JK22

Jemenittene er rasende. I likhet med store deler av det internasjonale elitesjiktet fordi selv ikke amerikanerne hadde våget å angripe en sivilregjering og utrydde denne, da disse som regel gikk etter enkeltpersoner for likvidering; og fra Iran hadde det kommet nyheter om at Netanyahu hadde forsøkt å drepe den valgte presidenten, som også er regjeringssjef for den sivile regjeringsmakten. Men nå har historie blitt skapt; for første gang noensinne i nyere tid har en hel regjering blitt utryddet under et angrep i en mellomstatlig konflikt. Dette er TOTAL KRIG. Houthiene er veldig sint og lover at de vil deretter føre krig mot Israel - ikke lenge for å støtte palestinerne. I araberstatene er det mulig å ante at de mange makthavere begynner å bli nervøst over Netanyahus total krig mot alt og enhver når de realisere at israelerne bryter alle siviliserte atferdsregler for krig mellom stater. Og i selve Iran fikk de advarsler om at Netanyahu har planer om å angripe dem for å utslette deres regime. Det kunne ses at det nå foregår omfattende geopolitiske endringer - i Libya har Haftar klarte å vinne til seg tyrkernes aksept, egypterne og emiratene ser ut til å eniges om å splitte Sudan i to ved å la RSF ta Darfur (og begå folkemord på 200,000 mennesker) for å unngå fremtidige forverrelser, saudiaraberne er i full gang med å gjenreise båndene med Pakistan, Syria og Libanon samtidig som de vil fylle ut vakuumet etter kollapsen av den iranske alliansen. Det merkes at disse går nærmere og nærmere Kina som respons på Trumps uvettige støtte til Israel. Og Kina vil binde betydelige ressurser i Iran som nå er ført mot sammenbruddets rand. Modi, som misliker muslimer, ser ut til å mykes opp for arabermaktene og pakistanerne samtidig som han flyr rett i armene på Xi. Netanyahu ødelegge det amerikanske grepet på Midtøsten.

Trump's Military Moves Ratchet Up Threat of State-on-State Conflict In Donald Trump's increasingly addled worldview, if he can imagine it, he has the authority to do it. "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States," he told reporters this week in the Oval Office, justifying his decision to deploy armed National Guard units to Washington, D.C., and his threats to send forces to Chicago and beyond. "If I think our country is in danger - and it is in danger in these cities," he said, "I can do it." Trump is using the military to beta-test an American police state. And he is going about it in a way that could stoke conflict between military units of Republican- and Democratic-governed states, says Ret. Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who spoke to reporters on a conference call, Tuesday. "That's the scariest thing about what we're watching right now." Trump signed a stark executive order this week directing the Pentagon to "immediately" create a special police unit inside the D.C. National Guard to enforce "public safety and order" in continued response to the "crime emergency" he's declared in the nation's capital. (Earlier this year, the federal government touted that violent crime in the district was at a three-decade low.) But the executive order is not limited to the federal capital, where Trump wields broad powers. The order calls for building similar capacity in Guard units across the country, as well as the creation of a "standing National Guard quick reaction force" available for "rapid nationwide deployment." Trump's order anticipates Guard members "quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety." Trump's move to direct the might of the U.S. military internally is raising alarms among legal scholars. "There is no statutory authority to federalize the National Guard for the purpose of policing local crime," says Liza Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Center, who highlighted for reporters the pernicious effects of Trump's orders. "At minimum, using soldiers as a domestic police force creates a chilling effect" - in particular, she said, for people seeking to protest "the person who commands the soldiers." Trump's order does more than marshal the military. It envisions civilians entering the fray to enforce the president's notions of law and order. The executive order calls for the creation of an online portal where Americans with "law enforcement or other relevant backgrounds and experience" can apply to "join Federal law enforcement entities" to "support the policy goals" of the president. The language of the order, first flagged by The New York Times, is ambiguous. Would these civilians join in a paid capacity? Or as "civilian volunteers," as the Times described it, resembling a federal posse? A White House official would not clarify beyond telling Rolling Stone that the portal hopes to attract qualified applicants who support Trump's initiative to "crackdown on crime" in D.C. Trump's order puts a task force chaired by top White House adviser Stephen Miller in charge of the recruiting effort. Trump's most nakedly authoritarian lieutenant, Miller regularly demonizes anyone to the left of Trump's MAGA movement. In an appearance on Fox News with Sean Hannity this week, Miller described Democrats in ways that would make a demagogue blush: "The Democrat Party is not a political party, it is a domestic extremist organization," Miller said. He peppered his diatribe with false claims that the Democratic Party does not "represent American citizens" and but is "devoted exclusively" to the "defense of hardened criminals, gang bangers and illegal-alien killers and terrorists." Miller blasted Democratic mayors as "evil," while falsely alleging they are "rejoicing in" subjecting residents to a "constant blood bath." He called Trump's militarization of the streets of the nation's capital a "liberation," declaring: "President Trump has literally set the people of Washington, D.C., free." Strident "enemy-within" bluster is not new from the Trump administration. But advancing the notion that Trump's militarized police state ought to be turned against one of the two major political parties is harrowing - and a bright-red flag for anyone tasked with recruiting security forces. The language of Trump's EO itself is also troubling. It can read like a dog-whistle to the right's own extremists. The ranks of the Oath Keepers, for example, are brimming with ex-military and law enforcement. As detailed in court proceedings, its leaders were waiting on an invitation from the president during the tumult of Jan. 6 to join a violent crackdown on Trump's enemies in D.C. The militia group had infamously stationed its own, armed, "quick reaction force" across the river in Virginia. These convicts are now at large after Trump's mass pardon spree. Beyond this troubling recruiting, "the mission is the problem here," Max Rose, a former Democratic congressman from Staten Island, New York, tells Rolling Stone. "The president's intent is to scare the hell out of millions of people - principally his political opponents," Rose says. "That's why it's being done in such a public, brazen manner." Rose, like Eaton and Goitein, was a panelist on the press call, which was organized by the Vet Voice Foundation, a group devoted to defending democratic values. Its CEO, Janessa Goldbeck, denounced Trump's "steady march" to using the military as a "partisan tool," calling the new executive order the "most dangerous step yet" by the president. "It's a blueprint to use America's military forces to police our own citizens," she said. Several panelists on the call highlighted the danger of Trump potentially shattering precedent by deploying National Guard units from one state into another - against the will of that state's governor. "This norm has been treated as inviolable, because the alternative is blatantly unconstitutional," said Goldbeck. "Put bluntly, the Constitution prevents states from invading other states." This invasion threat is no longer an abstraction. In a press conference this week, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois spoke directly to "my fellow governors" who might consider sending National Guard units "into my state against the wishes of its elected representatives and its people." Pritzker spoke with a firmness that could be read as a veiled threat: "Any action … violating the sacred sovereignty of our state to cater to the ego of a dictator," he said, "will be responded to." Retired Maj. Gen. Eaton is a Vet Voice adviser. Using military jargon, he raised the specter of a "blue-on-blue" conflict - a form of "fratricide," as he described it - in which American military units "wind up shooting at each other" when they "both believe they're doing the right thing, but their chain of command is flawed." Eaton imagined a dangerous scenario in which a state like South Carolina or Mississippi were to deploy Guard troops to California, only to be told by the governor: "You will not enter the state of California." "This can spin out of control if the governors feel that they are the last line of defense for the U.S. democracy," Eaton says. And America's current cold war between Republican and Democratic governed states could suddenly turn hot. "The last time America had a blue-on-blue," he cautions, "was the Civil War." Da guvernør Pritzker sa republikanske politikerne vil bli gjort ansvarlig for Trumps handlinger fordi de beskytter og hjalp ham, var dette et tydelig signal om at polariseringen er i ferd med å når statlig nivå, og at Trumps aggressivitet mot politiske dissidenter som utgjør et statsdekkende parti som det demokratiske partiet, kan få meget seriøse konsekvenser. Det kan ende med at nasjonalgardister fra ulike stater kommer til å slåss mot hverandre, at delstatsregjeringer vil ikke ha annet valg enn å gå til revolt for å berge delstatssuvereniteten - og at soldater kommer til å bruke vold mot hverandre i anarki når man ikke kunne eniges om hvem å følge. Grunnlovsfedrene hadde gjort det meget klart at alle militære må avlegge deres ed mot konstitusjonen fremfor mot president, kongress og delstat. Republikanerne nektet å respektere dette, og Trump arbeider meget hardt - med Hegseth som er en kvinnehatende rasist - og Miller, som er definitivt 100 % nazistisk - med å sette inn lojalister som vil begå landssvik til fordel for presidentmakten. Chicago Mayor Orders City to Counter Trump Troop Deployment Hvis de republikanske folkevalgte i kongressen ikke tar til fornuften, risikere de at alt kommer til å brenne opp. I flere delstater meldes det om voksende trass mot føderalmakten som i øyne på mange har blitt en repressiv kraft; “We will protect our constitution. We will protect our city. And we will protect our people. We do not want to see tanks in our streets. We do not want to see families ripped apart,” he said, adding that the executive order would “ensure that every Chicagoan knows their rights, that every single family is prepared, and every part of city government is directed to protect the people of Chicago from federal action.” Alle delstater har deres egne konstitusjoner, som føderalmakten må respektere for at disse skal forbli innenfor unionen så lenge disse akseptere den føderale konstitusjonelle ordningen. Men hvis ordningen skulle gå opp i limingen og føderalmakt skulle ikke respektere delstatssuverenitet, da kan det få meget uante følger. Blant annet at demokratene og moderate republikanerne vil se seg nødt til å gjøre opprør for å beskytte deres land og folk mot tyranni og maktmisbruk. Det finnes meget få delstater hvor det ene partiet har sterk støtte i folkedybden, deriblant California - de fleste er på 40% til 60 % balanse mellom begge partier, flesteparten av byene er under demokratisk kontroll for eksempel. Og flesteparten av høyutdannede er demokrativennlige, dvs. at de vil ikke tolerere konstitusjonsoppløsning. Da må kongressen tre sammen og tvinge gjennom øyeblikkelig avsetting av hele Trump-administrasjonen medregnet visepresident Vance - og få Trump arrestert eller... likvidert. De risikere at hele USA vil komme i oppløsning når folk går mot hverandre i raseri, forvirring og fortvilelse.

