I continue to believe that this agenda is still in play.
Hoover was blamed for exacerbating the Great Depression in 1930 with his Smoot-Hawley tariffs. In truth, the Great Depression spread because of a series of policy decisions by major banks and rate hikes by the Federal Reserve (Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted to this openly in 2002). At the time it didn’t matter who caused it – Hoover was president and so he was the scapegoat.
The same situation could happen for Trump if he’s not careful, and all conservatives will be blamed by extension. It’s important to remember that US production has been hollowed out by decades of government interference supporting globalization, along with unchallenged corporate power. Reining in corporations with tariffs is not going to be enough, there must also be incentives to reverse the damage done by decades of government corruption.
I can’t think of any other way to rebuild America’s production base fast enough to counter the price increases that will inevitably come with tariffs. Defeating inflation would require an unprecedented national effort to bring back manufacturing specifically for necessities. Tariffs by themselves are not going to make this happen.
We need mass goods, energy and housing NOW, not several years from now. Otherwise, in the long run tariffs will only make the situation worse. Libertarians are right to warn of negative effects on American consumers, but the solution is not to let corporations do whatever they please and for globalism to continue unchallenged. The solution is to break globalism and return to a domestically independent model.
Finally, there’s the issue of the dollar and its world reserve status. After Bretton Woods the great unspoken arrangement was that America would act as the military pillar of the western world (and apparently the consumer cash cow of the world). In exchange, the US would enjoy the advantages of having the world reserve currency.
What advantages? Namely, the dollar could be printed well beyond any other currency for decades without suffering the immediate effects of hyperinflation because most of those dollars would be held overseas. The breakup of NATO and a trade war might trigger the end of this arrangement. Meaning, all those dollars held in foreign banks could come flooding back into the US and cause egregious inflation.
Reserve status has long been the Achilles Heel of the US and it must end eventually. Just take note that globalists have been preparing for this shift since at least 2008 with the SDR basket and CBDCs. This past week the EU announced they will be distributing retail CBDCs by the end of this year. They know what’s coming. A trade war will not only require the Trump Administration to facilitate increased domestic production, but also facilitate a new commodity backed currency system to protect against the fall of the dollar.
In the meantime, individual citizens and communities are going to have to prepare as globalism breaks down. This means local production of goods, retailers seeking out local suppliers, people trading goods and services through barter networks, etc. State leaders should consider introducing commodity backed scrip to offset any potential damage to the dollar. They should also open up more natural resources to improve local industry.
In the past few days, violence and mass killings of Christians and Alawites in Syria have seen an unprecedented upsurge, with thousands of deaths in all regions under the control of the extremist Islamic movement Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Organization for the Liberation of the Levant), affiliated with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. The reasons for this persecution of the two minorities by the Syrian government are to be found first and foremost in the regime change desired by the previous American administration, in agreement with NATO and the European Union. The ouster of President Bashar al-Assad and the installation of Abu … Continue reading →
In the past few days, violence and mass killings of Christians and Alawites in Syria have seen an unprecedented upsurge, with thousands of deaths in all regions under the control of the extremist Islamic movement Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Organization for the Liberation of the Levant), affiliated with the terrorist group al-Qaeda.
The reasons for this persecution of the two minorities by the Syrian government are to be found first and foremost in the regime change desired by the previous American administration, in agreement with NATO and the European Union.
The ouster of President Bashar al-Assad and the installation of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani (whose party was until yesterday considered by the American State Department to be a terrorist organization) have inevitably led to the genocide of the Alawites and Syrian Christians.
This genocide is taking place today right before our eyes, even as the parliaments of the “democratic” nations and the “Catholic” hierarchy subservient to the interests of globalism remain silent.
Our Christian brothers are being barbarically killed in cities and villages. Elderly people, women, and children are being crucified and massacred purely because of their Christian faith: a faith that decades of compromises and concessions have almost completely erased in Western countries and especially among their leaders.
And while the warmongering madness of international high finance is trying to persuade European nations to finance rearmament against the Russian Federation and to be ready to sacrifice our children in a reckless and specious war, on the Syrian front (but also in Gaza, where other Christians are being ethnically cleansed) the hierarchs of globalism are culpably silent, and indeed they are aligning themselves with a criminal terrorist on whom a $10 million bounty was hanging.
It is from the globalist deep state in the United States that this new hotbed of violence and extermination has been hatched: it is therefore from the United States that an action aimed at putting an end to the genocide of Christians and other minorities in Syria must start. At their side must stand all those who recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ as the only savior, both individuals as well as societies and nations.
We cannot remain silent or inert in the face of the martyrdom of our Christian brothers. Those scenes of inhuman violence and cruelty that we see happening in remote lands could tomorrow be replicated in our own Western nations, which the betrayal of corrupt rulers has caused to be invaded by hordes of fanatical Mohammedans of military age, in order to impose on Europe ethnic substitution and the definitive cancellation of Christian civilization.
I urge Catholics, during these days of Holy Lent, to pray, fast, and do penance to implore from Heaven protection for the faithful who are being persecuted and martyred in Syria, Gaza, and many other parts of the world.
May their example of heroic steadfastness in the profession of the true faith animate, before it is too late, an awakening of the consciences of Christians and a return to God, on whom the peace, harmony, and prosperity of peoples depends. Deus vult!
The Trump administration has decided to resume the provision of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. It is thus aiming at escalating the conflict. The outcome of yesterday’s talk between a Ukrainian and a U.S. delegation Saudi Arabia was not completely in favor of the European/Ukrainian idea of a 30 day ceasefire restricted to air and sea attacks. But it opened the desired pathway to prolonging the war. The U.S. asked the Ukrainians to accept a 30 day long ceasefire offer. This would of course only be implemented if the Russian side agrees to it. Meanwhile the U.S. resumes all war … Continue reading →
The Trump administration has decided to resume the provision of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine. It is thus aiming at escalating the conflict.
The outcome of yesterday’s talk between a Ukrainian and a U.S. delegation Saudi Arabia was not completely in favor of the European/Ukrainian idea of a 30 day ceasefire restricted to air and sea attacks. But it opened the desired pathway to prolonging the war.
The U.S. asked the Ukrainians to accept a 30 day long ceasefire offer. This would of course only be implemented if the Russian side agrees to it. Meanwhile the U.S. resumes all war support for Ukraine. The outcome demonstrates weakness on the U.S. side:
According to the latest from Riyadh, Ukraine says it is ready for a 30 day cease fire. If this is what Washington “extracted” from the Ukrainians, it is operationally meaningless. With Russia on the brink of winning in Kursk and elsewhere, the Russians won’t accept any such deal. If it is a ruse to allow the US to resume arms shipments to Ukraine, knowing Russia will reject it, the so-called peace initiative is a dead letter.
‘The ball is now in Russia’s court’ was the media slogan launched by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and obediently repeated by various European underlings.
But why would or should Russia agree to this when the idea seems to be to trap Russia:
This marks a significant shift in the US approach to ending the conflict. Previously, Washington sought to pressure Ukraine into accepting a US- and Russia-brokered deal largely on Moscow’s terms. Now, America is attempting to strong-arm Russia into accepting a ceasefire as the first step toward a broader peace plan — warning that if Moscow refuses, “we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here”, as Rubio put it.
Whether Russia will agree remains uncertain. Moscow has repeatedly stated that it does not view a ceasefire as viable without a broader framework for negotiations. But the parties are far from agreeing on this broader framework. Russia’s demands are clear: above all, legal recognition by Ukraine and the West of Russia’s annexed territories as part of the Russian Federation.
The u-turn by the Trump administration, from pressure on Ukraine to new bellicosity to Russia, leaves a question:
So what does the Trump Administration think it is doing by retying the Ukraine millstone to its neck? This isn’t Trump’s war. The Oval Office row provided him with the perfect excuse to cut Zelensky loose, even put new elections as the condition for providing much help, and provide only bare bones support (not that the US could do more than that on the weapons front) so as to blunt criticism that the US was abandoning Ukraine, as opposed to getting them to sober up about their true condition.
Yves Smith, quoted above, sees four potential reasons:
the U.S. really believes that Russia is in a bad shape economically,
the U.S. really believes that Russia would and wants to profit from a ceasefire,
the neocons (i.e. Marco Rubio and the Europeans) have played Trump,
or (most likely):
Finally, Trump may, even more than before, be in “All tactics and no strategy is the noise before the defeat” mode. It is becoming more and more apparent that his top priority is dominating any interaction, no matter whether that advances any long term aim. Trump and his allies derived pleasure from beating up on Zelensky during and after the White House row. Even though Zelensky asked for it (at a minimum by not donning a suit), what did the US gain? Zelensky ran around Europe, getting support that bolstered him at home. The US, despite holding the cards, got bupkis in Riyadh aside from some optics.
Since 2014 the Ukrainian side has multiple times agreed to this or that ceasefire after its forces received a strong beating. It also immediately broke each of its promises. The defeat of its incursion into the Kursk region of Russia will have motivated it to accept the U.S. position. But what force could make it stick to a ceasefire if Russia would agree to one?
The current situation on the battle field is very much in Russia’s favor. Any pause in fighting would allow the U.S. and its allies to accumulate more arms and ammunition for Ukraine. Russian forces are well supplied and not in need of a break in the fighting. Should the Russian leadership agree to a pause it would open itself to considerable critique from Russian nationalists and hardliners.
Russia, at the same time, wants to keep its friends in China and the Global South on its side. Pressure from them is the only reason I can think of that might push Russia into accepting a temporary ceasefire deal. But there has been no public noise in this direction from China or other BRICS and Global South countries so far.
Russia has yet to receive the official result of the U.S.-Ukrainian talks. It will not react to media noise before having read those.
— Recently three U.S. bloggers, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson and Mario Nawfal, had an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (video, transcript). It is as always refreshing to follow Lavrov’s reality based reasoning about the conflict over Ukraine.
Why They’re Suddenly Preppers It takes a wise man to learn from his mistakes, but an even wiser man to learn from others. The super-rich, major corporations, and fund managers are circling their wagons right now and are in full-blown protect their “assets” mode. If you follow the flow of money, you also have a good indicator of how the future will play out for the common person. You won’t know the actual conclusions because anything could happen, but you will know the possible outcomes. These massive wealth holders have gotten to where they are by understanding and overcoming the … Continue reading →
It takes a wise man to learn from his mistakes, but an even wiser man to learn from others.
The super-rich, major corporations, and fund managers are circling their wagons right now and are in full-blown protect their “assets” mode. If you follow the flow of money, you also have a good indicator of how the future will play out for the common person. You won’t know the actual conclusions because anything could happen, but you will know the possible outcomes. These massive wealth holders have gotten to where they are by understanding and overcoming the threats they’ve faced. They are unique positions to look a bit over the horizon, and they’re driving us all, sometimes kicking and screaming, to where they want us to go. They are also particularly averse to loss. Their goal for themselves and their investors is to maximize profits at any cost while reducing costs. Survive and maximize, you might say, just like a prepper.
In this blog, we will examine what the ultra-rich are currently doing, how this could impact your future, and what you should be doing now to prepare if anything.
What are they doing?
The wealthy are buying land, energy, and water. According to at least one article this week, the ultra-rich are also looking to build bunkers and purchase private land and mercenary security forces to get them through the next unknown disaster. They are looking to preserve assets simultaneously as they are staring at a prolonged global recession and currency slowing and decreasing in value. Traditionally, this has driven investors into bonds or precious metals, and some of that is still going on; however, with whole economies teetering on the brink of a more significant decline, bonds aren’t yielding much return.