Det kan ta lang tid, og det er ikke sikkert om det internasjonale samfunnet kan annet enn å låse dørene og vente inntil russerne har sortert seg ut. Det er åpenbart at den russiske folkesjelen har blitt sterkt skadet av sjokket utløst av de mongolske hordene, forræderiet av den ortodokse kirken som valgt å forlate folkepleie og det moskovittiske fyrstehusets adoptering av totalitær maktutøvelse. De klarte aldri å komme seg over det mongolske angrepet, for de fikk ikke tid og anledning til å pleie seg tilbake til normaliseringen ettersom mongolene og senere tartarene fjernstyrt dem i lang tid, så de lokale fyrstene "tartariseres" mens den ortodokse kirken etter hvert brøt med hovedkirken og inngikk en allianse med de sekulære makthavere på bekostning av folkets beste. Ukrainerne og andre var ikke mildere behandlet enn moskovittene, men de hadde klarte seg bedre i sammenligning, ettersom disse kunne komme seg over sine traumene. Så da de moskovittiske fyrstene gjort hevd på Rusrikets arv, hadde disse ikke innsett at de var blitt for forskjellig fra sine slektninger i vest - inntil det begynte å bli merkbart. Istedenfor å lære av det de opplevd i vest, valgt de bare å innstramme og bli mer hardere anlagt, ved å knytte religiøs tro med nasjonal identitet. Rusfolkene i middelalderen var ikke mildere enn russerne i moderne tid, men de var ikke preget av totalitær maktutøvelse som hittil da var en ren orientalistisk spesialitet som har sin bakgrunn i den kinesiske legalismen utviklet i de siste århundrene før Kristus. Selv om mongolene selv vil hevde noe annet, hadde mongolsamfunnet gjennom århundrer mottatt og bearbeidet impulser fra sør, som aldri var langt vekk - samtidige steppekulturer inkludert hunnene selv vist seg å ha sitt opphav i dagens Mandsjuria og Indre Mongolia helt ned til Taihang-fjellene som har vært den geografiske grensen mellom de nordre steppefolkene og de søndre slettfolkene i årtusener. Da Dsjengis Khan overtok makten over samtidige mongolstammer, hadde det etablert seg en maktetradisjon omkring totalitær makt hvilende i hender på enslige personer atskilt fra lov, etikk og moral underordnet guddommelige mandater. Vi finner dette spor av dette i Korea, Kina, Vietnam etc. - i Japan hadde keiserne aldri oppnådd så mye makt, muligens fordi japanerne var for stridbart. Dessverre - hadde den østslaviske kultursfæren adopterte det norrøne kongekonseptet ved at en konge må ha guddommelig opphav gjennom slektsforbindelse, hvilken er hvorfor det eldgamle Rurik-dynastiet til tross for at det var kraftig utvannet i separate familiegrener, hadde blitt holdt ved hevd av rusfolket og senere russerne. Denne holdningen var fremdeles i livet så sent som i 1905 da folk som protesterte, oppriktig trodd deres tsar var en halvgud. Mens det var sakrale-verdige konflikter mellom pavemakt og kongemakt i nærmeste alle katolske kongedømmer, hadde den bysantinske kirkeorganisasjonen derimot valgt samarbeidslinjen med de verdige herskerne - slik at prest og konge kunne utfylle hverandres roller i samfunnet underordnet den ortodokse kirken. Ennå hadde begge en viss svingningsmulighet ved å tviholde på sentrale filosofiske tanker knyttet til disses virke. Dette forsvant da mongolene forklar "slik er verden!" for de østrussiske fyrstene og disses biskopene, som etter hvert glir inn i ren totalitær maktmentalitet, som forsterkes etter hvert som moskovittfyrstene konsolidere deres makt og deretter startet "samlingen av Rusriket". Siden den gang hadde alt gått galt, spesielt da den russisk-ortodokse kirken regelrett brøt med den ortodokse hovedkirken og adoptert en meget striks antivestlig holdning som likedan gli inn i ekstrem mistro mot modernisering (islamske lærde av den ortodokse troen hadde liknende holdninger i 1600-1850 perioden). Man bare ta til seg det som kom fra annetsteds for å tjene Makten. Og den store ufreden i begynnelsen på 1600-tallet hadde vært så rystende for det russiske folket at disse frivillig slavebinde seg for Makten som deretter konsentreres i en eneste mann - deres slavemester. Da hadde russerne som et resultat av det langvarige forfallet i verdisett og påvirkning fra øst samtidig som disses fyrster hetset med dem på det verste, gått over til å mistro hverandre - de gamle maktkollektive båndene hadde gått i oppløsning; bare Fyrsten, Kirken og Landsbyen gjensto. Helt siden ved cirka år 200 e.kr hadde de skandinavisk-germanske folkene og de slaviske folkene pleiet et nært omgang med hverandre helt siden goterne utvandret helt fram til dagens Ukraina, og skapt et kulturelt nettverk som fortsatte uten stans fram til mongolenes angrep. Da rus - de svenske vikingene - kom til det som nå er Kyiv, hadde de bare vært det siste skuddet i den omfattende kulturhistoriske utvekslingen mellom dynamiske kultursfærer, de var ikke ukjent med folk og land de skulle ligge under seg, som disses undersåttene var ikke ukjent med de fremmede inntrengere som allikevel hadde mye felles med dem. Da moskovittsriket i midten av 1600-tallet underlagt seg Ukraina ved å utnytte den katolske intoleransen som tvunget de ortodokse troende vekk fra seg rett inn i tsarenes favner, skiftet de karakter og navn om til Russland som bevis på at de hadde gjenreist Rusriket og vil dermed fortsette "den store russiske storheten" som Putin synes helt oppslukt av. Men det tok ikke lang tid før det begynte å sprekke, ukrainere og andre russerfolk oppdaget til deres bestyrelse at østrusserne hadde blitt for kravstort og for stolt til å ense dem som likeverdige, omgjort drømmen om et forente Rusrike til et mareritt for alle involverte i de neste århundrer. Det vil være håp først når russerne kaste av seg fryktkulturen, hvor enhver med makt skal fryktes ettersom man er rettsløse undersåtter - det vil ikke være galt å si at samtidige russere i dag føler mer frykt enn glede for Putin, som ikke ønsket å bli elsket - men å bli fryktet. Dette er 100 % ikke-europeisk, for dette var utspredt i Øst-Asia, spesielt i kultur med meget sterk legalistiske påvirkning. Fra Sør-Korea har det kommet historiskbaserte underholdning som forklart at hvis en kvinne av lav status bare se på kongen - skal hun henrettes på stedet! Selv ikke japanerne gjort det, da de drepte enhver under seg i tråd med samuraienes "husreglene" for enhver tegn på ærekrenkelse, selv om dette skulle være ubetydelig. Selv i tider da man hadde konger med guddommelig slekt, var disse ikke gitt total makt over alt og enhver, som sett da en svenskekonge i 1000-tallet først nektet å forlike seg med Olav den hellige for deretter å bli informert om at konger som slo seg vag, risikeres å druknes. Det var ikke uvanlig med rituell drap på konger i dårlige tid, og selv om majestetsforbrytelser var svært alvorlig med dødsdom, var det alltid med skjønn. I europeisk kultur var drap på makthavere for hender på folket ikke uvanlig, det var derimot normen - som fortsetter i mer siviliserte omgang som mistillitsforslag og riksrett i dag. Dette finner man nesten ikke i Øst-Asia.

Dette var ny. Quantum Systems utvikler AI-programmer så et dronefly vil ikke bare ser etter - men også lytte etter potensielle mål. Det er som å gjenskape de oppsiktsvekkende lyddetekteringsapparater fra 1915-1940 man hadde før radarens ankomsten - denne gangen fra oven over et aktivt felt. AI vil være i stand til å detektere, analysere og identifisere ulike lyd for deretter å skille ut disse som kom fra fienden for lokalisering og ildledelse. The new version of Vector with AI and the WASP sensor can not only "see", but also "hear" the enemy, identifying artillery and other targets by sound. The drone is currently undergoing testing together with Ukrainian artillerymen. In Ukraine, Quantum has increased production from 40 to 80 drones per month, while in Germany they produce 120. Kanskje terminatorroboten som kan lytte seg fram til sine tiltenkte ofre har blitt til virkelighet, ved å ha en angrepsdrone som kan snappe opp hjertelyd fra et menneske og finne dette med sine våpnene. Da er det helt umulig å skjule seg uansett hva man gjør eller hvilken kamuflasjemetode man benytter.