Investments in precious metals occurred in the run-up to the current economic crisis and through the COVID lockdowns, so they are still riding all-time historical highs. Now, the money is flowing to the most stable assets–resources in the form of land, water, and energy. During the 2020 market crash, the wealthy came out ahead the following year, doubling their asset ownership. The rich buy assets when when everyone else is selling, and this year is no exception.
These are the three things you are always going to need to survive. We have previously done a blog on the rich buying up farming land and water resources, and we will link to those two blogs at the end of this one because they are still valid. To see how the future will likely play out, you must look at where these ultra-rich are pumping their money. That’s what will get protected and promulgated. In addition to those big two of land and water resources, the rich are investing in alternative energy because they know that the fossil-based system is an increasingly unreliable and inconsistent profit generator. Companies like Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian, makers of electric vehicles, are doing well. With countries reeling from inflation and rising energy costs, government policies also reflect a move toward renewable energies with the added benefit of severing their dependencies on foreign energy sources, a problem Europe is currently facing.
Policy often mirrors the desires and investments of the wealthier citizens, so expect incentives and tax breaks favoring renewables. As we pointed out in earlier videos, oil and natural gas are currently being used as a weapon of war, with OPEC+ and Russia scaling back output to keep the price of a barrel of oil high. Meanwhile, Russia sells to China, which then sells to the world to circumnavigate sanctions and keep the money flowing. There’s too much potential for sanctions, seizures, and policy for intelligent, wealthy investors to sink too much capital into this industry.
As an alternative to gold and to combat inflation, the ultra-rich are also taking advantage of the low prices of crypto and possibly suffering through their losses in that market by doubling down on significant cryptocurrencies. It’s in these moments when others are fleeing markets that the wealthy come in and scoop up assets at discounted prices. Wealth is built in bear markets.
It’s not so much the “what” they are investing in here as it is the “why” they are investing this way. Again, whole economies are teetering on the precipice of a more significant decline. At least some economies will probably collapse in the coming years. If you watched our recent video on China’s economic collapse avoidance we released a few weeks ago, you’ll see what a house of cards the world economy really is right now. Already there are a few countries with CBDCs – Central Bank Digital Currency, and even more, governments are exploring moving their currency to a digital coin. Speculators suspect it’s only a matter of time before a robust and secure enough platform is implemented or adopted that can carry fiat currencies into the digital realm.
We detail these trends of the rich not to try to encourage you to go out and do the same. If you are like me, you could invest maybe the hundreds but not the millions required to truly profit off the same investment strategies. If you were to muster the $1,700 spare cash to buy an ounce of gold, for instance, and it doubles to $3,400, that’s great. The only problem is the cost of everything you need to survive also doubled in price while you were waiting on that return. The question now becomes whether you’ll invest in speculative assets or the here and now…items that you’ll require in the next few years that will increase in price.
The reason we note all these trends is because, in all of them, there is an overabundance of caution and a strong desire to hide and squirrel away money and survival resources. There isn’t confidence in the systems of government or commerce. It is as if the ultra-wealthy aren’t looking at investing in the future as much as they are interested in protecting what they have built and escaping in the future. The ironic part is that so many of the ultra-wealthy became so rich by selling the dream of the future in the first place. Many of the products they brought to market to better our lives are fueling our very demise. Given recent articles and revelations about the ultra-rich building bunkers, establishing remote ranches, seeking citizenship in New Zealand, residency in Alaska, and other resource-rich, low-population areas, it is clear the ultra-wealthy aren’t very confident that we are going to get through this swiftly approaching economic and societal downturn.
How will this impact you?
So, if we factor in their pessimism with the knowledge that they are also the ones with the long-term vision who are also pulling the strings, for the most part, we have to ask then how this will impact us. First, there’s land. Whether that’s land purchased for large-scale farming and ranching, for the resources they contain, or for future building, raw land retains value through any economic cycle. Even if the commercial and residential real estate markets both implode, raw land remains a stable investment. In fact, as suburban residential housing fails, rural land increases in value because it is more sought after. While the percentage of corporate farms remains low, they aren’t as incentivized to grow as the family farm is. It’s easier to write off the loss on taxes than to struggle with the land and extreme weather. The same is true with factory farming operations. When the cost of grain and water is too high and cuts too deeply into shareholder profits, the inclination is to reduce the output supply while demand remains high. Profits continue, but the available food supply is reduced.
The real impact of land is when it comes to the resources they contain. As water continues to be a vital resource, especially in the western states, the value of the land containing pockets of it goes up. None of that water makes it into the available supply until profits are high enough. Commercial operations can also impact output. In California and Pembrokeshire, Wales, Nestle operations are extracting, bottling, transporting, and selling millions upon millions of gallons and liters of water, even as those locations reel and suffer through horrible droughts. You might even have some of these bottles of water in your emergency supplies. Largescale farming and winery operations in several areas throughout the US have dropped the aquifer levels and forced locals to continue digging deeper wells.
A modern-day corporatocracy has come to life that challenges your ability to prep and be free from its system. When it comes to ruling and passing laws in your favor or answering to the ultra-wealthy, let’s just say money talks.
Trump and Zelensky have agreed on a cease fire, a pause in the conflict. How does this benefit Russia? It doesn’t. The Ukrainian military is collapsing on all fronts. 86% of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has been retaken, and the remaining Ukrainian forces are surrounded. What remains of the Ukrainian military is retreating from the few kilometers of Russian territory still occupied in the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions that have been reincorporated into Russia. A cease fire is the last thing Russia needs when Russia is on the verge of total victory. Russia should be imposing surrender terms on Zelensky, Trump, and Europe. Russia … Continue reading →
Trump and Zelensky have agreed on a cease fire, a pause in the conflict.How does this benefit Russia?
It doesn’t.The Ukrainian military is collapsing on all fronts. 86% of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has been retaken, and the remaining Ukrainian forces are surrounded.What remains of the Ukrainian military is retreating from the few kilometers of Russian territory still occupied in the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions that have been reincorporated into Russia.A cease fire is the last thing Russia needs when Russia is on the verge of total victory.
Russia should be imposing surrender terms on Zelensky, Trump, and Europe.Russia has won the conflict.Why agree to a negotiation?The victor dictates the surrender terms. If Russia’s surrender terms are not accepted, Russia should proceed with the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine and reincorporate Ukraine into Russia where it historically belongs.It was Washingtontaking advantage of the Soviet collapse that cut out Ukraine from its historic multi-century home as part of Russia.
Are Putin and Lavrov too besotted with good will toward the West, which has been trying to destroy Russia, to understand the basics?Does Putin understand that Trump should first have come to him, worked out the terms of surrender between them, and imposed them on Zelensky, who in fact is not a legitimate head of government as his term in office has expired?Putin is correct.There needs to be a Ukrainian election that installs a legal government to whom to dictate the terms of surrender. What is the worth of a document signed by an illegal occupant of office?
If Putin agrees with the Trump-Zelenzky cease fire, will it obligate Putin to agree to a settlement that is less than victory? A cease fire would halt the Russian advance, provide Ukraine with time to rebuild with the weapons now again supplied by Trump. Will negotiations be a repeat of Putin’s Minsk mistake which cost Russia so dearly? If Putin denies Russia a victory, could he be removed from office?
Peace must be conclusive.Cease fires never are.If memory serves, the Korean War in the 1950s is still governed by a cease fire, and antagonisms still exist between North and South Korea with Washington still adding to the confrontation.
From what I know of Russia’s Westernized intellectual class that influences Putin and Lavrov, they are Westernized to the point of treason.Putin needs a Russian government occupied and advised by Russian nationalists.Otherwise Russia will remain a target despite its unrivaled weapons systems.
In my column on March 11, I asked, “What should Trump do about Ukraine?”I answered:
“To end the conflict Trump doesn’t need to be holding meetings and talking about meetings with Putin, Zelensky, EU or anyone.It is extremely simple for Trump to end the conflict as far as the US is concerned. All he has to do is to make the hold he has put on delivery of weapons permanent and withdraw all US operatives in the proxy conflict with Russia.Without the US supplying weapons, intelligence, targeting information and money to keep the conflict alive, the conflict will quickly end. This is what Trump needs to tell Putin: “I know Washington is responsible for this conflict. I am withdrawing Washington’s participation. The conflict would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen the 2020 election. I am cancelling the sanctions. I will be accused by the Democrats and the presstitutes of selling out Ukraine to you. Your job is to be merciful to Ukraine. As the US is responsible for the conflict, the US will help you to rebuild a demilitarized Ukraine in which economic advancement takes precedent over war. You must not fail my good intentions, or the Cold War will resume.”
As I asked later in my column, can Trump’s ego permit him to allow the settlement on Putin’s terms?For three years Putin has been slowly fighting a conflict that a capable war leader would have ended in three weeks. Putin’s failure as a war leader is clear. Putin, being sufficiently Westernized, never realized that his never-ending war would result in negotiations in which he was the last participant included.As Trump and the illegitimate Zelensky have arrived at a cease fire, the pressure is on Putin to join in, or Russia will be reviled for blocking a settlement with intentions of proceeding from the conquest of Ukraine to the conquest of Europe.If Putin joins in the cease fire, he risks Russia’s victory being watered down by the terms of a negotiated settlement.
Russia has been in many ways an easy target for the West. Soviet Communism having bred distrust of Russian government, has left Russian intellectuals easy pickings for Western propaganda. Many Russian intellectuals represent the West, not Russia.This Russian vulnerability has been skillfully exploited by the West.
The question remains: How serious are Putin’s mistakes in his dealings with Washington? By permitting a conflict to continue until the initiative for its end passed into Washington’s hands, Putin has lost the initiative. If Putin doesn’t agree to a cease fire, he risks offending Trump’s ego. Does Trump than become coercive because he is on the line with his promise to end the conflict? Does Putin submit to Trump’s coercion?
The outlook for this conflict being resolved is not as good as it seemed.
In his recent appearance with Todd on the Sachs Realty Podcast, Peter Schiff paints a sobering picture of America’s current economic landscape, challenging mainstream narratives promoted by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. Throughout the discussion, he covers alarming trends from unsustainable debt levels and hidden recessions to mounting inflation and misguided trade policies, warning listeners of consequences that policymakers will have to face sooner or later. Starting with the political landscape, Peter argues that the underlying economic distress voters experience was a critical factor in Donald Trump’s political rise. While official narratives tout economic successes, Peter sees through the smoke and mirrors: … Continue reading →
In his recent appearance with Todd on the Sachs Realty Podcast, Peter Schiff paints a sobering picture of America’s current economic landscape, challenging mainstream narratives promoted by Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. Throughout the discussion, he covers alarming trends from unsustainable debt levels and hidden recessions to mounting inflation and misguided trade policies, warning listeners of consequences that policymakers will have to face sooner or later.
Starting with the political landscape, Peter argues that the underlying economic distress voters experience was a critical factor in Donald Trump’s political rise. While official narratives tout economic successes, Peter sees through the smoke and mirrors:
I think the economy is in a lot of trouble. I think that’s why Trump was elected. The voters are living in this economy, and despite what they’re being told by the media and Wall Street that we have a great economy, they know that’s not the case. They’re struggling to get by. Many people are working two or three jobs, whereas they used to be able to pay the bills with one. They can see prices rising rapidly for everything they need to buy as their debts are rising. People have their savings depleted. They’ve got record amounts of debt. The interest rates on that debt are much higher now than they’ve been in many, many years or decades. I think we’re a real mess.
As for Trump’s economic policies, Peter finds some positive initiatives but strongly criticizes the administration’s expansionary fiscal policy and heavy reliance on budget deficits. He emphasizes the urgent need for fiscal responsibility—in actions, not just words:
Well, he’s done some things that I think are pretty good. But where I think he’s really failed is he has been encouraging the Republican Congress to pass this big, beautiful bill, which also includes a four trillion dollar increase in the debt ceiling and includes an increase in government spending so that the deficits that Trump inherited from Biden will be larger if the bill that he now supports is enacted. So I would much rather see the president telling Congress, ‘I don’t support that bill and if you pass it, I will veto it,’ because I don’t want to increase the debt ceiling.
I don’t like all the tariff threats personally. I mean, tariffs are taxes. They’re taxes on the American people. The American people need to pay more taxes unless we’re going to cut spending because the government is spending a lot more than it’s collecting in taxes. So level with the public and say, ‘Look, we got to raise taxes because we’re spending too much money, and the way I’m going to raise taxes is tariffs, and it’s going to mean that everything you buy is going to be more expensive because of these tariffs.’ And that’s the reality. I don’t like trying to fool the public into believing they’re getting something for nothing.
Moreover, Peter explains Trump’s misunderstanding of the trade deficit. Rather than foreign countries taking advantage of America, he clarifies that trade deficits can signal a domestic economy consuming beyond its means:
Trump mischaracterizes the current nature of the relationship. Trump believes that these trade deficits are the world taking advantage of America and that they’re somehow screwing us over, that they’re getting something for nothing. The opposite is true. We’re getting something for nothing because we get to consume more than we produce, we get to borrow more than we save, so our standard of living is higher today as a result of these trade deficits.
Peter asserts that America needs to confront its economic imbalances and unsustainable debt head-on rather than waiting for a crisis to force its hand. The looming threat is stagflation—rising inflation coupled with a recession—and Peter believes policymakers are vastly underprepared:
And the crisis is going to come because the numbers are exploding exponentially with our debt and our trade deficits and our budget deficits, and the interest on the debt is spiraling out of control. Inflation is already reaccelerating. It’s risen now four or five months in a row. If you annualize the last month now, CPI is up to about 6%. Consumers are catching on. Consumer expectations now of inflation are the highest they’ve been since 1982 at 6%. So the Fed is completely wrong when it says that inflation is resolved.
Okay, quiz fans, if you think Europe is in trouble, think again. There is always Hollywood, the place where megalomaniacal, pompous, boastful, self-entitled, bald, untalented jerks are taken seriously. The embarrassing but saccharine cesspool that is the Oscars has just voted Anora—a sanitized, voyeuristic movie about a hooker—as Best Picture. I have not seen it and do not plan to. I have nothing against the oldest profession, but now that I am of a certain age, I find it the most humiliating and enslaving line of work ever invented by man or woman. The ladies now go by the euphemistic name … Continue reading →
Okay, quiz fans, if you think Europe is in trouble, think again. There is always Hollywood, the place where megalomaniacal, pompous, boastful, self-entitled, bald, untalented jerks are taken seriously. The embarrassing but saccharine cesspool that is the Oscars has just voted Anora—a sanitized, voyeuristic movie about a hooker—as Best Picture. I have not seen it and do not plan to. I have nothing against the oldest profession, but now that I am of a certain age, I find it the most humiliating and enslaving line of work ever invented by man or woman.
The ladies now go by the euphemistic name of sex workers. We used to call them hookers, named after the brave Union General Hooker during the Civil War, who always traveled with at least ten of them in his camp. Critics raved about the movie’s “authenticity” and its “fresh perspective.” What bullshit. There is nothing authentic about being a prostitute, and there are no fresh perspectives about going to bed with some disgusting, fat slob in exchange for the root of all evil.
Pretty Woman was fun to watch some thirty years ago, although not to be believed. It was a fairy tale, a glossy cover-up of the dirtiest profession outside murder. The trouble with making a movie that turns a whore into Cinderella is that it makes us forget the exploitation that involves prostitution. And then there’s the prurience. The film is made because the greedy ones know that men will salivate and pay for it. Voyeurism is a male disease, and the Hollywood scum know how to exploit it. No wonder Mother Earth had a quake hit Los Angeles just as the vulgar beings who vote were coming up with an—I am told—unwatchable one. The movie’s star is Mikey Madison, and I’m sure she’s enjoying her moment in the limelight. But if anyone thinks that it helps the real victims, I’ve got a bridge that connects Brooklyn to Manhattan that I can sell you at a very low price.
“There are no fresh perspectives about going to bed with some disgusting, fat slob in exchange for the root of all evil.”
Mind you, I’m no angel where the oldest profession is concerned. My only excuse is that it was during my youth. And it took place mostly in Paris, where the famous Madame Claude had probably the best whorehouse ever. Claude Grudet took a liking to me when my friend Porfirio Rubirosa first introduced me to her. She later told me that her girls—among the prettiest and best behaved in the City of Light—had ranked me among their favorites because I was always kind and very polite. The irony of the Claude girls was that whenever anyone from the tight and closed French society married someone unknown or an outsider, no sooner had the rice stopped flying than the rumors began: “She is definitely a Madame Claude girl, I would recognize her anywhere,” and that sort of thing. That’s where I came in. On three occasions, and concerning three rather grand French families, I was asked point-blank about the lady in question, and on all three times I had to answer in the negative. Not that I would ever have given the lady away, but all three times I answered truthfully that none of them was ever a Claude girl. Not many believed me.
Oh well, now that we have Hollywood making prostitution legit and a nice thing for one’s daughter to do, no use for me to say anything that might detract from the oldest profession. The movie apparently contains 471 “f–k”s, living proof that the writer oozes talent. According to Tinseltown, prostitution is ranked far above patriotism, at least in the most boring movie I’ve seen in a long time, one that won the leading man an Oscar this year. The Brutalist goes on and on, with the rich Van Buren family being the bad guys, while the Hungarian Jewish refugees are all saints. What struck me was its anti-American message. Rich white people in Pennsylvania are secret rapists and manipulators of poor Jewish émigrés. It is not enough that we have every lefty writer and poet chronicling the mythical and brutal enslavement of American blacks today, we now also have untalented Hollywood types preaching to us via the movies how rotten the U.S. really is.
Constitutionalists universally have had disdain for the United Nations (U.N.), as it has been the bane of American sovereignty from the beginning of its existence. I am on record as saying, and I still believe, that the U.N. was created primarily for the purpose of being the birth canal for the Zionist State of Israel. Over time, however, perpetual ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Zionist state against its Palestinian neighbors caused the U.N. to become increasingly critical of Israel’s behavior. Now, with Donald Trump as president, conservatives are cheering the prospect that he might take the U.S. out of … Continue reading →
Constitutionalists universally have had disdain for the United Nations (U.N.), as it has been the bane of American sovereignty from the beginning of its existence. I am on record as saying, and I still believe, that the U.N. was created primarily for the purpose of being the birth canal for the Zionist State of Israel. Over time, however, perpetual ethnic cleansing and genocide by the Zionist state against its Palestinian neighbors caused the U.N. to become increasingly critical of Israel’s behavior. Now, with Donald Trump as president, conservatives are cheering the prospect that he might take the U.S. out of the U.N.
Such anticipation was given a symbolic boost when Trump announced that he would not resume funding for the U.N. Human Rights Council based in Geneva. I say symbolic, because his predecessor, Joe Biden, had already discontinued U.S. funding for that U.N. agency. But anti-U.N. conservatives take this as a sign that Trump will remove the U.S from the U.N. altogether.
Of course, Trump’s motive for making this decision (his announcement coinciding with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House) is that this is the agency that provides humanitarian aid for Palestinian refugees. And as a secret Jewish Chabadist, Trump hates all things Palestinian including the Palestinian people.
Trump is such an arrogant Zionist (the arrogance of Zionists stems from their deep-seated belief that they are superior to everyone else) that he is now targeting Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) for removal from office, vowing to support a Republican primary challenger in the next election. It is no coincidence that Massie is the GOP congressman in Washington, D.C., who is the most critical of Zionist Israel (and supportive of the Palestinian people) and who refuses to accept bribes from the Israeli lobby or kowtow to their demands.
Whether Trump will actually separate the U.S. from the U.N. is yet to be seen. But if he does make such a move, it won’t be for the same reasons that members of the John Birch Society have been talking about for so long. If he makes such a move, it will be for his desire to fulfill his campaign pledge to “make Israel great again.”
On February 12, 2025, the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem sent a congratulatory letter to President Trump. I quote in part:
We extend our heartfelt gratitude for bringing faith to the forefront of American and global culture through the establishment of the Faith Office in the White House. Your recognition of the importance of religion in public life is a step toward restoring moral values and spiritual leadership in the world.
When Hashem gave the Children of Israel the Torah, He provided an ethical standard for the entire world. This standard is known as the Seven Commandments of Noah, which form the basis of universal morality. When a person accepts the Seven Noahide Laws, they receive divine blessings.
You will not find the “Seven Noahide Laws” anywhere in the Books of Moses or anywhere else in the Old Testament, for that matter. The “Seven Noahide Laws” are the invention of the Jewish Talmud. When the Sanhedrin speaks of the “Torah,” they are speaking of the Talmud, NOT the Old Testament Pentateuch.
In 2017, the Nascent Sanhedrin minted a special coin featuring your image on one side and Cyrus the Great on the other. This symbolized your historic role, likened to that of Cyrus, who was chosen by Hashem to fulfill a divine mission.
You have been elected, as Cyrus was in his time, to fulfill a heavenly mission: To unite all believers in God and foster ethical cooperation across all spheres of human activity. A Call to Establish an International Divine Court – IDC.
We invite you to meet with the Sanhedrin Court Rabbis in Jerusalem to discuss the establishment of an International Divine Court (IDC) for all nations. This court would be based on the seven universal commandments given to Noah and reaffirmed at Mount Sinai—a foundation for global peace and divine justice.
The Sanhedrin’s “International Divine Court” necessitates the Sanhedrin’s plan to institute the “Organization of 70 Nations” to replace the United Nations.
On March 8 of this year, my friend Steven Bennun at Israeli News Live hosted a podcast entitled The Seven Noahide Laws – Just the Facts. I quote segments of this extremely enlightening broadcast:
I don’t know of any time in the bedrock of society that we ever have any evidence where they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws. But that is where the Revolution was done at, and of course, they’re doing it through education. Now they just do it through education the way they’re doing it here. And we thought they were going to try to institute this as a law of the United States, but they’re going to make it an international law. This is why, by the way, the ICC court found Netanyahu guilty of violating war crimes for the murder and genocide of the Palestinian people, and rightfully so.
But then what did Trump do? Put sanctions on the ICC. Just like Nikki Haley went against the United Nations years ago, right? So, all these things are being done, set up, to be able to set your new global system, this new world order.
So, they’re setting the world up for this. And they’re going to get rid of the United Nations and the ICC, and they’re going to replace it with the Sanhedrin.
Also, too, in the website mizrachi.org, Not Just Seven Noahide Mitzvot, an interview with Rabbi Oury Cherki. But it says here, “In Parashat Noach, Hashem commands Noach and his children to fulfill certain commandments known as the seven Noahide mitzvot, Rav Oury Cherki, however, explains that these seven mitzvot are just the beginning. The larger goal, he says, is to glorify the name of Hashem in the world and transmit Judaism’s universal message to all nations.”
Listen [to the rabbi]:
Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, former director of the Chabad of Poway: And the rabbi pleaded if only the United Nations will go back to the basics and empower their nation to adopt the Seven Noahide laws, then this world would be a very different world, and perhaps we wouldn’t have lost 150 million lives that we have lost in the last 200 years. So, I ask every nation that’s here, everyone that’s listening: Consider taking the Seven Noahide laws back to the basics and apply it to real daily life, and we will see a world difference.
So, as I mentioned to you, Nikki Haley is to be the honorary president of the organization of the 70 Nations, that was what they were pushing for.
And so, Nikki Haley definitely doesn’t like the United Nations. They’re going to replace this [the U.N.] eventually. That’s going to happen.