Obama Warns Trump’s ‘Militarization’ of Police Should Concern ‘All Americans’: ‘Dangerous Trends’ Will 'hurt American families': Economists sound alarm on new Trump attack JD Vance just said the 'quiet part out loud' in Trump's escalating feud: analyst 'The Republicans Would Be Calling For Impeachment': Jamie Raskin Illuminates The GOP's Shameless Hypocrisy During Fiery Remarks In Interview | Watch Is CNN's article titled "Donald Trump dies at 79" real? Viral screenshot debunked amid rising rumors about the president's death on X Vance i denne artikkelen kom med meget motstridige påstander, men han hadde påpekt at Trump er altfor energisk i forholdet til hans alder, og det er mye som tyder på at dette kan stemme. Han antyder "Trumps død" og at han vil overta - selv om hans populariteten er noe av det verste en visepresident har i nyere tid. Angry constituents confront Congress on immigration, Medicaid cuts and Gaza Markedet hadde i sommeren, sammen med utsettelsene av tollsatsene, utøvet et mirakel slik at den varslede eksplosjonen er blitt forsinket - men nå er den i ferd med å oppstå. Shared Psychosis or Political Pathology? In the age of Trump, American politics has become a theater of emotional extremes. Loyalty is lionized, facts are fungible, and grievance is gospel. For many observers, the MAGA movement is not just a political faction-it's a psychological phenomenon Artikkelforfatteren tar feil ved å ikke studere det som hendt utenfor USA, spesielt i Jugoslavia 1985-1991. Growing up MAGA: a first-gen immigrant’s story of turning away from Trump “Trump knows how to weaponize fear very, very well,” he told Raw Story. “It’s very scary that he knows how to do it.” Pentagon is reinstalling portrait of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that includes a slave Dette er i seg selv et lovbrudd fordi en lov i 2020 hadde blitt vedtatt. Ved å føre opp det kontroversielle portrettet av Lee som illustrere både en hæroffiser og en slaveeier har Hegseth forbrutt seg mot den amerikanske loven. The CDC is falling deeper into crisis. What it means for the nation’s health. CDC er i krise, folk flest har begynte å våkne mens vitenskapsfolk har begynte å gjøre opprør. Senatorer som lot seg presses til å la galningen Robert F. Kennedy Jr. komme gjennom, har opplevd voksende folkelig sinne i deres egne hjem, og det merkes at flere og flere republikanske folkevalgte i både senatet og huset kritiseres mer og mer enn før. Social Security whistleblower submits 'involuntary resignation,' citing 'intolerable' work conditions Overalt er det tydelige tegn på at folk har begynte å reagere - ikke minst fordi ferietiden er overstått og fordi Trump med hjelp av Roberts og rasistene i republikanerpartiet nå har fått gjennomslag for hans inngrep.

Will Venezuela be the first target of Trump's new MAGA Monroe Doctrine? Will Venezuela be the first target of Trump's new MAGA Monroe Doctrine? President Donald Trump's deployment of warships off the coast of Venezuela and authorization for the use of force against drug trafficking organizations is fueling speculation of potential military action looming in South America. However, the White House's moves also speak to a broader shift in policy focus under Trump's "America First" movement that envisions the Americas as a whole as part of the U.S. zone of interest, an outlook reminiscent of the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine that served as the basis for U.S. intervention against European colonialism and communist expansion across the region. With Venezuela and its leftist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, now in the crosshairs, experts and former officials see the dawn of a new era of U.S. power projection across the Western Hemisphere. "This massive show of force is consistent with the administration's efforts to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reviving the Monroe Doctrine that declared the region to be uniquely a U.S. sphere of influence," Cynthia Arnson, a leading Latin America expert serving as adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies, told Newsweek. 'Gunboat Diplomacy' Arnson warned of the potential regional consequences of such an approach, noting how just because "many Latin American democracies would welcome the end of the Maduro regime, that doesn't mean that they are lining up to applaud a 21st century version of gunboat diplomacy." Observers have debated whether or not the recent naval build-up in the waters of South and Central America would serve as a prelude to real action or constituted mere posturing, meant to deliver a message to Maduro who the U.S. has accused of being complicit in drug trafficking. Arnson argued that "the utility of such a huge deployment in fighting drug trafficking is questionable, although there undoubtedly will be some seizures that the administration will tout to justify the exercise of military force." She added: "The number of troops deployed, although large, is not sufficient to invade Venezuela with the aim of toppling the government." José Cárdenas, a former National Security Council and U.S. State Department official who has dealt extensively with Latin America policy, said the latest moves would prove far more than showmanship. "It would be a mistake to consider the U.S. naval deployment off the Venezuelan coast 'business as usual' or mere political theater," Cárdenas, who today is a principal at the Cormac Group consulting firm, told Newsweek. "It is too big, powerful, and costly for that." "Rather," he added, "it is a signal by the Trump administration that the status quo—Venezuela as a hub for transnational organized crime and a regional destabilizer through mass migration—is no longer tenable." 'Believe What He Says, or Else' Cárdenas spoke of a "wide range of options" available to the Trump administration, short of a "full-scale invasion" that could effect change in Venezuela. For one, he felt "it is likely the U.S. is in contact with Venezuelan military personnel not involved in narco-trafficking and others in charge of guns to state that if they don't remove Maduro from power the U.S. is prepared to unleash an asymmetric offensive that could consume them as well." "The Trump administration has carefully constructed a policy rationale that this is not 'regime change' for the sake of exporting democracy to the world's benighted peoples," Cárdenas said. "It is a national security initiative meant to eliminate a source of tons of cocaine from entering the United States. Main Street, USA, can identify with that." He also said that plans were likely already set in place, and any upcoming action would serve to send a message to great power competitors such as China and Russia, which U.S. officials have long warned were gaining influence in the Western Hemisphere. "Credibility, moreover, is the cornerstone of Donald Trump's foreign policy. Believe what he says, or else. There is no climb-down from the current deployment," Cárdenas said. "No doubt anti-American despots in Moscow, Beijing, and elsewhere are watching the unfolding action in the Southern Caribbean carefully." When reached for comment, the White House referred Newsweek to remarks made by press secretary Karoline Leavitt during a press conference last week. "What I'll say with respect to Venezuela, President Trump has been very clear and consistent," Leavitt said at the time. "He's prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice." She continued: "The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela, it is a narco-terror cartel. And Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president. He's a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country." The Pentagon, meanwhile, shared with Newsweek a statement attributed to chief spokesperson Sean Parnell. "On day one of the Trump Administration, the President published an Executive Order designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, clearly identifying them as a direct threat to the national security of the United States," Parnell said. "These cartels have engaged in historic violence and terror throughout our Hemisphere—and around the globe—that has destabilized economies and internal security of countries but also flooded the United States with deadly drugs, violent criminals, and vicious gangs." He added: "This requires a whole-of-government effort and through coordination with regional partners, the Department of Defense will undoubtedly play an important role towards meeting the President's objective to eliminate the ability of these cartels to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States and its people. As a matter of security and policy we do not speculate on future operations." 'Competing Factions' The brewing crisis is not the first time Trump has sought to unseat Maduro from power, and instead marks the latest episode in a downturn in ties between Washington and Caracas that came about after the Venezuelan leader's predecessor, Hugo Chávez, rose to power through elections in 1999. Chávez, who would accuse the U.S. of supporting a brief coup against him in 2002, kickstarted what he and his supporters refer to as a Bolivarian Revolution of social and economic reforms that sought to channel 19th-century anti-Spanish colonial leader Simón Bolívar. Somewhat ironically, Bolívar during his time welcomed U.S. President James Monroe's 1823 declaration of a new doctrine against European imperialism in the Americas. Yet Washington's strategy grew increasingly interventionist over the ages, with the U.S. aiding governments and rebels against communist movements across Latin America during the Cold War. Chávez's socialist movement emerged from the ashes of this era, painting the U.S. as a new imperialist hegemon seeking to assert its influence across the region. At home, his policies—bolstered by soaring oil prices—initially led to a massive boom in Venezuela's economic outlook, yet by the time of his 2013 death from cancer, a mix of runaway public spending, economic mismanagement and sanctions had substantially undercut stability, and a subsequent fall in oil prices from 2014 deepened the crisis. The political situation also escalated in January 2019, as Maduro's reelection was challenged by critics and rejected by a number of foreign leaders, including Trump, who began a "maximum pressure" campaign against Venezuela during his first term. An opposition coup led by U.S.-backed National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó was attempted that April only to end in failure. Like Chávez, Maduro would emerge victorious and went on to easily repel a plot hatched the following year involving dozens of dissidents, as well as at least two former U.S. Green Berets operating as private military contractors. Tom Shannon, a career diplomat who served as undersecretary for political affairs during the Trump administration, noted how past errors have likely informed the president's thinking as he grapples with conflicting movements in his second administration. "When he decides to begin his maximum pressure campaign in Venezuela and recognizes Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela and slaps on secondary sanctions on oil and gas and even attempts to generate a military coup against Maduro, all of which fail, he does this on the advice of people who were advising him on Venezuela, including the current Secretary of State," Shannon told Newsweek. "And they were wrong, and he knows they were wrong," Shannon, now senior international policy adviser at Arnold & Porter law firm, added. Upon taking office in January, Trump took a different approach. He sent special envoy Richard Grenell to strike a deal in Caracas, specifically to negotiate the release of imprisoned U.S. citizens and secure a license for oil giant Chevron to resume operations in the country. Trump went on to revoke this license, a move Shannon pointed out took place as the president sought to secure votes for his "Big, Beautiful Bill," only to reinstate it once again last month. "I think part of the confusion is that there are competing factions around the president," Shannon said. "You have [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, who would love to do the strike, but then there's people like [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent, whose attitude is, 'You're out of your mind.'" Noting how "Venezuela is sitting on the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], through its licensing process, gets to control who works in the oil and gas sector," Shannon argued that if U.S. or European companies were licensed to work in the country, foreign competitors, including some of the nations viewed as hostile to U.S. interests, would be expelled. "The Chinese are out. The Iranians are out. The Russians are out," Shannon said of such a scenario. "We control the oil and gas. And guess what? We get to repatriate some of our earnings." 'You Should Use Your Power' Yet the fight for resources does not entirely encapsulate the stakes over Venezuela, nor the administration's interest in the country. Trump's Western Hemisphere doctrine includes pressure campaigns against a host of nations, including otherwise friendly U.S. neighbors Canada and Mexico, as well as territorial ambitions to seize control of foreign-owned territory like Greenland and the Panama Canal. Drug cartels, from Mexico to Venezuela, are the latest target of Trump's rhetoric as he portrays a battle against an "invasion" of narcotics, including fentanyl produced with precursors exported by China. "He has said he is going to use American power to protect American interests, and he is not tied by diplomatic niceties, or by practice, or even by what we could consider to be the norms of international law," Shannon said. "He believes that if you are powerful, you should use your power." He continued: "He's focused on drug trafficking, cartels, gangs, whatever you want to call them, because first of all, for him, they're a political winner. He knows that there is broad support in the United States for the use of the American military and intelligence capabilities against these entities that, in his mind, present a very real threat to the United States, to Americans." But Shannon also alluded to the costs of a more assertive position in a region that, despite its complex relationship with Washington, has largely courted U.S. influence and investment. In the globalized 21st century, unlike two centuries ago, he argued that the Trump administration may be better suited to bring China-style infrastructure deals than warships and tariffs to win over South America. "If there is a new Monroe Doctrine, it's kind of emasculated in the sense that the president is not bringing what you need to the game in order to win," he said. The 'Ultimate Arbiter' The dissonance in Trump's "peace through strength" approach is not lost on his support base. A number of influential voices in the president's populist "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement voiced displeasure toward his decision in June to conduct limited yet unprecedented strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and some continue to criticize his continued support for Israel's ongoing wars in the region. Francisco Rodríguez, senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the Trump administration was looking only to mount a "credible threat of force" that "some hardline opposition figures and Washington hawks" believed "could be enough to push Venezuela's military to abandon Maduro." Yet he said that a similar approach to Trump's isolated strikes on Iran "cannot be ruled out," citing former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper's memoir in recounting how "targeted strikes on Venezuelan military installations were seriously discussed at the cabinet level" back in 2019. Today, "some of the same hawkish voices who favored such strikes are again influential in Venezuela policy," Rodríguez told Newsweek. And Rodríguez saw neither contradiction nor incoherence in what he called the "broader Trumpian assertion of hemispheric dominance in line with a MAGA interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine," despite "the coexistence of that vision with a pronounced aversion, in some MAGA circles, to costly military involvement abroad." "Rather, it reflects the dynamics of a personalistic regime in which competing factions with divergent preferences overlap, leaving the final decision to the chief executive," Rodríguez said. "That enhances Trump's authority as ultimate arbiter, but it also makes policy unpredictable and inconsistent." He added: "The Venezuela case illustrates this perfectly: announcing the deployment of warships while simultaneously authorizing Chevron to expand its oil dealings in the country. It is almost as if, after placing a bounty on bin Laden, Washington had turned around and licensed Halliburton to do infrastructure projects with his family business in Afghanistan." Interessant artikkel. Men alle påstander om "eksport av organisert kriminalitet gjennom migrasjon" har vist seg å være uholdbart, likedan påstanden om "destabilisering gjennom migranter" er ren propaganda fordi Maduro aktuelt gjort alt han kunne for å få tilbake disse som flyktet fra hans vanstyre! Maduro har ikke engangs kontroll på sosialistiske militante bevegelser som FARC som gjenstartet borgerkrigen i Colombia i august 2025, da han var i væpnet konflikt med dem og har dels mistet kontrollen over store deler av landet til både militante bevegelser og kriminelle gjenger. Det som artikkelen antyder, er at det har blitt tatt i bruk "mafiametoder" med inspirasjon i Gudfaren-filmene som Trump mente var hans livets inspirering. Det må sies at Guaido-politikken endt i katastrofe fordi en altfor dumsnill mann var valgt som opposisjonspresident, som i slutten drev alle realistene fra seg og sendt opposisjonen ut i kranglende fraksjoner om hvem som var ansvarlig for fadesen. Dessuten er det mye som tyder på at kuppet mot Maduro gikk galt fordi Putin hadde blandet seg inn og avslørte kuppforberedelsene for Maduros menn. Akkurat som i Tyrkia hvor Erdogan var informert like før drapsmenn rakk å fange ham på ferieresidensen. Obama var oppriktig sint mot Putin over det som hendt i Tyrkia mens Trump klarte ikke å fatte hva som gikk galt i Venezuela. Han tror det var fordi han fikk "dårlig råd". Nesten hele Latin-Amerika vil feire Maduro-regimets bortfall, men de vil reagere hardhendt på en amerikansk invasjon. Selv sosialistene kan finne dette ønskelig fordi den latinamerikanske sosialismen har blitt sterkt skadelidende pga. Maduros vanstell som er ekstraordinært grov og Evo Morales`s egotripp som fikk ham til å miste all troverdighet i Bolivia. Bare Lula er tilbake og han har mindretallsmakt i møte med sentrum- og høyrepolitikerne, som i det minst ikke ønsker å knytte seg for nær USA. I Argentina har presidenten opplevd å bli regelrett steinet av rasende folk fordi selv om økonomien går bra, hadde prisen for dette blitt for mye for folk flest. Dette og mye annet gjør at de ideologiske motsetningene har blitt svekket mellom venstre og høyre, så Maduro har blitt noe de fleste vil kvitte seg med. Men det gjør at Trump er svært sterkt sårbar, opinionen i Latin-Amerika er svært negativ mot ham selv om det er mindre antiamerikanisme enn før. Det er for sterk mulighet for at Trumps bruk av mafiametoder kan ende i katastrofe.

Om det ikke er nok med planene om droneflyangrep og militære raid inn i Mexico og et mulig angrep på Venezuela, har det kommet ut at amerikanerne har planer om en militærsintervensjon i Haiti. U.S. Wants To Send Thousands Of Heavily Armed Troops To Haiti To Finally Destroy Gangs The U.S., along with Panama, proposed creating a "gang-suppression force" comprised of up to 5,500 uniformed personnel to face criminal organizations in Haiti. The force, which would have arrest and detention power, as well as military-grade capabilities and lethal equipment, comes as current forces in the country continue to be unable to recover territory from gangs, which control most of Port-au-Prince. According to The New York Times, the plan would mandate a UN office in the Haiti to supply logistical and operational support, which would unlock stable funding, an issue that has plagued efforts to face gangs. The plan would see countries donating forces and funding, with some including Canada, El Salvador, the U.S. and Kenya providing "strategic direction." However, experts consulted by the outlet said it is not clear what countries will contribute funding and troops. The U.S. has been looking to shake up the status quo in Haiti as the Kenya-led mission has not been able to recover territory or help restore security in the country. Last week, U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission to the OAS, Kimberly J. Penland, had anticipated that the Trump administration is drafting a resolution to present before the UN Security Council that will "properly resource" the Caribbean country's struggling push to retake control. It also endorses one by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to provide support using peacekeeping money. "Should the UN Security Council pursue this model, then we will also seek robust regional participation to provide strategic leadership of the force," Penland added. The proposal was introduced in the context of a broader plan envisioning a three-year, $2.6 billion roadmap for Haiti's future. It calls for over $1.3 billion to rebuild Haiti's national police, reform the justice system and dismantle gangs. Haiti's embattled transitional government has resorted to non-state actors to fight back against gangs that control most of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Reuters reported last week American private security executive Erik Prince is expected to deploy hundreds of mercenaries to fight in the country soon. The outlet detailed last Thursday that Prince's company, Vectus Global, will intensify operations in the besieged country in the next weeks in coordination with local police, deploying several hundred fighters from the U.S., Europe and El Salvador. Prince told the outlet that he expects to regain control of the country's roads and territories within a year. "One key measure of success for me will be when you can drive from Port-au-Prince to Cap Haitian in a thin-skinned vehicle and not be stopped by gangs." Situasjonen i Haiti har blitt helt katastrofalt, landet deles opp i krigsherredømmer mellom væpnede gjenger som angrep hverandre og plyndre sitt egne folk som opplever å bli latt ned av korrupte politikere, internasjonale soldater og endog seg selv i møte med gjengmedlemmer som drev med kannibalisme for å skremme folk fra sans og samling. Det vist seg at man må bruke meget brutal makt - spesielt JVP-metoden fra Sri Lanka - for å stoppe gjengene. JVP var en nasjonalistisk-sosialistisk bevegelse i den sinhalesiskbefolket Sri Lanka i 1990, som ble utryddet gjennom systematisk utrenskning på småskala - titusener var drept og savnet, men volden helt opphørte i slutten. Det er tegn på at regjeringsmakten i Haiti har planer om å bruke brutal makt, de hyrer inn amerikanske leiesoldater, og hadde utvilsomt tatt kontakt med amerikanerne. For amerikanerne som vil tvinge ut immigranter, ville en stabilisering av Haiti være fordelaktig, da kan dette forklare planene som utarbeides - minst 5,500 soldater vil sendes inn med omfattende amerikansk støtte, som Trump aktet å finansiere med FN-budsjettet fremfor amerikanske penger. Det hadde vist seg at de kenyanske soldatene ikke var i stand til å stoppe gjengene som er så dypt forankret i lokalsamfunn, (akkurat som JVP som var ruralorientert) at disse ikke kan fjernes uten omfattende inngrep. Dette vil man endre ved å ta av seg silkehansker og gå mye mer brutalere til verks. Det kan trenges; væpnede sivilister som går over i bandittvirksomhet uten å løsrive seg fra sitt lokalt miljø er de vanskeligste å eliminere, da dette innbar omfattende menneskerettighetsbrudd, men situasjonen har blitt ført mot bristepunktet - hele landet fragmenteres så meget, at det snart er flere hundre selvstyrende enklaver i alt fra en landsby til en kommune som forhindres fra å samkjøre seg om felles interesser av gjengenes destruktive plyndringsregimer.