Rabbi Mizrachi, here he is right here on the Seven Noahide Laws. Let’s listen to a little bit of what he says, what he says about the Noahide Laws.
Rabbi Mizrachi: You have 6 billion idol worshippers who make God angry every second of their life: Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Tibet, Nepal, Thailand, so many. India alone is 500 million; China is 2 billion, so many; 2 billion Christians which are idol worshippers. Between Chinese, India, Hindus, Buddhist and Christian, at least 6, 6 and a half billion people are idol worshippers that, according to the Torah, do not have the right to live. Idol worshiper, goy. It’s [the] death penalty.
There you go. You have it right there.
Steve and Jana Bennun have a great podcast and put out much-needed information regarding all things Jewish/Israeli.
A few years ago, I delivered a message entitled The Talmud, Chabadism And Noahide Laws. (This is my second most requested and most viewed of all of my messages, by the way.) I now quote from this address:
Every president since Jimmy Carter in 1978, including Donald Trump, has signed this public law instating Noahide Laws and Chabadism in the United States.
Jewish Noahide Law calls for the death of anyone practicing idolatry (anyone who worships the Lord Jesus Christ is an idolater according to Noahide Law), blasphemy (this was the charge the Sanhedrin used against Christ), sexual immorality (according to Talmudic law) and stealing (from Jews—but it is perfectly permissible for Jews to steal from the Goyim); it also obligates non-Jews to set up courts to carry out these Talmudic executions.
Rabbi Schneerson, whose birth is commemorated, stated that, according to Jewish law, non-Jews have no other purpose than to serve Jews who are the reason for creation.
Trump’s daughter Ivanka is a Chabad-Lubavitch cultist (as is her husband Jared Kushner), she prays at Rabbi Schneerson’s grave and has been blessed by Rabbis who demand non-Jews (Goy) follow the Noahide Laws and refer to them as “animals.”
As a closet Chabadist, Donald Trump follows the laws of Maimonides by constantly not paying back loans and investments. He declared bankruptcy 7 times and each time was bailed out by fellow Chabadists.
I concluded with a summary:
Noahide Laws are Jewish Laws that apply to all non-Jews of the world, which forbid forms of worship not approved by Judaism, blasphemy of the Jewish gods, sexual relations which are not approved by the Judaic religion and require that non-Jews must set up courts to enforce these laws.
American Public Law 102-14 states that these laws are the foundation of American civilization (NOT TRUE), that it is our responsibility to transmit them to the next generation, and every president since Jimmy Carter has signed an international scroll along with other heads of state pledging to use education to put the world under the Noahide Laws.
Jewish legal groups who advocate for the Noahide Laws are promoting capital punishment that complies with the Talmudic form of execution, namely decapitation, be established.
There are non-Jews (including Christian Zionists) who are willingly complying with this agenda, and they are working with the Sanhedrin in Israel to promote the Noahide Laws.
Pastors, Christians and churches that support Zionism, Chabadism, Talmudism, etc., are blaspheming God by supporting an antichrist agenda that attempts to:
*Deny the deity, Messiahship and Saviorhood of Jesus Christ.
*Deny His completed work on the Cross for our sins.
*Deny the New Covenant, the Body of Christ, the Church.
*Deny the New Testament doctrines of grace.
And to establish:
*A global Talmudic order.
*The enforcement of Talmudic law by capital punishment.
*A global religion of works salvation based upon Talmudic law.
*A global political union based upon the doctrines of Zionism.
This is the down and dirty reality of what Trump’s pro-Israel agenda is all about. And this is what Christian Zionists in America are supporting.
Therefore, should President Trump decide to separate from the United Nations, you can be assured that the Jewish Organization of 70 Nations will take its place. And if you thought the U.N. was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: Last week, Aix Marseille University, France's largest university, invited American scientists who believe their work is at risk of being censored by Donald Trump administration's anti-science policies to continue their research in France. Today, the university announced that it is already seeing great interest from scientists at NASA, Yale, Stanford, and other American schools and government agencies, and that it wants to expand the program to other schools and European countries to absorb all the researchers who want to leave the United States. "We are witnessing a new brain drain," Eric Berton, Aix Marseille University's president, said in a press release. "We will do everything in our power to help as many scientists as possible continue their research. However, we cannot meet all demands on our own. The Ministry of Education and Research is fully supporting and assisting us in this effort, which is intended to expand at both national and European levels." The press release from the university claims that researchers from Stanford, Yale, NASA, the National Institute of Health, George Washington University, "and about 15 other prestigious institutions," are now considering "scientific exile." More than 40 American scientists have expressed interest in the program, it said. Their key research areas are "health (LGBT+ medicine, epidemiology, infectious diseases, inequalities, immunology, etc.), environment and climate change (natural disaster management, greenhouse gases, social impact, artificial intelligence), humanities and social sciences (communication, psychology, history, cultural heritage), astrophysics." "The current Executive Orders have led to a termination of one of my research grants. While it was not a lot of money, it was a high profile, large national study," one researcher who has reached out to Aix Marseille University in order to take advantage of the program told me. 404 Media granted the researcher anonymity because speaking about the program might jeopardize their current position at a leading American university. "While I have not had to lay off staff as a result of that particular cancellation, I will have to lay off staff if additional projects are terminated. Everything I focus on is now a banned word." The program, called "Safe Place for Science," initially will fund 15 researchers with 15 million Euros. Aix Marseille University says that it is already working closely with the regional government and France's Chamber of Commerce and Industry "to facilitate the arrival of these scientists and their families in the region, offering support with employment, housing, school access, transportation, and visas." "We are doing what is necessary to provide them with the best living environment. We are ready to welcome them and will make them true children of the country!" Renaud Muselier, President of the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, said in a statement.
The Two Sessions, part of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, held last week at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, were a pretty serious deal.
Not only because the sessions set the framework for Beijing to confront serious economic challenges ahead.
But also because of the stellar performance by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who forcefully imprinted in the collective psyche of the Global Majority how China should be regarded as a premier source of stability in this extremely turbulent geopolitical juncture, standing firm “in the right side of History”.
So let’s start with the key Wang Yi takeaways – which translate as de facto setting the tone for Beijing’s diplomacy throughout 2025.
US-China: Beijing is ready to engage with Trump 2.0 on the basis of mutual respect. Yet “if the US continues to contain China, we will resolutely counteract.” It’s “fully possible” for US and China to become partners. But this should be seen as the paramount concept: “No country should fantasize that it can suppress China and maintain good relations with us at the same time.”
The Global South: That is a “key force for maintaining world peace, driving world development and improving global governance”. These developing nations, accounting for over 40 per cent of global GDP, “hold the key to bringing stability to the world and making it a better place.” Wang Yi emphasized once again how China is “a natural member of the Global South.”
Russia – and Ukraine conflict: Russia and China’s“mature and resilient relationship (…) will not be swayed by any turn of events or be affected by any third party.” Wang Yi defined Beijing’s position on the conflict as “objective and impartial” – and crucially did not call for Europe – or Ukraine – to be included in the upcoming US-Russia negotiations. His major point – which echoes Russia’s analysis: “Security is mutual and equal; the security of one country cannot be built on the insecurity of others.”
Gaza: No Chinese endorsement of the Trump Gaza Riviera Resort and Casino gambit: “Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people”. And “changing its status by forceful means will not bring peace but new chaos”. Beijing supports the Egyptian peace plan. Once again, Wang Yi made it clear that “the crux of the cycle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict lies in the fact that the two-state solution is only half achieved.”
Europe: Wang Yi praised the “capacity and wisdom” of EU-China to “deepen strategic dialogue and mutual trust.”Beijing, at least in theory, believes that Europe could become a trusted partner. The EU and the European Commission (EC) in Brussels may have other – belligerent – ideas.
South China Sea: Wang Yi went straight to the point on the manipulation of Philippines by “external forces”: “Infringement and provocation will backfire, and those acting as others’ chess pieces are bound to be discarded.” Yet he stressed the South China Sea remains “stable”, because China and ASEAN want it to remain so.
Taiwan: Wang Yi forcefully stated that “Taiwan has never been a country (…) It was not in the past, and it will never be in the future.” Moreover, “seeking Taiwan independence is doomed to backfire, and using Taiwan to contain China will be nothing but a futile attempt. China will realise reunification, and this is unstoppable.”
Made in China 2025 On Overdrive
Now let’s focus on China’s extremely complex domestic equation. At the opening of the Two Sessions, Premier Li Qiang came up with a rallying call for the whole nation to rise up to a series of “very challenging” goals, including growth of 5% in 2025 (it was 4.9% last year).
Essentially, to revitalize the economy, Beijing will issue 1.3 trillion yuan (around US$182 billion) in ultra-long special treasury bonds. The deficit-to-GDP ratio was set at around 4%.
The official policy of “opening up” will reach the internet, telecoms, healthcare and education industries – meaning more opportunities for foreign investors and possible partnerships up and down the industrial supply chain.
All those moving parts of the ambitious Made in China 2025 tech project will be on overdrive: AI, smart terminals, the Internet of things, 5G, plus a new mechanism set up for “future industries” to support hi-tech domains,including biomaterials manufacturing, quantum technology, embodied intelligence and 6G.
Premier Li enthusiastically praised the role of regional growth drivers such as the Greater Bay Area – the super high-tech cluster in Guangdong province linked to Hong Kong. Predictably, he extolled the “one country, two systems” model and the further economic integration of both Hong Kong and Macau.
Arguably this is the best analysis anywhere not only of why Hong Kong-based CK Hutchinson had to get rid of its port operations in the Panama Canal, but also because it offers a crisp Chinese evaluation of the “three powers” behind Trump 2.0: Wall Street, heavy industrial capital (energy, steel, mining) and Silicon Valley.
CK Hutchison Holdings, founded in Hong Kong by notorious tycoon Li Ka-shing, essentially had to sell 80% of Hutchison Port Group, a subsidiary that owns 43 container ports in 23 countries, including a 90% stake in the Balboa and Cristobal docks at either end of the Panama Canal, because of hardcore geopolitics. Hutchison will continue to control its ports in China, including Hong Kong.
President Trump made a huge fuss about the BlackRock-led deal. The view in Hong Kong is more pragmatic. Hutchinson was not eager to engage in a furious court battle in US courts – not to mention potential sanctions. So they chose to opt for a “strategic exit”.
Finding Shelter From the Coming Storms
Premier Li noted how consumption in China now is “sluggish” and, somewhat euphemistically, how there were “pressures on job creation and income growth”. Enter a promised “vigorous boost” to household demand, plus the creation of 12 million new urban jobs, with help focusing on fresh university graduates and migrant workers.
In parallel, Beijing will expand its military budget by only 7.2% in 2025, reaching roughly 1.78 trillion yuan (US$ 245 billion). That’s not much compared to the Pentagon budget.
It’s quite enlightening to observe the proposals of the Two Sessions – and the tone-setting by Wang Yi – in relation to the analysis by a certified Asian star such as former Singaporean ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani.
Kishore once again resorts to Sun Tzu, explaining how Chinese rulers always privilege the best way to win as not fighting kinetic wars. What matters is to coordinate expansion – epistemologically, educationally, economically, industrially, techno-scientifically, financially, diplomatically, militarily – under the aegis of deterrence.
The bottom line is that Beijing will not be trapped by any possible, bombastic provocation coming from Trump 2.0. Once again, it’s all about “coordinated expansion”.
Example. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, partly funded by the Australian military, and frankly Sinophobic – and Russophobic – at least did something useful by developing a Critical Technology Tracker of 64 current, critical technologies.
All that is inextricably linked to the successful planning – and achieved targets – of Made in China 2025. Talk about two five-year plans back to back (Made in China was conceived in 2015).
So this is what China 2025 will be all about: serious investments coupled with lots of partnerships with the whole Global South. Once again, in a sort of Sun Tzu framework tweaked by Bruce Lee, China is bound to use Trump 2.0 and the coming mix of confrontation, competition and periodic negotiation as a trampoline to expand its global reach even further.
That might be one of the unstated meanings of what Xi Jinping told Putin in Moscow nearly two years ago: “Changes unseen in a century.” Beijing will be sure to find shelter from the storm – any storm. And without having to fight a single kinetic war.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
President Donald Trump is withdrawing his nomination of a former congressman to helm the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Dave Weldon, 71, is no longer under consideration to take the post of director of the CDC, a source familiar with the situation told The Epoch Times on March 13. The source said it was clear Weldon did not have enough votes for confirmation.
Weldon had been scheduled to appear before the Senate Health Committee on Thursday to answer questions as senators prepared to vote on the nomination. The panel lists the hearing as canceled.
A spokesperson for the committee did not return an inquiry.
After canceling Weldon’s appearance, the panel voted to advance Trump’s nominees to head the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, two other divisions within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The vote to advance Dr. Marty Makary, Trump’s nominee to direct the Food and Drug Administration, was 14–9. The vote to advance Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, was 12–11.
Republicans control the Senate. The party chairs each committee and has at least one more member than Democrats on each panel. A simple majority is sufficient to advance nominees and, when the full Senate votes, to confirm nominees.
Trump had chosen Weldon in late 2024, a few months before he took office. He said at the time that Weldon would “proudly restore the CDC to its true purpose and will work to end the chronic disease epidemic.”
The CDC is the nation’s health protection agency. It has about 12,600 staff members.
Weldon is a U.S. Army veteran who represented Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2009. Weldon chose to retire rather than run for another term.
A bid for a U.S. Senate seat in 2012 fell short in the Republican primary.
Weldon, who has not commented on the withdrawal, was a critic of the CDC while in Congress. He noted the CDC oversees vaccine safety while also promoting vaccination and introduced legislation that would have created a new, independent agency to monitor the safety of vaccines.
Weldon said during a 2002 hearing on vaccines and autism that he would “never be satisfied that there isn’t some data suggesting that some children may have serious side effects,” including potentially autism, without more transparency.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also said that autism is likely being caused in part by vaccines.
The CDC says on its website that studies have found “no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism.”
US President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin Read Full Article at RT.com
The Russian president has also voiced openness to further discuss the US-proposed Ukraine ceasefire with his American counterpart
President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was open to a US-proposed ceasefire in Ukraine but raised numerous questions about its practical implementation.
The Russian president voiced support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict on Thursday, but warned of loopholes and strategic disadvantages, outlining Moscow’s concerns over how such a truce could be enforced.
“[Putin] put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete. And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him,” Trump told journalists during a bilateral press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later in the day.
Trump said the US has already discussed many details of a potential “final agreement” with Kiev and is now waiting to see “whether or not Russia is there.”
“We’ve been discussing land with Ukraine… pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement. You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land because you don’t want to waste time with a ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything,” Trump said. “They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness.”
Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, visited the Russian capital on Thursday to discuss the results of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this week and to relay Moscow’s position back to Washington. Witkoff was also expected to meet with the Russian president behind closed doors in the evening, but officials have yet to confirm whether the meeting took place or to provide details of his other interactions during the brief visit.
Earlier in the day, Putin stated that Russian troops were advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of the front line and warned that halting military actions would disrupt their momentum and give Ukrainian forces time to regroup.
“These 30 days – how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, and violations could easily lead to a blame game between both sides.
Putin also mentioned that Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. “Are we supposed to let them out after they committed mass war crimes against civilians?” he said.
The Russian leader suggested that further direct discussions with his American counterpart would be necessary to find a viable solution, but officials have yet to confirm any specific timeline for such talks.
US President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin Read Full Article at RT.com
The Russian president has also voiced openness to further discuss the US-proposed Ukraine ceasefire with his American counterpart
US President Donald Trump has expressed his readiness to meet and speak with his Russian counterpart after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow is open to a US-proposed ceasefire in Ukraine but raised numerous questions about its practical implementation.
The Russian president voiced support for a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict on Thursday, but warned of loopholes and strategic disadvantages, outlining Moscow’s concerns over how such a truce could be enforced.
“[Putin] put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete. And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him,” Trump told journalists during a bilateral press conference with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later in the day.
Trump said the US has already discussed many details of a potential “final agreement” with Kiev and is now waiting to see “whether or not Russia is there.”
“We’ve been discussing land with Ukraine… pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement. You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land because you don’t want to waste time with a ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything,” Trump said. “They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is. They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness.”
Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, visited the Russian capital on Thursday to discuss the results of US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia earlier this week and to relay Moscow’s position back to Washington. Witkoff was also expected to meet with the Russian president behind closed doors in the evening, but officials have yet to confirm whether the meeting took place or to provide details of his other interactions during the brief visit.
Earlier in the day, Putin stated that Russian troops were advancing along nearly 2,000 kilometers of the front line and warned that halting military actions would disrupt their momentum and give Ukrainian forces time to regroup.
“These 30 days – how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units?” Putin asked. Enforcing a ceasefire over such a vast battlefield would be difficult, he added, and violations could easily lead to a blame game between both sides.
Putin went on to say that the Ukrainian troops who invaded Russia’s Kursk Region in August 2024 are now cut off. “Are we supposed to let them out after they committed mass war crimes against civilians?” he said.
The Russian leader suggested that further direct discussions with his American counterpart would be necessary to find a viable solution, but officials have yet to confirm any specific timeline for the talks.
Pakistan is reeling after this week’s hijacking of the Jaffar Express by the terrorist-designated “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA). It’s impossible to independently confirm the details given strict state censorship, but around 400 people were taken hostage, including servicemen traveling home on leave. The BLA demanded the release of what they described as political prisoners, but the military staged a daring operation to end the day-long ordeal instead. At least two dozen people were killed.
The Baloch Conflict owes its origins to Balochistan’s contentious incorporation into Pakistan but has evolved in recent years to take on shades of “resource nationalism”. What’s meant by this is that some locals believe that their resource-rich region, the largest in Pakistan at nearly half the country’s size, isn’t receiving its fair share of wealth. The BLA and its supporters also accuse Pakistan of selling the region out to China. Pakistan denies these claims and has always blamed Afghanistan and India for the conflict.
It therefore wasn’t surprising when the Foreign Office’s spokesman said on Thursday that “India has been involved in terrorism in Pakistan. In the particular attack on Jaffar express, the terrorists had been in contact with their handlers and ring leaders in Afghanistan.” While the Afghan dimension is likely true owing to the Taliban sheltering the BLA and its new de facto TTP allies, which the group considers to be a means of asymmetrically restoring the balance of power with Pakistan, the Indian angle is questionable.
Pakistan’s accusation against India is premised on their history of proxy warfare against one another over the decades, which makes it reasonable to suspect India of backing Baloch militants against Pakistan as response to Pakistan backing Kashmiri ones against India, among others. There’s also Pakistan’s capture of Kulbhushan Jadhav in 2016, who Islamabad accused of being an Indian spy tasked with organizing terrorist attacks in Balochistan, while India has always insisted that he’s innocent of these charges.
Taken together, they form the cornerstone upon which the Foreign Office put forth its latest accusation, but it’s bereft of proof and instead comes off as a deflection from the conflict’s indigenous causes and the Taliban’s indisputably more direct role in what happened. After all, the BLA receives sanctuary in Afghanistan, so the Taliban is much more to blame for what happened. Even if the Taliban pleads ignorance and claims that it can’t control its borders, which isn’t true, then that’s also a problem.
Whichever way one looks at it, the Indian angle is therefore questionable, but Pakistan pushing it is meant to accomplish three goals.
First, it’s intended to rally Pakistanis behind the government by blaming their historical rival for this latest terrorist attack.
Second, Pakistan also hopes to rally the international community – or at least some of its SCO partners like China – against India.
And finally, Pakistan might authorize kinetic action in Afghanistan, but on what it’ll present as an anti-Indian basis.
Building upon the last point, this could resemble Russia’s specialoperation in the sense of how Russia militarily intervened in Ukraine on an anti-NATO basis after accusing the bloc of exploiting Ukraine as a proxy, which Russia claimed could become a launching pad for more aggression if it wasn’t stopped. Likewise, Pakistan might carry out comparatively smaller-scale strikes and/or incursions in Afghanistan and only target terrorist groups, but it could justify them on similar grounds.
The benefit in presenting things this way is that Pakistan can continue to claim that it has no problem with Afghanistan per se, just with how its historical Indian rival is allegedly exploiting that country as a proxy, which could become a launching pad for more aggression if it isn’t stopped. The problem though is that this motive is much more questionable than Russia’s vis-à-vis NATO in its own special operation in Ukraine so Afghans as a whole might regard any larger-scale Pakistani kinetic action as a hostile act.
Even if Pakistan eschews such a response to this latest terrorist attack for whatever reason, officially tying India into what happened suggests that it has no interest in addressing the conflict’s indigenous causes, instead preferring to blame everything on its neighbor like always. That’ll only lead to an even wider rift emerging between Baloches and the rest of the country, which can in turn result in more BLA sympathizers or even recruits, thus intensifying the already self-sustaining cycle of instability there.
The larger that the BLA’s pool of sympathizers and recruits becomes, the greater the unconventional threat that Pakistan faces in Balochistan, which could embolden the military regime into doubling down on its controversial “preemptive” anti-terrorist policies like “forced disappearances”. The most effective way to reduce the aforesaid pool is to empower responsible locals through meaningful economic and political partnerships with the state for showing them that they have more to gain through unity.
For example, Baloch veterans could be appointed to lead new projects in their home region, and these would be obligated to reinvest a percentage of their proceeds into local initiatives. These same figures and other similarly trusted ones could also be supported by the state as alternative community leaders for counteracting the pernicious influence of separatist-inclined tribal leaders. That’s easier said than done, but it should be attempted without delay otherwise the BLA’s pool will keep growing.
The combination of political radicalism and state failure is most responsible for perpetuating the Baloch Conflict, not foreign forces, though the Taliban’s recent assistance has definitely been important. Without adequately addressing these indigenous causes, which requires a complete thinking on the part of the Pakistani government, outsiders will always be able to exploit this conflict. Accordingly, cross-border kinetic action in Afghanistan can be helpful, but a lasting solution requires much more than that.
Couple Acquires Top Secret 65 Year Old Abandoned U.S. Navy Barge Stocked With "Mysterious" Computers
An Idaho couple has made an extraordinary purchase—an abandoned navy barge with a top-secret past. After keeping an eye on it for four years, they finally acquired the 65-year-old vessel, which has a history deeply tied to U.S. naval operations. This is no ordinary boat; its origins and purpose make it one of the most intriguing real estate projects out there, according to Supercar Blondie.
The massive barge is a complex structure, built from various welded components. Originally, it was a powerhouse of a vessel, featuring a 300-horsepower engine and a 360-degree rotating propeller, allowing it to maneuver effortlessly. Though now retired, its design hints at the critical role it once played.
The Supercar Blondie report says that the barge is docked on Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho’s largest lake, a body of water rich in history. The region has long been associated with mining, logging, and fishing, but beneath its 1,158-foot depths, secrets linger. The lake has served as an inland naval testing site, used for submarine and torpedo research—meaning it’s possible that military technology still rests beneath the surface.
The true intrigue of the barge lies in its past role in acoustic research. The U.S. Navy used it as a monitoring station, where it housed advanced equipment to study the soundwaves of submarines and torpedoes. The vessel was equipped with an extensive system of underwater wiring, allowing the military to conduct covert testing beneath the lake’s surface.