Enig. I de siste ti år hadde det blitt flere og flere overtredelser på den viktige avtalen omkring utplassering av FN-hovedkvarteret på amerikansk grunn, dette startet da iranske representanter fikk visumnekt - men det var maktpolitisk motivert i og med at USA og Iran var i konflikt med hverandre på en rekke områder. Denne gangen er det langt mye mer alvorligere, for de palestinske delegater kom fra den palestinske selvstyremyndigheten står sentralt i et planlagt toppmøte - og da er dette inngrepet et meget grovt overgrep av de sjeldne mot FN. Toppmøtet, som Frankrike tar initiativ til, gikk ut på å diskutere palestinsk selvstendighet i møte med de israelske overgrepene som har blitt sterkt folkerettsstridig - og ved å innføre visumnekt hadde amerikanerne forbrutt seg mot traktaten fra 1945. Da må FN iverksette planen om å flytte hovedkvarteret til Genéve hvor det er ledige fasiliteter fra mellomkrigstiden hvor folkeforbundet hadde sin hovedkvarter i Palais des Nations - "Nasjonalstatenes palass" på norsk. Som forresten var ferdigbygd i 1938 og dermed knapt så benyttelse. Genéve er en diplomatisk høyborg hvor meget mange internasjonale organisasjoner enten har sine hovedkvarter eller sentrale fasiliteter på midtpunktet mellom nord, vest, øst og sør i sentrale Europa innenfor et land som opprettholder striks nøytralitet - Sveits. Palasset selv er i ferd med å stenges, men NÅ er det klart at man kan ikke ha FNs viktigste møtested for samtidige delegater fra hele verden innenfor et land som ikke vil respektere sine forpliktelsene. Hittil hadde politikerne holdt ut i troen om at dette er "forbigående", men nå går det ikke lenge. En beslutning om å flytte ut av New York til Geneve kan bli mottatt med meget stor letthet av et klart flertall av stater over hele verden, og bli et meget voldsomt prestisjenederlag for amerikanerne, som kan finne dette meget ydmykende.

The Danger of Trump Seizing Private Companies “What the hell is Trump doing? The departure from our nation’s values has gone too far.” How Democrats Flubbed the Gerrymandering Arms Race Trying to live in a society with Texas is like trying to share a Thanksgiving turkey with a rabid dog: all you can do is snatch some flesh with your hands and take your vaccinations. Etiquette and manners are of no more use here. ‘Clots and prayers’: Rick Wilson says Trump’s ‘manly image’ is a cover for something dire “A larger number of men bought into the 'Trump's the most virile manly man to ever be in the White House' – yea, Teddy Roosevelt would like to have a talk mother f------.” ICE raids loom over mass US naturalization ceremony Trump Admin Declares These Cities Will See a Massive ICE Invasion and One Name Tops the List How Trump’s newfound love for Chinese students is drawing MAGA backlash MAGA er 100 % rasistisk.

India boycott of US products could see millions ditch McDonald's, Pepsi Hate messages against Indian immigrants surge on US social media India's economy unexpectedly picks up steam despite Trump's tariff threats Det amerikansk-indiske forholdet er i ferd med å fryses i rekordtid. Det meldes om kundeblokade, politiske og byråkratiske hindringer, omprioritering av statlige ordrer og omfattende diplomatisk reorganisering - akkurat som med Kina for flere år siden hadde Trump lykte med å gjøre inderne veldig sint. Og sinnet bli ikke mindre da det kom fram at inderne utsettes for trakassering og rasistiske hets i USA, hvor MAGA hadde gjort sitt beste for å provosere og hetse. Fra før hadde nerdene brutt med MAGA etter Musk kom i konflikt med Trump, nå er de indiske "we`re white"-konservative også i ferd med å gå vekk. Det kan ha vært spesielt belastende for visepresident Vance, som har giftet seg med en amerikanskindisk kvinne. Det merkes at Vance er blitt svært upopulært, rasistene blant republikanerne gjort sitt beste for å fryse ham ut mens de progressive har latt ham for hat. Indernes økonomi tar ikke skade; det virker som at muligheter for fredelige tilstander med Kina som siden går sterkt inn for å åpne opp det store ikke-vestlige markedet i Latin-Amerika, Afrika og Asia, samtidig som EU er i skikkelige hard uvær pga. energipris som er simpelt altfor høy og inkompetanse i ledelse, hadde gitt inderne en oppsving. Det kunne sees ved at inderne nå produsere stål og bygge skip, de er i full gang med å modernisere transportsystemet i det enorme landet fra bil til skip, indiskbygde sjøfartøyer er i ferd med å følge etter kinesiskbygde sjøfartøyer inn i EU-markedet. Dessuten hadde India fått hele det muslimske markedet åpnet for egne varer, spesielt landbruksvarer som det er voksende etterspørsel etter. Før hadde islamsk fiendtlighet mot "vantroe" stått i vegen. Hvis det enorme markedet i India stenges for amerikanerne som sett med Kina, og med tanke på at Trump er i full gang med å gjøre amerikanske varer upopulært tross fallende dollar, kan dette utløse ragnaroktilstander med tap av flere hundre milliarder dollar.

Most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal, federal court rules Som ventet har domstolene den 29. august 2025 avgjort at de fleste tollsatsene som hadde blitt gjennomtvunget på svak grunnlag uten kongressens samtykke og utenfor etablerte prosedyrer er UGYLDIG. Alle tollsatsene som ikke er i tråd med amerikansk lov og heller ikke konstitusjonen (toll er skatt), skal elimineres senest den 14. oktober 2025 når kjennelsen blir gjeldende med øyeblikkelig virkning. Donald Trump overstepped his presidential powers with most of his globe-rattling tariff policies, a federal appeals court in Washington DC ruled on Friday. US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”, the court said. The court’s decision is the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies and will likely mean that the supreme court will have to rule on whether he has the legal right as president to upend US trade policy. The court said the ruling wouldn’t take effect until 14 October. “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump wrote on social media, moments after the ruling came down. In a lengthy post, he accused the appeals court of political bias. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he continued. “At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.” Trump has claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency. The Trump administration has and cited various national emergencies – including US trade deficits with trading partners, fentanyl trafficking and immigration – as the reasons for the actions. But a group of small businesses have challenged the administration’s arguments, arguing they are “devastating small businesses across the country”. And on Friday, the appellate court ruled: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” The ruling also said US law “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs”. The US trade court heard the case – VOS Selections Inc v Trump – in May and ruled that the tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the president”. But the court agreed to a temporary pause in the decision pending an appeal hearing. The US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC heard oral arguments about the case on 31 July. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration’s arguments at the hearing. The IEEPA “doesn’t even say ‘tariffs’,” one of the judges noted. “Doesn’t even mention them.” The tariffs have triggered economic and political uncertainty across the world and stoked fears of rising inflation on the US. Trump nekte å respektere avgjørelsen som tross alt er uunngåelig, ettersom toll er i realiteten skatt fordi de amerikanske importører og dermed de amerikanske kunder er nødt til å betale til myndigheter for importvarer, bare på bestemte statsstrategiske varer som stål for eksempel finnes det unntaksrett, men da burde prosedyrer inkludert samråd med kongressen følges. Det sies at saken vil bli anket til den føderale høyesteretten, men her burde Roberts gå meget hardt inn for å avvise det; presidenten har ikke rett til å beskatte det amerikanske folket, bare kongressen har. Donald Trump vows Supreme Court appeal after judges rebuke his tariffs Det må sies at U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hadde valgt å ikke stoppe tollsatsene med øyeblikkelig virkning fordi det er meget delikate, og dermed gir Trump en frist fram til 14. oktober om å stoppe tollvanviddet eller skaffe seg kongressens støtte. I mellomtiden vil den føderale høyesteretten avgjøre om de burde ta saken, som er rett og slett for hett for høyesterettsdommerne, som da risikere å få mektige forretningskrefter på nakken. Og; både de - og dommerne i den nevnte domstolen - er meget smertelig klart over hva følgene kan bli: The government could also face financial consequences. If the tariffs are ultimately overturned, it may be required to refund some of the import taxes already collected — a potentially heavy hit to federal revenue. Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double the amount at the same point last year. The Justice Department argued in court filings this month that eliminating the levies could lead to "financial ruin" for the United States. Det er først og fremst snakk om amerikanske penger som vil returneres til amerikanske skattebetalere som har blitt utsatt for et konstitusjonelt brudd ved at disse tvinges til å betale skatt, som er ulovlig etter amerikansk lov. Mange hadde advart mot dette, men dette nektet Trump og idiotene i det hvite huset å innse, og republikanerne i kongressen burde ha visst bedre. For når folk flest innser at toll er SKATT - og at de hadde betalt skatt som ikke er tillatt, er disse berettiget til å kreve tilbake pengene - og erstatning. Da kan man snakke om konkurs bokstavelig talt!