Now, the couple has ambitious plans to transform the historic vessel into a floating home. While the project presents significant challenges, they are determined to restore and repurpose the barge, breathing new life into its steel structure. It’s a massive undertaking, but one that promises to merge history with modern living in a truly unique way.
In late 2023, the FBI alerted the Littleton Electric Light and Water Departments (LELWD) that it had been breached by a Chinese-state-sponsored hacking group for over 300 days. With the help of cybersecurity firm Dragos and Department of Energy-funded sensors, LELWD confirmed the intrusion, identified the hackers' movements, and ultimately restructured its network to remove them. PCMag reports: At the time, LELWD had been installing sensors from cybersecurity firm Dragos with the help of Department of Energy grants awarded by the American Public Power Association (APPA). "The sensors helped LELWD confirm the extent of the malicious activity on the system and pinpoint when and where the attackers were going on the utility's networks," the APPA said last year. Today, Dragos released a case study (PDF) about the hack, which it blamed on Voltzite, a "sophisticated threat group...that overlaps with Volt Typhoon." The call from the FBI forced Dragos "to deploy quickly and bypass the planned onboarding timeline" for the LELWD, it says. It discovered that Volt Typhoon "had persistent access to LELWD's network." Hackers were looking for specific data related to [operational technology] operating procedures and spatial layout data relating to energy grid operations," Dragos tells SecurityWeek. In the end, Dragos confirmed the compromised systems did not contain "customer-sensitive data," and LEWLD changed their network architecture to kick Volt Typhoon out, the case study says. Groups like Volt Typhoon, "don't always go for high-profile targets first," said Ensar Seker, Chief Security Officer at SOCRadar. "Small, underfunded utilities can serve as low-hanging fruit, allowing adversaries to test tactics, develop footholds, and pivot toward larger targets."
"Bastards!": Schumer Throws Contrived Tantrum After Caving To GOP
Update (2145ET): After bending the knee to the GOP and agreeing to vote 'yes' on the House-passed continuing resolution to fund the government through September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offered a contrived outburst on MSNBC, calling Republicans 'bastards' before quickly correcting himself.
"To have the conflict on the best ground we have, summed up in a sentence, that they're making the middle class pay for tax cuts for billionaires?" said Schumer. "It's much, much better not to be in the middle of a shutdown, which should divert people from the number one issue we have against these bastards, sorry, these people, which is not only all these cuts, but they're ruining democracy."
The Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are vital pillars of national security, tasked with safeguarding the nation in an increasingly complex and unpredictable world. Rightsizing these organizations requires a strategic, mission-focused approach that prioritizes effectiveness and efficiency over arbitrary actions. This article proposes a methodology centered on a thorough reassessment of each agency’s mission, followed by a task-oriented restructuring process, with personnel considerations addressed only after a clear understanding of essential functions has been established.
Mission Relevance: The Cornerstone of Strategic Downsizing
The initial step in any initiative must be a rigorous review of the agency’s core mission. Is the original mandate of the organization still relevant in the contemporary geopolitics, technological landscape? Has the character of threats evolved, rendering some tasks obsolete while necessitating new areas of focus? The rise of cyber warfare in the last 20 years, for example, has demanded a shift in resources and expertise. Similarly, the increasing interconnectedness of the global economy has elevated the significance of economic security and its intersection with national security intelligence.
This mission review must be more than a perfunctory exercise. It demands challenging established assumptions and engaging in honest assessment. External perspectives, including insights from the commercial sector, and former agency personnel, can offer valuable objectivity and help identify potential blind spots. This process may reveal that some organizations are performing functions that are no longer critical or that have become redundant due to the evolution of other agencies or the emergence of new technologies. In such cases, outright elimination of the agency or a substantial realignment of its mission may be the most appropriate course of action.
Organizational Positioning: Optimizing for Effectiveness
Once the mission’s relevance is confirmed, the next crucial question is whether the agency is optimally positioned within the government to execute that mission effectively. Are there other organizations better positioned to perform the same functions more efficiently or with greater synergy? Could a consolidation of overlapping responsibilities lead to cost savings and improved coordination? For example, certain intelligence analysis functions might be better integrated within a single agency, streamlining information sharing and reducing bureaucratic hurdles. Similarly, some support functions, such as human resources or IT, could be consolidated across multiple agencies to achieve economies of scale.
This analysis should consider not only the current organizational structure but also potential alternatives. Could a new, leaner agency be created by merging elements of existing organizations? Could some functions be outsourced to the private sector, freeing up government resources for core mission tasks? These options should be evaluated based on factors such as cost, efficiency, accountability, and most importantly the potential impact on mission effectiveness.
Task Analysis: Deconstructing the Mission
Assuming the agency’s mission is deemed relevant and its organizational positioning appropriate, the next critical step is to deconstruct the mission into its constituent tasks. This involves identifying both the essential tasks, those that are absolutely vital to achieving the mission, and the supporting tasks, those that facilitate the execution of the essential tasks but are not directly responsible for mission success. This granular task analysis is crucial for understanding the agency’s operational needs and avoiding the pitfall of simply reducing personnel without regard to the impact on core functions.
For example, in the context of intelligence, an essential task might be providing timely and accurate assessments of foreign threats. Supporting tasks could include collecting raw intelligence data, maintaining databases, and managing secure communications networks. By clearly distinguishing between these types of tasks, leadership can make informed decisions about resource allocation and personnel requirements.
Experimentation and Optimization: Refining the Approach
Once the essential and supporting tasks have been identified, the next phase involves experimenting with different approaches to accomplishing the essential and supporting tasks. This might involve exploring new technologies, implementing process improvements, or restructuring workflows. The objective is to identify the most efficient and effective ways to achieve mission objectives, minimizing resource requirements and maximizing output.
This experimentation phase should be data-driven, with clear metrics established to measure the success of different approaches. Pilot programs can be used to test new ideas on a smaller scale before implementing them agency-wide. This iterative process of experimentation and refinement is essential for ensuring that downsizing efforts do not inadvertently compromise mission effectiveness. For instance, exploring the use of artificial intelligence for intelligence analysis or robotic systems for logistical support within the DoD could potentially reduce the need for human personnel in certain areas. Similarly, within the IC, exploring automated data processing and analysis tools could free up analysts to focus on more complex and strategic issues.
Personnel Structure: The Final Consideration
Only after the mission has been thoroughly reviewed, the agency’s positioning confirmed, the tasks analyzed, and the optimal approaches identified should personnel structure be considered. The required skill sets, number of personnel, and organizational structure should be derived from the needs of the mission, not the other way around. This ensures that the agency is staffed with the right people, in the right roles, to execute the essential and supporting tasks effectively.
This approach may reveal that fewer personnel are needed than previously assumed, as process improvements and technological advancements may have increased efficiency. It may also highlight the need for new skill sets or expertise, requiring retraining or recruitment efforts. By focusing on the tasks first, personnel decisions become data-driven and aligned with mission requirements, rather than being based on arbitrary targets. This also allows for a more strategic approach to workforce development, ensuring that the IC and DoD have the necessary talent to meet future challenges.
Conclusion: A Strategic Imperative
Rightsizing the IC and DoD is a complex but necessary undertaking. The process outlined in this article, beginning with a reassessment of mission relevance, followed by task analysis, experimentation, and finally, personnel structure considerations, provides a framework for achieving meaningful and sustainable improvements while enhancing mission effectiveness. This approach requires strong leadership, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and a commitment to data-driven decision-making. By prioritizing mission effectiveness above all else, we can ensure that our intelligence and defense agencies are equipped to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century. This strategic approach is not just about saving money; it’s about ensuring that these vital institutions are optimized for success in a dynamic and dangerous world.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Yale University has suspended a law scholar and pro-Palestinian activist after an AI-generated article from Jewish Onliner falsely linked her to a terrorist group. Gizmodo reports: Helyeh Doutaghi, the scholar at Yale Law School, told the New York Times that she is a "loud and proud" supporter of Palestinian rights. "I am not a member of any organization that would constitute a violation of U.S. law." The article that led to her suspension was published in Jewish Onliner, a Substack that says it is "empowered by A.I. capabilities." The website does not publish the names of its authors out of fear of harassment. Ironically, Doutaghi and Yale were reportedly the subject of intense harassment after Jewish Onliner published the article linking Doutaghi to terrorism by citing appearances she made at events sponsored by Samidoun, a pro-Palestinian group. [...] Jewish Onliner is vague about how it uses AI to produce its articles, but the technology is known for making lots of mistakes and hallucinating information that is not true. It is quite possible that Jewish Onliner relied on AI to source information it used to write the article. That could open it up to liability if it did not perform fact-checking and due diligence on its writing. Besides the fact that Doutaghi says she is not a member of Samidoun, she attended events it sponsored that support Palestinian causes, Yale Law School said the allegations against her reflect "potential unlawful conduct."
Lynnwood, Wash. City Revokes "Bisexual Transwoman"'s Council Seat After Discovering OnlyFans Account
The Lynnwood City Council in Washington may revoke Jessica Roberts’ appointment to the vacant Position 5 seat after learning she reportedly operated an OnlyFans account. Roberts’ now-deleted profile described her as “a bisexual transwoman” with graphic details about her body, according to a new report from My Northwest.
Councilwoman Derica Escamilla, who voted for Roberts, said, “We were definitely unaware,” and is questioning the “blind” appointment process.
Councilman Patrick Decker added, “I certainly had no idea of the views Jessica held and do not feel those views and activities are in keeping with the gravity and seriousness of serving the people of Lynnwood.”
The My Northwest report says that the Lynnwood City Council will meet on March 13 to decide whether to rescind Jessica Roberts’ appointment after revelations about her personal life.
Roberts defended her position, stating, “This would not impact my ability to do the job I was appointed to do or my ability to serve my fellow residents.”
Council President Nick Coelho acknowledged concerns, saying, “New information has come to light... that would have weighed heavily on our decision.”
He said: There are now concerns that very relevant information to our deliberation was — whether intentionally or unintentionally — withheld that would have weighed heavily on our decision. With this new information in mind, we have noticed a Special Business Meeting for this Thursday. Its aim is to build to a consensus on whether or not we wish to move forward with this applicant. I’d like to thank our residents for their patience as we let the process play out.”
Roberts told The Lynnwood Times she created the OnlyFans account for confidence and “a little cash on the side,” but deactivated it to avoid wasting “taxpayers’ money, or the Council’s time.”
“The reason the account was taken down was because I do not want to waste taxpayers’ money, or the Council’s time watching this turn into a debate on whether or not it’s socially acceptable for me to have an account,” she added.
This follows a previous controversy where Rebecca Thornton withdrew just days after being appointed to the same seat.
The report did not include any additional or explicit photos. And for that, we thank you.
President Donald Trump has reportedly directed the US military to develop plans to secure American access to the Panama Canal Read Full Article at RT.com
The Pentagon was reportedly asked to provide “credible” plans for securing US access to the key waterway
President Donald Trump has directed the US military to develop plans to “secure” the Panama Canal from alleged Chinese influence, following multiple threats to “reclaim” and “take back” the waterway, according to sources cited by Reuters, CNN and NBC.
The Panama Canal, a vital maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has been under Panamanian control since 1999 following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that it would remain neutral and open to all nations. Trump has repeatedly threatened to take back control of the waterway, citing “ridiculous fees” and concerns over China’s increasing presence in the region.
Earlier this year, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to take control of the canal, stating that all options were on the table to protect US economic and national security interests.
In an Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance memo obtained by CNN on Thursday, the White House formally asked the Pentagon to “immediately” provide options to ensure unlimited US access to the canal.
“Provide credible military options to ensure fair and unfettered US military and commercial access to the Panama Canal,” one of the directives in the memo reportedly stated.
US Southern Command is already developing potential plans, ranging from “partnering” closely with Panamanian security forces to a scenario in which US troops seize the canal by force, unnamed officials told NBC. Sources cited by Reuters also said the Pentagon had been ordered to explore military options to secure US access to the waterway.
Panamanian officials previously firmly rejected Trump’s assertions and threats, while the Panama Canal Authority maintains that the canal is operated solely by Panamanians, with no evidence supporting claims of Chinese control.
President Jose Raul Mulino stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony” and emphasized that Panama maintains full control of its operations. However, after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally delivered Trump’s ultimatum to Panama in February, Mulino made a concession to Washington by refusing to renew the country’s 2017 agreements with China under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
President Donald Trump has reportedly directed the US military to develop plans to secure American access to the Panama Canal Read Full Article at RT.com
The Pentagon was reportedly ordered to provide “credible” plans for securing US access to the key waterway
President Donald Trump has directed the US military to develop plans to “secure” the Panama Canal from alleged Chinese influence, following multiple threats to “reclaim” and “take back” the waterway, according to sources cited by Reuters, CNN and NBC.
The Panama Canal, a vital maritime route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, has been under Panamanian control since 1999 following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that it would remain neutral and open to all nations. Trump has repeatedly threatened to take back control of the waterway, citing “ridiculous fees” and concerns over China’s increasing presence in the region.
Earlier this year, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to take control of the canal, stating that all options were on the table to protect US economic and national security interests.
In an Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance memo obtained by CNN on Thursday, the White House formally asked the Pentagon to “immediately” provide options to ensure unlimited US access to the canal.
“Provide credible military options to ensure fair and unfettered US military and commercial access to the Panama Canal,” one of the directives in the memo reportedly stated.
US Southern Command is already developing potential plans, ranging from “partnering” closely with Panamanian security forces to a scenario in which US troops seize the canal by force, unnamed officials told NBC. Sources cited by Reuters also said the Pentagon had been ordered to explore military options to secure US access to the waterway.
Panamanian officials previously firmly rejected Trump’s assertions and threats, while the Panama Canal Authority maintains that the canal is operated solely by Panamanians, with no evidence supporting claims of Chinese control.
President Jose Raul Mulino stated that the canal is part of Panama’s “inalienable patrimony” and emphasized that Panama maintains full control of its operations. However, after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally delivered Trump’s ultimatum to Panama in February, Mulino made a concession to Washington by refusing to renew the country’s 2017 agreements with China under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chairman of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said they are “pleased to announce that China Daily will no longer be circulated by National News to House offices.”
“We took action to directly block the Chinese Communist Party from using the halls of the People’s House to spread its propaganda. We appreciate National News’s swift cooperation on this important issue,” they said.
According to the Committee on House Administration, it worked with National News to find a solution after lawmakers raised frustration over the issue, and the distributor is currently winding down the distribution of China Daily in Congress.
The Epoch Times has reached out to National News for comment.
China Daily is one of several major state mouthpieces controlled by the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department. The publication’s Chinese website says its English edition “actively publicizes and explains Xi Jinping Thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era,” and strives to influence public opinion in favor of communist-ruled China.
Its U.S. distributor China Daily Distribution Corporation has been registered as a foreign agent in the United States since 1983 under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
It’s among 17 organizations designated by the U.S. State Department as “foreign missions” in 2020. Among them, 14 are news publications or broadcasters.
For years, China Daily has been delivered to Congressional offices along with other major publications to all Congressional offices unless they opted out.
Some lawmakers have called for the end of China Daily’s distribution in Congress since 2020, when the publication came under scrutiny for paying major U.S. newspapers millions in advertisement dollars to run inserts that paint the Chinese regime in a positive light and downplay its oppression of Chinese and other peoples.
The call was renewed this year by Freshman Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.), who used his first legislation as a congressman to target the distribution of China Daily and other CCP-controlled publications in Congress.
His resolution, referred to the Committee on House Administration on Feb. 5, sought to ban the distribution of all CCP-controlled publications within House facilities.
The congressman in February told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program the distribution of China Daily in Congress is “unacceptable” because the publication is “propaganda by a foreign government that’s trying to influence the highest echelons of the United States government.”
In March 2024, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio was vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he co-wrote letters to the heads of nine media companies which were accepting payment from China Daily, urging them to stop “disseminating CCP propaganda to an American audience.”
Between November 2016 and April 2024, China Daily Distribution Corporation received $78.3 million in funding from its China-based headquarters. That’s almost 97 percent of its total income during the period, according to FARA filings.
In the same period, the corporation spent nearly $81 million in printing and operation expenses, including almost $20.78 million in advertisement payments to various media outlets.
On March 9, older Chromecast and Chromecast Audio devices stopped working due to an expired device authentication certificate authority that made them untrusted by Google's apps. While unofficial apps like VLC continue to function, Google's fix will require either updating client apps to bypass the issue or replacing the expired certificates, a process that could take weeks; however, Google has since announced it is beginning a gradual rollout of a fix. The Register reports: Tom Hebb, a former Meta software engineer and Chromecast hacker, has published a detailed analysis of the issue and suggests a fix could take more than a month to prepare. He's also provided workarounds here for folks to try in the meantime. We spoke to Hebb, and he says the problem is this expired device authentication certificate authority. [...] The fix is not simple. It's either going to involve a bit of a hack with updated client apps to accept or workaround the situation, or somehow someone will need to replace all the key pairs shipped with the devices with ones that use a new valid certificate authority. And getting the new keys onto devices will be a pain as, for instance, some have been factory reset and can't be initialized by a Google application because the bundled cert is untrusted, meaning the client software needs to be updated anyway. Given that the product family has been discontinued, teams will need to be pulled together to address this blunder. And it does appear to be a blunder rather than planned or remotely triggered obsolescence; earlier Chromecasts have a longer certificate validity, of 20 years rather than 10. "Google will either need to put in over a month of effort to build and test a new Chromecast update to renew the expired certificates, or they will have to coordinate internally between what's left of the Chromecast team, the Android team, the Chrome team, the Google Home team, and iOS app developers to push out new releases, which almost always take several days to build and test," Hebb explained. "I expect them to do the latter. A server-side fix is not possible." So either a week or so to rush out app-side updates to tackle the problem, or much longer to fix the problem with replaced certs. Polish security researcher Maciej Mensfeld also believes the outage is most likely due to an expired device authentication certificate authority. He's proposed a workaround that has helped some users, at least. Hebb, meanwhile, warns more certificate authority expiry pain is looming, with the Chromecast Ultra and Google Home running out in March next year, and the Google Home Mini in January 2027.
No Fats, No Hippies: Hegseth Orders Review Of Military Standards
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered a review of the US military's fitness standards and grooming requirements.
In a March 12 memorandum, Hegseth directed officials to compile the current physical fitness, body composition, and grooming standards for various military departments for evaluation.
According to Hegseth, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness must also outline how the standards have changed in the last 10 years, and provide any insight into why those standards have changed - as well as what impact they have had.
"We must remain vigilant in maintaining the standards that enable the men and women of our military to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force," Hegseth said.
"Our adversaries are not growing weaker, and our tasks are not growing less challenging. This review will illuminate how the Department has maintained the level of standards required over the recent past and the trajectory of any change in those standards."
Strength equals readiness. Kicked off the day with PT alongside the warriors of 1/10 SFG.
Hegseth has previously criticized the military for its sliding standards, as well as allowing women to serve in ground combat roles which began in 2013.
"Since women cannot physically meet the same standards as men, the military has two options—both bad," Hegseth wrote in his book, "The War on Warriors."
"They can lower the standards for everyone to ensure more women meet with infantry or combat standards. Or they can return to gender-based standards, and allow women to enter the infantry with lower standards than men. They have tried both."
During his confirmation hearing, Hegseth said he wanted to restore trust in the military and "revive the warrior ethos."
* * *
LISTEN UP, MAGGOTS... if you need to up your readiness - consider these top selling supplements from IQ Biologix:
The US has upgraded the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs to counter Russian jamming and may send the new variant to Kiev within days Read Full Article at RT.com
The previous GLSDB variant proved ineffective against Russian electronic warfare
The United States has upgraded the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB) to counter Russian jamming and is set to “reintroduce” them onto the battlefield in Ukraine within days, according to a Reuters report.
The GLSDB, jointly developed by Boeing and SAAB AB, combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb with the M26 rocket motor, creating a weapon with a range of approximately 100 miles (161 kilometers).
The administration of former President Joe Biden sent an undisclosed number of GLSDB units to Kiev, but it has been “months” since Ukrainian forces last used the bomb against Russia after it proved ineffective last year, sources told Reuters.
Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities rendered precision-guided Western munitions – including GLSDB and GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shells – ”useless,” the Wall Street Journal reported in July. With their guidance systems scrambled, some of these weapons were reportedly retired within weeks of being deployed.
Since then, Boeing has introduced several upgrades, including reinforced internal connections to enhance resistance to jamming. According to Reuters sources, at least 19 GLSDBs were test-fired in “recent weeks” to assess the effectiveness of the modifications. The US has stockpiled a significant number of these relatively inexpensive bombs in Europe and is “poised” to resume shipments to Kiev within days, the publication reported.
The potential replacement comes amid reports that Ukraine has depleted its stockpile of US-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), which have a longer range of 300 km.
Kiev began using ATACMS missiles for strikes into internationally recognized Russian territory in the autumn of 2024, particularly targeting the border regions of Kursk, Bryansk, Belgorod, and Rostov. However, the stockpile was fully exhausted by late January, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.
Moscow has repeatedly warned the US and its allies against permitting long-range Ukrainian strikes, arguing that such attacks would make NATO a direct participant in the conflict due to Kiev’s reliance on Western-supplied weapons.
In response to Ukraine’s first ATACMS strikes in November last year, Russia launched its new hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile at the Yuzhmash military-industrial facility in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Meta plans to test out X's algorithm for Community Notes to crowdsource fact-checks that will appear across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. In a blog, Meta said the testing in the U.S. would begin March 18, with about 200,000 potential contributors already signed up. Anyone over 18 with a Meta account more than six months old can also join a waitlist of users who will "gradually" and "randomly" be admitted to write and rate cross-platform notes during initial beta testing. Meta claimed that borrowing X's approach would result in "less biased" fact-checking than relying on experts alone. But the social media company will delay publicly posting any notes until it's confident that the system is working. For users of Meta platforms, notes could help flag misleading content overlooked by prior fact-checking efforts. However, Meta confirmed that users will not be allowed to add notes correcting misleading advertisements, which means notes won't help reduce scam ads that The Guardian reported last August have been spreading on Facebook for years. Meta confirmed that the company plans to tweak X's algorithm over time to develop its own version of community notes, which "may explore different or adjusted algorithms to support how Community Notes are ranked and rated."
State Farm Exec Fired After Comments About LA Wildfires, Saying Victims Homes Were "For Their Ego"
State Farm fired executive Haden Kirkpatrick after he was secretly recorded discussing the company’s emergency 22% rate hike for California homeowners affected by wildfires, according to the NY Post and the Los Angeles Times.
Kirkpatrick, believing he was on a Tinder date, said the hike was “kind of” orchestrated “but not in the way you would think,” according to a video published by James O’Keefe’s media company.
“Our people look at this and say, ‘S—, we’ve got like maybe $5 billion that we’re short if something happens,'” he said.
He continued: “We’ll go to the Department of Insurance and say, ‘We’re overexposed here, you have to let us catch up on [our] rates’. … He’ll say ‘Nah.’ And we’ll say, ‘OK, then we are going to cancel these policies.'"