Korrekt. Alt som opptar ham er hans imperiale ambisjoner knyttet til et ønske om å gjenreis "den russiske storheten", og hadde dessuten demonstrerte gjentatte ganger at han ikke bryr seg om verken Russlands fremtid eller det russiske folkets vel. Hver gang man kom i snakk med russerne når disse er ut av offentligheten og alene, merkes det at disse lider av sterk hybris og angst - sammen med en underliggende redsel for hverandre og spesielt Putin selv. De stolte ikke på hverandre. De stolte ikke på myndigheter. De stolte ikke på Putin. Men det er akkurat dette som gjør dem svært farlig, deres passive fatalistiske natur gjør at disse vil bar i seg et voldsomt raseri som slippes løst som sett med talløse forbrytelser i Ukraina og annetsteds, for de kan ikke samarbeide og kan ikke fritt snakke med hverandre av redsel for svik og død. En million menn har blitt drept og skadd, de høyeste estimatene er på 237,000 og høyere omkring dødstallene. Hver dødsfall kostet minst 4 mill. kroner. Med denne naturen er russerne helt ustoppelig; det finnes ikke et forsvar i all verden som kan stoppe en hær på flere hundretusener dødsforaktende menn uten å måtte ty til umoralske metoder og massemobilisering for total krig. Ukraina hadde kunne holde stand fordi de har fleste menn utenom Russland og mye av den samme stridsmentaliteten som russerne. Det eneste som virker er å slakte russerne helt nådeløst i en total krig med alle metoder og fortsette med det for å sjokkere russerne ut av disses fatalisme. Stridsintensiteten i dag er altfor lav, bare 700 til 900 per dag, selv om halvparten nå består av døde - til man kan gjøre annet enn å hemme den russiske aggressiviteten. Hadde det ikke vært for den sterke redselen i den russiske folkesjelen som gjør den maktløst mot tyranner og monstre og gjør dem til våpen mot andre folk samt lammet dem fra å stoppe sine lederne som seg selv, ville Putin ha blitt fjernet fra makten og henrettet i året 2022. Det også gjør at Putin hadde kunne føle at han kan fortsette med å pushe og pushe i hans uansvarlige gambling uten å ense smertegrensene og faretegnene inkludert potensiell atomkrig og sammenbrudd av Russland. Han bryr seg ikke om russerne fordi han bare anså dem som ressurser for egen makt.

U.S. shoppers see order cancellations as world shuts down America-bound shipments Why the end of 'de minimis' can hurt consumers — especially lower-income ones Amerikanske kunder risikere nå at de vil bli blokkert fra resten av verden på ubestemt tid fordi Trump simpelt ikke gjort hans jobb, opphevingen av de minimis-regelen omkring postfrakt i seg selv ville ikke ha blitt problematisk om det ikke hadde blitt et voldsomt stort rot - istedenfor å ordne tollkontroll på egen hånd hadde man prøvd å dytte den på de utenlandske postselskapene, endog ville få dem til å betale. Dette vil ramme småforretninger over hele verden, og mange amerikanske småforretninger risikere et voldsomt smell. Dette kom som lys ut av det blått fordi ingen hadde forventet seg de enorme komplikasjoner som tvinger et stort antall lands post til å stoppe all utskipning til USA. U.S. small-business owners who source orders from abroad are also being affected, said Matthew Hertz, founder of Third Person.co logistics group. Such firms who may have been relying on low-cost shipping of products from countries such as Mexico, Portugal or Turkey now face a new calculation. “For small businesses that relied on cheaper shipping, the decisions involved with these new changes are really difficult to make,” he said. Det er ikke hva velgerne ønsker. Spesielt MAGA-velgerne som stort sett består av lavlønnede som benyttet smutthull for å ha dyre vaner uten å ruinere seg selv. "It's a massive change for the U.S. consumer," A Federal Appellate Court Finds the NLRB to Be Unconstitutional - The American Prospect Og ikke bare det; arbeidsunionene risikere å bli utradert fordi oligarkene arbeidet med republikanernes støtte om å ta vekk arbeidsrettighetene knyttet til National Labor Relations Act of 1935 som de rike i tiår etter tiår hadde mislikt meget sterkt. Denne loven var signert med menneskeblod fordi bakgrunnen for denne loven var den blodige streiken i Colorado i 1914, hvor Rockefeller nektet å behandle hans arbeiderne anstendig og ville verken gi dem bedre arbeidsvilkår og bedre lønn, framprovosert en omfattende streik. Denne ble skånselløst slått ned hvor opptil 200 var drept og savnet - spesielt under den famøse Ludlow-massakren da soldater meiet ned flere hundre, av disse var 21 - mange kvinner og barn - drept. Dette utløst ramaskrik, og da Rockefeller innså hva han hadde gjort, prøvd deretter å gjøre det godt. I resten av hans liv arbeidet han for å bedre forholdene for arbeidere, og han hadde spilt en rolle da loven framforhandles og vedtas. Men selv i dag finnes det folk som ikke vil respektere arbeidernes rettigheter, og Egon Musk er en av disse. Disse har sin kjerne i republikanerpartiet, som aldri hadde gitt opp sitt håp om å reversere denne viktige loven - de hadde siden Reagan kommet til makten i 1981, systematisk arbeidet med å uthule arbeidsrettighetene ved å ta fordel av rasistiske undertoner som var/er spesielt fremherskende blant "blåstripearbeidere" - som hadde i 2024-valget valgt å støtte Trump. Og som nå risikere å miste alt de hadde fått med NLRA, for denne loven opprettholdte et byrå som skulle hjelpe arbeidere. Dette byrået er NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). Som har blitt erklært å være "ukonstitusjonelt" etter 90 år! Louisiana urges Supreme Court to bar use of race in redistricting, in attack on Voting Rights Act Republikanerne i Louisiana ikke lenge skjulte faktumet om at de er rasister, for de aktet å fjerne alle svarte valgdistrikter gjennom en så massiv gerrymandering at det vil helt utradere alle minoritetsamerikanernes stemmerett, og for å gjennomføre dette bad de dommerne om å se bort fra rasefaktoren, selv om stemmeloven er meget presist om dette. “If Louisiana’s argument prevailed at the Supreme Court, it would almost certainly lead to a whiter and less representative Congress, as well as significantly less minority representation across the country in legislatures, city councils, and across other district-based bodies,” Det er opptil 33 % av befolkningen som kan miste deres rettigheter til å stemme på sine kandidater, ettersom deres stemmer vil være av mindre verdi i sammenligning med de hvite, som utgjør bare 58 %. Republicans in Congress open probe into Wikipedia for alleged bias Og sist, men ikke minst; disse rasistiske antidemokratiske MAGA-republikanerne har begynte å angripe Wikipedia uten å ta hensyn til hvordan den er organisert, sannsynlig fordi de vil stanse åpenheten om belastende innhold selv om det er i meget klar strid med den konstitusjonelle ytringsfriheten, som nesten hele det amerikanske folket støtter.

The death of Reaganomics: Trump breaks with longtime GOP economic doctrine President Donald Trump’s embrace of government ownership of private companies shows that the Reaganomics doctrine that defined Republican economic orthodoxy for decades may be all but dead. As the 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan advocated free-market principles that delivered an economic boom lasting most of the 1980s. He was a fierce opponent of government intervention in business, arguing that the private sector was more efficient in providing goods and services. Just in the past week, Trump broke with Reagan three times as he wielded presidential power and sketched a vision of a far more extensive government role in the private sector than the U.S. has customarily tolerated. The president persuaded Intel to give the government a 10 percent stake in the company, celebrated raising trillions of dollars in government revenue through new taxes on imports, and continued a months-long pressure campaign against the independent Federal Reserve, in contrast with Reagan’s largely hands-off approach. “Much of what Trump is saying and doing are explicitly rejections of Reaganism,” said Geoffrey Kabaservice, vice president of political studies at the Niskanen Center. “Honestly, Ronald Reagan must be turning in his grave at this, because it just runs so counter to everything that generations of conservatives had believed about capitalism.” The White House says Trump’s policies are consistent with traditional Republican ideas. The Intel deal, and others like it, are justified on national security grounds and the overall tax burden will be lower than under his predecessors. “The United States faces historically unprecedented challenges to our national and economic security, and the Trump administration is robustly addressing these challenges head on without being straitjacketed to broken status quo policies such as lopsided ‘free’ trade arrangements that have decimated American manufacturing. The Trump administration is simultaneously advancing the free market policies that have worked — from rapid deregulation to The One Big Beautiful Bill’s working-class tax cuts — to restore America as the most dynamic business environment and economy in the world,” Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said in a statement. Reagan, who was once a Democrat, spent decades inveighing against socialism. As Medicare was debated in the early 1960s, he campaigned against “socialized medicine” and habitually warned that an ever-larger government was endangering Americans’ freedoms. Socialism, he said, “works only in heaven, where it isn’t needed, and in hell, where they’ve already got it.” Reagan sought to free business from constraints imposed by politicians or bureaucrats. Trump has made the Oval Office the cockpit of U.S. economic decision-making with corporate CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook showing up to announce new U.S. investments in hopes of winning tariff or regulatory concessions. The list of Trump’s departures from the Reagan free-market catechism is growing. Intel, which converted a previous government grant into an equity stake, is the third company that the government has invested in on Trump’s watch, something that would have been anathema to Reagan, said Kabaservice, author of “Rule and Ruin,” a history of the modern Republican Party. In July, the Defense Department became the largest shareholder in MP Materials, a producer of rare earth materials and magnets. One month earlier, Trump took a “golden share” in U.S. Steel as part of its acquisition by Japan’s Nippon Steel, which gave him personal control over the American company’s ability to change its name, move its headquarters or alter its investment plans. That may not be the end of Trump’s buying spree. On Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC that the government is considering stakes in defense companies such as Lockheed Martin, saying Washington’s traditional arrangement with the nation’s weapons makers has been “a giveaway.” The administration may also opt to invest in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, cybersecurity, telecommunications and financial services companies, Brian Gardner, chief Washington policy strategist for Stifel, wrote in a note to clients. “I want to try and get as much as I can,” Trump told reporters on Monday, adding, “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like [Intel].” Trump’s recent moves have drawn praise from independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist, and criticism from traditional conservatives. Government ownership of private companies has been rare in the United States, occurring only during wartime or financial crisis. The most recent examples were in 2008-2009, when the government took partial control of several banks and automakers. “I am appalled,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a veteran Republican economist and now president of the American Action Forum. “I worry about what this will mean for the future of the U.S. economy.” Blurring the line between business and government could be bad for both, critics said. As an owner, the government will be reluctant to let companies fail, which would represent an embarrassing political setback. So government officials may be inclined to take action to keep an otherwise doomed company alive. Executives at Intel, and other companies with Washington as their partner, will devote time to cultivating good relations with the president that might better be spent innovating and dealing with customers. These companies may also delay making necessary financial moves such as layoffs for fear of blowback from the White House. Trump has leaned on private businesses to act in line with his desires. He threatened to block a new football stadium in D.C., unless the Washington Commanders of the National Football League revert to their former name, a dictionary-defined slur against Native Americans. This week, he publicly urged Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain, to restore its traditional logo after his supporters criticized an updated design. This month, Nvidia and AMD agreed to pay the federal government 15 percent of their revenue from selling specific computer chips to Chinese customers in return for government export permission. The Commerce Department in April had blocked the sales on national security grounds. Trump’s assertive approach reminds some analysts of that of China, where state-owned firms account for nearly half of the total market value of the country’s 100 largest publicly traded companies, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. But Trump is not charting a new economic doctrine so much as engaging in “an opportunistic shakedown of corporations,” according to Michael Strain, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center think tank. “It’s just another example of arbitrary uses of power in a way that’s not really tethered to the spirit of our Constitution or laws,” he said. Trump’s departure from Reaganism extends beyond issues of state ownership to taxes and relations with the nation’s central bank. Earlier this month, the president on social media hailed a Congressional Budget Office analysis that concluded that “Trump’s Tariffs reduce the deficit by $4 Trillion Dollars.” Trump has lifted tariffs to their highest levels since the 1930s, which will mean an additional $3.3 trillion in government revenue over the next decade, plus interest savings from lower borrowing needs, the budget scorekeepers concluded. To the president, the CBO report was proof of “how incredible my Tariff strategy has been.” Trump insists wrongly that foreign countries pay the tariffs. But it is actually American importers that pay those fees, meaning the president was effectively celebrating a tax hike. Trump’s attempt this week to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor, over allegations of mortgage fraud, intensified his pressure campaign against the Fed. The president has repeatedly criticized Fed Chair Jerome H. Powell, saying he is keeping interest rates too high even as inflation has declined. Trump in July said the Fed should cut short-term interest rates by at least three points, which would drop borrowing costs to near 1 percent, a level most economists say would reignite inflation. Trump’s public attacks on the central bank, including hammering Powell for what he characterized as excessive spending on a Fed building renovation, are a sharp contrast to Reagan’s approach during a period when the economy was performing far worse than today. In 1982, as Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s anti-inflation tight-money policies were driving the unemployment rate to an eventual peak near 11 percent and causing Reagan enormous political problems, the president nonetheless proclaimed “confidence” in the Fed. One year later, Reagan reappointed Volcker to another term as chair. To be sure, Trump, who once labeled Reagan the best president of his lifetime and borrowed his “Make America Great Again” slogan, has pursued policies that dovetail with traditional Reaganomics. The president’s signature legislation, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill, reduced regulations that limited mineral and timber development and cut taxes. A portrait of Reagan hangs on the wall of the Oval Office to Trump’s left, when he is seated at the Resolute Desk. Some Reagan adherents insist that, despite his economic heresies, Trump is still following a path carved by “the Gipper.” They emphasize the president’s first-term tax cut in 2017, which was made permanent earlier this year, and note that Reagan’s actual performance sometimes deviated from his free-market rhetoric. “Thinking back on the decades of public policy that I’ve seen, nobody’s a virgin here,” said Jim Pinkerton, who worked on the 1980 Reagan campaign and later served in the White House as a domestic policy aide. Indeed, after Reagan cut taxes in his first year in the White House, he agreed to reduce budget deficits with what was billed at the time as the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. Far from celebrating the additional government revenue, however, Reagan blamed congressional negotiators for forcing his hand and said he had had to “swallow hard to agree to any revenue increase.” Reagan spoke often of the dangers of protectionism, which Trump has made a centerpiece of his presidency, saying it “can only lead to fewer jobs” for Americans and their trading partners alike. Yet Reagan also imposed 100 percent tariffs on Japanese semiconductors in 1987, after accusing Tokyo of violating an agreement to buy more American memory chips. He also hit Japanese motorcycles with 45 percent tariffs and secured Japan’s agreement to voluntarily limit its auto exports to the United States. Still, trade restrictions were an occasional indulgence for Reagan. For Trump, they are the core of his economic program, which he says will deliver a new “Golden Age.” “He’s not a socialist; he’s a dealmaker,” Pinkerton said of Trump. “Six months into this second Trump presidency, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and be confident that he has fully capitalist, free-enterprise intentions.” Gi en tyv makt, og han vil stjele. The $550B snag: Why Japan just put a massive US trade deal on ice De stolte japanerne er veldig sint. På sitt høflige språk sier de rett ut at det sitter en galning i det hvite huset, og hadde etter hvert blitt mektig frustrert, ikke minst ved å observere hvordan Trump lot til å behandle dem dårligere enn kineserne. A landmark $550 billion trade pact between the United States and Japan has been thrown into chaos, after Tokyo’s top trade negotiator abruptly canceled a high-stakes visit to Washington at the last minute on Thursday. The shock move derails talks that were meant to finalize the massive investment-for-tariff-relief deal, revealing a deep and unresolved snag that now threatens the entire agreement. The cancellation is a stunning reversal, coming just as the deal seemed poised for a victory lap. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had himself declared that an announcement on the Japanese investment was expected this very week. Instead, a diplomatic stalemate has taken hold. A matter of trust: the standoff over who acts first The official explanation from Tokyo was couched in careful diplomatic language. “It was found that there are points that need to be discussed at the administrative level during coordination with the American side. Therefore, the trip has been cancelled,” government spokesperson Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters. But beneath the surface, a high-stakes game of chicken is unfolding. At the heart of the dispute is the sequencing of the deal. Japan has made it clear it wants an amended presidential executive order from Donald Trump to remove punishing, overlapping tariffs before it releases a joint document formalizing the details of its $550 billion investment. “We are strongly requesting that measures be taken to amend the presidential order concerning mutual tariffs as soon as possible, and to issue a presidential order to reduce tariffs on auto parts,” Hayashi added, a clear and public demand for Washington to make the first move. This standoff is further complicated by a fundamental disagreement over the deal’s spoils. While President Trump has touted the package as “our money to invest” and claimed the US would retain 90 percent of the profits, Japanese officials have consistently stressed that any investment will be contingent on whether it also benefits Japan. The price of delay: an economy already feeling the pain This diplomatic impasse is not happening in a vacuum; it is unfolding as Japan’s economy is already feeling the acute pain of the existing tariff regime. The nation’s exports posted their biggest monthly drop in four years in July, a slide driven by a sharp slump in shipments to the United States. The damage has been so significant that Japan was recently forced to slash its annual growth outlook from 1.2 percent to just 0.7 percent. The cancellation of the talks prolongs this economic uncertainty. While a government source familiar with the negotiations suggested that the negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, could head to Washington as early as next week if the issues are resolved, the message from Tokyo is clear. The ball is now firmly in Washington’s court, and a landmark deal that was once seen as a certainty now hangs precariously in the balance. Enhver vet at japanerne er et stolt folk som ikke lar seg provoseres straffritt, og de hadde mente seg tvunget til å gå med på en ufordelaktig "avtale" hvor det vist seg at Trump ikke snakker samme språk som dem, i Tokyo hadde politikere, økonomer og eksperter kranglet meget høylytt bak dører mens det bølges med bannord og forbannelser. British businesses left reeling after Trump quietly brings in tariffs on hundreds of goods Og dette fra Storbritannia bare viser hvorfor japanerne er dypt frustrert. Britene har blitt veldig sint fordi de taper på tollsatsene som tvunget deres amerikanske kunder til å redusere ordrene samtidig som det vist seg at Trump ikke var å stole på; Starmer hadde sagt at det ikke vil bli trøbbel omkring ståløkonomien mellom USA og Storbritannia. Det bli trøbbel - så seriøst, at britene som mistet adgangen til EU-markedet, har mye høyere stålproduksjonsutgifter enn både USA og EU. Det sies i en rekke andre artikler at Storbritannia som et direkte resultat av Brexit og nedleggelse av atomkraft er i fare om å avindustrialiseres - det vist seg at de rike foretrakk å flykte fremfor å akseptere større skattebyrde. (det burde sies at Trump vil lokke skatteflyktninger til seg, hele saken med "gullkort" - og samtidig hindre skatteflukt fra USA) Overalt ser vi tegn på at det vil bli verre.