The NY Post writes that Kirkpatrick was also recorded saying homes in the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades shouldn’t have been built, claiming they exist only because residents wanted “natural areas around them for their ego” in what he called “a f–king desert.”
State Farm’s California subsidiary had requested an emergency 22% rate hike, citing wildfire losses and a $5 billion surplus decline over the past decade, Los Angeles Times reported. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, who first rejected State Farm’s 22% rate hike, is now demanding answers, stating, “We want answers from State Farm. This only raises more questions.”
State Farm confirmed Kirkpatrick’s firing, calling his statements “inaccurate” and not reflective of the company’s views or commitment to Californians.
Kirkpatrick, who made the remarks during a January Tinder date, believes he was set up.
Mozilla is urging Firefox users to update their browsers to version 128 or later (or ESR 115.13 for extended support users) before March 14, 2025, to avoid security risks and add-on disruptions caused by the expiration of a key root certificate. "On 14 March a root certificate (the resource used to prove an add-on was approved by Mozilla) will expire, meaning Firefox users on versions older than 128 (or ESR 115) will not be able to use their add-ons," warns a Mozilla blog post. "We want developers to be aware of this in case some of your users are on older versions of Firefox that may be impacted." BleepingComputer reports: A Mozilla support document explains that failing to update Firefox could expose users to significant security risks and practical issues, which, according to Mozilla, include: - Malicious add-ons can compromise user data or privacy by bypassing security protections.- Untrusted certificates may allow users to visit fraudulent or insecure websites without warning.- Compromised password alerts may stop working, leaving users unaware of potential account breaches. It is noted that the problem impacts Firefox on all platforms, including Windows, Android, Linux, and macOS, except for iOS, where there's an independent root certificate management system. Mozilla says that users relying on older versions of Firefox may continue using their browsers after the expiration of the certificate if they accept the security risks, but the software's performance and functionality may be severely impacted.
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told executives from top food companies that he wants artificial dyes out of the nation’s food supply before he leaves office, according to a food company trade association email.
Kennedy, head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on March 10 met with executives from PepsiCo, Tyson Foods, and other companies that sell food and food products. Writing on social media platform X, he said the discussion covered food safety, stating, “We will strengthen consumer trust by getting toxins out of our food.”
The Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing PepsiCo and other food and consumer goods makers, participated in the meeting.
In an email sent after the meeting and viewed by The Epoch Times, the association stated that Kennedy wanted to work with the industry in a collaborative and non-adversarial fashion.
He also communicated the Trump administration’s strong desire to remove artificial dyes such as FD&C Blue No. 1 from the food supply, labeling it as an urgent priority to be completed before he exits office.
Kennedy was quoted as saying that he expects “real and transformative” change by “getting the worst ingredients” out of food.
Kyle Diamantas, acting deputy commissioner for human foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), informed attendees that he knew the industry could not act alone and said the FDA would work with companies to reinforce the need for a federal framework to avoid patchworks from state law, according to the email.
California in 2024 banned artificial dyes from school lunches. Several other states have moved toward legislation limiting the use of the dyes. The FDA in January revoked authorization for Red No. 3, one of the dyes, in food products.
Kennedy also said during the meeting that he will take action unless the industry acts, according to the email.
“On Monday, industry leaders met with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to discuss his Make America Healthy Again agenda and working together to maintain consumer access to safe, affordable and convenient product choices,” Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.
“It was a constructive conversation and we look forward to continued engagement with the secretary and the qualified experts within HHS to support public health, build consumer trust and promote consumer choice.”
A PepsiCo spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email that the meeting was a productive first step in working with the Trump administration and that the company is focused on providing people with a range of convenient, affordable, and safe foods and drinks, including options with no artificial dyes, which are also known as synthetic colors.
“We look forward to partnering with the Department of Health and Human Services in the mission to provide safe, affordable, and wholesome food for all,” a Kraft Heinz spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email.
The FDA did not return an inquiry.
An HHS spokesperson declined to comment on the meeting, instead pointing to how Kennedy recently moved to terminate a rule that lets food manufacturers use additives without FDA approval.
“For far too long, ingredient manufacturers and sponsors have exploited a loophole that has allowed new ingredients and chemicals, often with unknown safety data, to be introduced into the U.S. food supply without notification to the FDA or the public,” Kennedy said in a March 10 statement posted on X.
Kennedy said his meeting with CEOs covered “food safety and radical transparency to protect the health of all Americans, especially our children.”
President Trump has told NATO chief Mark Rutte that he would like the US-led military bloc to assist Washington in “securing” Greenland Read Full Article at RT.com
The US has “quite a few soldiers” in the Arctic island, and “maybe you’ll see more,” the president has warned
President Donald Trump has told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that he would like the US-led military bloc to assist Washington in “securing” Greenland following their negotiations in the Oval Office on Thursday.
Trump initially proposed buying the Danish autonomous territory during his first term in 2019 and has reignited the discussion after returning to office. Speaking at a recent joint session of Congress, he stated that the US will secure the island “one way or the other.”
Asked by journalists on Thursday about his “vision on the potential annexation of Greenland,” Trump stated, “I think it will happen.”
“I didn’t give it much thought before, but I’m sitting with a man who could be very instrumental. You know, Mark, we need that for international security,” the US president said, turning to the NATO chief. “We have a lot of our favorite players cruising around the coasts, and we have to be careful. We’ll be talking to you.”
Rutte downplayed the proposal, saying with a chuckle, that “when it comes to Greenland, joining or not joining the US, I would leave that outside... this discussion, because I do not want to drag NATO into that.”
However, the NATO chief noted that Trump was “totally right” in highlighting security concerns in the High North and the Arctic, given the increased presence of Russia and China in the region. He also emphasized the importance of Western nations working “together on this under the US leadership.”
Trump reiterated that the US “really needs” Greenland for both national and international security. “I think that’s why NATO might have to get involved in a way,” he added.
The president then pointed out that the US already had “a couple of bases” and hundreds of soldiers in Greenland, suggesting that “maybe you’ll see more and more soldiers go there.”
“What do you think about that, Pete?” Trump said, addressing Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth with a smile. “Don’t answer that, Pete. Don’t answer that question. But we have bases, and we have quite a few soldiers in Greenland.”
Trump’s statements drew a quick response from Greenland. The outgoing prime minister of the Danish autonomous territory, Mute Egede, turned to Facebook to criticize the US president for entertaining “the thought of annexing us,” adding, “Enough is enough.”
Greenland has long been of strategic importance due to its Arctic location and untapped mineral resources. Covering 2.2 million square kilometers and home to a population of only about 60,000, the Danish autonomous territory also hosts a key US military base at Thule.
The Richest Colleges Are Fighting To Protect Their Endowments From Taxation
Before Donald Trump announced plans to cut $400 million from Columbia University, top U.S. colleges were already preparing to counter financial threats from his administration, according to a new report from Bloomberg.
The grant cancellation, citing alleged inaction against antisemitism, is one of several tactics Trump is using to pressure elite universities. These institutions also face potential tax hikes on their endowments and are actively working to block them.
Given they're the institutions churning out pro-taxation far left radicals, kind of ironic, no?
Bloomberg writes that Harvard has hired a Republican-friendly lobbying firm, while Princeton’s president is spending more time in Washington to defend its $34.1 billion endowment.
MIT’s leader has made multiple trips to D.C., and a group of two dozen universities is holding Zoom meetings to strategize against financial threats.
Columbia says it is committed to combating antisemitism and hopes to restore funding, but Republicans continue targeting elite schools they view as prioritizing progressive values over meritocracy. The attacks pose an “existential threat” to colleges, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s president.
Private universities with large endowments argue the funds support scholarships, but critics question why wealthy institutions can grow billions tax-free.
Davidson College paid a $1.2 million endowment tax last year, which could have funded 15 full scholarships. Critics argue that same amount could have covered tuition for 300 community college students. Representative David Schweikert called university endowments “stunning” and questioned whether they truly serve students.
Davidson President Douglas Hicks is lobbying Congress to stop a tax expansion, warning it would hurt students. “If the goal is to make college more affordable, this is not an effective approach,” he said, noting Davidson meets 100% of financial need.
Colleges like Davidson fear becoming collateral damage in the GOP’s push to penalize elite universities over campus protests, as schools like Harvard, Stanford, and MIT freeze hiring amid potential federal funding cuts. Lawmakers are calling 2025 the Super Bowl of tax as they debate extending Trump’s 2017 tax overhaul, which introduced a 1.4% endowment tax on wealthy colleges, generating $380 million from 56 institutions in 2023.
Proposals from Trump and Vice President JD Vance suggest raising or expanding the tax, potentially lowering the threshold to $250,000 per student, which could impact smaller schools like Wabash College in Indiana.
Critics warn a higher tax could deter wealthy donors, redirecting money from students to the U.S. Treasury. Wabash President Scott Feller is also lobbying lawmakers, emphasizing that his school’s $430 million endowment is less than 1% of Harvard’s, yet faces the same tax burden.
Ancient Slashdot reader Alain Williams shares a report from the BBC: Meta has won an emergency ruling in the US to temporarily stop a former director of Facebook from promoting or further distributing copies of her memoir. The book, Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams, who used to be the company's global public policy director, includes a series of critical claims about what she witnessed during her seven years working at Facebook. Facebook's parent company, Meta, says the ruling -- which orders her to stop promotions "to the extent within her control" -- affirms that "the false and defamatory book should never have been published." The UK publisher Macmillan says it is "committed to upholding freedom of speech" and Ms Wynn-Williams' "right to tell her story." [You can also hear Ms Wynn-Williams interviewed in the BBC Radio 4 Media Show on March 12.]
Clinton-Appointed Judge Slams Trump "Sham", Orders Agencies To Reinstate 1000s Of Fired Probationary Staff
San Francisco based... check.
Clinton appointed... check.
So how do you think the case against President Trump firing federal probationary staff went?
Bingo...
U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce.
Politico reports that Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back.
The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them.
The order is one of the most far-reaching rejections of the Trump administration’s effort to slash the bureaucracy and is almost certain to be appealed.
“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday.
“I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.”
The judge called the move “a gimmick.”
Alsup also said the Office of Personnel Management couldn't give guidance on who to terminate, according to ABC News.
“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said.
Do those sound like the findings of a non-partisan, legally-trained, judicially-independent member of the bench?
And on it goes...
If President Trump can't fire these people who can? Or do they get to keep their jobs forever with no oversight? It is insane for any judge to say a worker can not be fired.
This is just getting ridiculous, how can judges make you hire people, when you are the chief executive one of your functions is hiring and firing people…this is such nonsense. It’s judicial over reach. At this rate we won’t be able to get anything done . Judge after judge…
The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory says what is happening in the West Bank is the “litmus test” of the Israeli regime’s ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran has summoned the envoys of the UK, France and Germany to Tehran over a closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council regarding Tehran's nuclear program.
The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions against Iran’s Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad, several vessels and entities after the Trump administration sent a letter to the country.
SCIENTIFIC STUDY ~ Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
ScienceDirect: Medical Hypotheses
RESULTS: Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established.
SCIENTIFIC STUDY ~ Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
RESULTS: Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection.
.png)
Russia has been in many ways an easy target for the West. Soviet Communism having bred distrust of Russian government, has left Russian intellectuals easy pickings for Western propaganda. Many Russian intellectuals represent the West, not Russia. This Russian vulnerability has been skillfully exploited by the West.
President Donald Trump has reportedly directed the US military to develop plans to secure American access to the Panama Canal
The US has upgraded the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs to counter Russian jamming and may send the new variant to Kiev within days
President Trump has told NATO chief Mark Rutte that he would like the US-led military bloc to assist Washington in “securing” Greenland
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address
Wallet Address 
Wallet Address