Situasjonen omkring Venezuela har tilspisset seg, mange mener nå å se en likhet mellom Panama 1989 og Venezuela i dag, den gang var den beryktede diktatoren Noriega ettersøkt - akkurat som Maduro, som reagert på at det er utsendt arrestordre på ham (til forskjell direkte fra det hvite huset fremfor en selvstendig domstol) med bonus på 50 mill. dollar (500 mill. norske kroner) for den som bringe ham inn. Det foregår en styrkeoppbygging i Florida og Puerto Rico med utplassering av flyenheter deriblant 3 P-8 Poseidon fly som med ekstrautstyr har fått samme funksjon som Joint STARS - strategisk rekognosering og kommunikasjon flyplattform for korrigering av utkalte stridsenheter i møte med fiendtlige forberedelser. Disse P-8 flyene basert på B 737 har fått radarutstyr montert på undersiden, sammen med kommunikasjonsutstyr som gjør at de kan fungere helt presist som disse E-8 flyene som var retirert i 2023. Kampfly deriblant bombefly og spesialtransportfly er sagt å ha blitt observert i flybasene i Florida, mens det foregår omfattende utbedring på flybasen i Puerto Rico, som hadde tidlig fungert som kystvaktbase for kystvaktfly og fly for bekjemping av narkosmugling til lufts og til sjøs. Tre landingsskip med 4,000 soldater hadde blitt sendt ut sammen med tre destroyere til farvannet nord for Venezuela, men det som forvandlet hele bildet er at en krysser - USS "Lake Erie" og en atomubåt - USS "Newport News" - har sluttet seg til flotiljen, dette er fartøyer som bare er egnet for et oppdrag; et militært angrep på et nasjonalforsvar. Dette fulgt til oppstyr i selve Venezuela, fra Colombia kom det signaler om at man tror et amerikansk angrep for regimeendring kan være underveis. I sosiale medier er det mange meldinger i opposisjonelle kanaler om "forekommende frigjøring". Brazil Reportedly Discussed Evacuation Plan With Venezuelan Regime As U.S. Steps Up Pressure With Military Deployment Det kom fram at Brazil skal ha tatt direkte kontakt med Maduro-regimet, muligens for å finne en diplomatisk løsning fordi Maduro hadde brutt alle avtaler med USA og deretter mistet de andre latinamerikanske regjeringenes støtte - det nylige valget i Bolivia samt voksende krise i Mexico hvor politikere kranglet med knyttnever over anklager om å støtte Trumps planer om å angripe kartellene - gjort det klart at bare Cuba er på Maduros side. I sist instans vil de få regimet evakuert i tilfelle et amerikansk angrep. Det er svært tvilsomt om Maduroregimet, som er svært upopulært, kan overleve et amerikansk angrep selv om det er meget gode grunner å spørre om den håpløse og inkompetente opposisjonen er i stand til å overta.

Bare dårlige nyheter fra USA hvor det er sett tegn på at selv Trumplojale ikke-MAGA republikanere og endog lojale MAGA er blitt svært dypt bekymret, mens det kom erklæringer på flere hold i det skjulte om at republikanerpartiet vil bli holdt ansvarlig for enhver Trump gjør. Trump just did the one thing the Supreme Court said he can’t do Trump’s New Move Reportedly Leaves MAGA Republicans ‘Uncomfortable’ Historian reveals 'most clear example of authoritarianism' in Trump 2.0 'What the hell happens now?': Trump's new takeover bid leaves Senate GOP bracing for chaos 'Atomic bomb has detonated': Conservative says Trump planted a seed that could destroy DOJ - Raw Story Trump Threatens Criminal Charges Against Top Democratic Donor 'Stuff of totalitarian regimes': Author warns Trump building 'his own paramilitary force' A Blueprint for Military Takeovers Trump admin wants to own patents of new inventions Meningsmålingene er dessverre ikke pålitelig; det vist seg at det er oppstått meget flyktige tilstander i folkeopinionen at det er blitt nærmest umulig å forutse resultater; det viser seg at Trumps ønsker om å bruke militære mot kriminelle fant grobunn i en femtedel av befolkningen, hele 82 % av republikanerne akseptere - som tyder på voksende antipati mot demokrater - å utplassere soldater i demokratkontrollerte storbyer. Og det er blitt helt umulig å se hvor Trump egentlig har sin støtte. 'Turning people against him': Trump's approval is 'cratering' on every major issue Ifølge Quinnipiac University national poll har bare en tredjedel av folket gitt deres støtte til ham, på sitt høyeste knapt mer enn 37 % - med en fallende tendens. Det varieres meget sterkt avhengig av hvilken rekkefølge spørsmålene hadde, og hvordan å regne sammen resultatene. Men det er en sammenhengende tendens i alle meningsmålingene; en mer og mer aggressiv og herdede front av hardlinje republikanerne har oppstått, som etter hvert ikke vil akseptere "de andre". Og samtidig ser man en voksende avvisning av det republikanerne og Trump står for hos både demokratene og de selvstendige, som snart utgjør to tredjedeler av folket. Det blir verre og verre.

Russian Drones Are Flying Over U.S. Weapons Routes in Germany, Officials Say - The New York Times Ifølge amerikanske medier hadde uidentifiserte dronefly fløyet inn i tysk luftterritorium og overvåket forsyningsrutene gjennom Øst-Tyskland mot polskgrensen. " - an attack against a dam in Norway - " " - The flights, concentrated in the eastern German state of Thuringia, were also reported by WirtschaftsWoche, a German publication that has reported extensively on the sabotage campaign. WirtschaftsWoche reported that Germany was building up its anti-drone systems at military bases. A spokesman for the German armed services told the publication that the drone flights near military bases were a considerable security risk. The publication also reported that at least some of the drones were manufactured in Iran, and German intelligence officials believe at least some of the flights might have originated from ships in the Baltic Sea. - " Det er veldig merkelig at disse dronene ikke bli skutt ned, selv hvis egnede våpen ikke finnes.

Netanyahu mer og mer tre seg ekstremt destruktivt fordi Trump støtter ham; det syriske opprørsregimet ble utsatt for en rekke flyangrep og raid med flybårne tropper i søndre Syria helt opp til Damaskus, over 40 var drept og mange baser enten ødelagt eller evakuert i all hast av opprørsmilitante. Og et halvt døgn senere i den lyse dagen ble 10 lokaliteter i Sanaa i Nord-Jemen truffet av våpen som formodentlig var små kryssermissiler sendt fra israelske krigsskip. Det er sagt at Houthi-ledelsen utgjør målene for israelerne. Bare dager tidligere hadde israelske fly regelrett sprengt i filler det jemenittiske presidentpalasset. Og det virker. En følelse av håpløshet og redsel har begynte å spre seg. I selve Iran er presteregimets udugeligheten nå så sterk, at folk regelrett sultet og tørstet i hjel samtidig som det blir vanskeligere og vanskeligere å klare seg. Da de afghanske flyktningene tvinges hjem, hadde mange iranerne først støttet det - men så vist det seg at arbeidsmangel i et allerede utkjørt land med fallende inntjening blir mer giftig enn ønsket. I Libanon er demoraliseringen så total, at det knapt reises en finger mot israelerne som respons på angrep, og i Syria er minoritetene og det nye regimet på frontkollisjon, hvor israelerne vil gjerne ødelegge de islamistiske opprørerne. Håpløsheten i Palestina er nå nærmest total; de aggressive settlere - som stort sett kom fra USA - systematisk bedrive en fordrivingskampanje mot den palestinske befolkningen i Vestbredden mens det bomberes og bomberes i Gaza, hvor det bli færre og færre som ønsker å bli værende. De arabiske makthaverne gjør ingenting, en sterk nøling hadde etablert seg - det bli mer snakk om å hevne fremfor å avverge.

Det har vært en meget hektisk natt for begge parter - FP-5 hadde sannsynlig "besøkt" Krim-halvøya sammen med over et hundre andre dronefly mens enda flere dronefly kom dypt inn i Russland og tok ut vitale mål deriblant et par raffinerier, trolig er nå over 20 % av all raffineriproduksjon slått ut. Kyiv bombarderes med ballistiske missiler tross Patriot SAM tok ut minst et missil, og intense angrep annetsteds i Ukraina. Nå er det klart for alle at ukrainerne kan produsere flere dronefly enn russerne fordi de valgt de enkelte og billigste løsninger i kontrast til russerne med Shahed-droneflyet som kostet mer i ressursforbruk. Det virker som ideen om lokkedroner for å lokke bort luftvern hadde stjålet for mye ressurser hos russerne mens ukrainerne ikke bryr seg om annet enn å produsere angrepsdroner. Det vist seg at hele 110,000 ukrainske soldater hadde gått "AWOL" i 2025, som betyr fravær fra militær tjeneste selv om nærmere granskning vist at en mindre andel er faktiske desertører - de fleste rett og slett begikk mytteri i form av ordrenekt, fravær og overføring til andre enheter. I virkeligheten er det bare 50,000 soldater som hadde desertert i 2022-25, dvs. ikke vil utøve militærtjeneste. Det er ikke bedre på russisk hold, selv om systematiske henrettelser som trolig har fått tusener drept hindret de russiske soldatene fra å gå til mytteri. I begge sider ser man titusener av soldater nekte å følge ordre og utebli om disses protester ikke tars til følge. I visse tilfeller forsvant hele 50 % av de månedlige rekruttene. Dette minner mer om det franske mytteriet i 1917 enn om desertørbølger. Men det har fått alvorlige følger for det ukrainske forsvaret fordi ofte utebli menn som trenges i reservestyrker og utsatte frontseksjoner. Ved Pokrovsk brøt et russisk frontavsnitt simpelt fordi den ansvarlige enheten ikke hadde menn i de fremste holdepunkter. All verdens belønning ikke lenge virker for soldater som førtes mot nervesammenbrudd pga. dronene. Det registreres at dødstall overgikk tall over de sårede pga. bruk av bakke- og luftførte droner. På feltet er det nå mulig å oppsummere at den russiske sommeroffensiven har kjørt seg fast; det altfor porøse forsvaret "fortettes" med droner som mer og mer benyttes aktiv enn før, samtidig som russiske enheter ikke lenge kan bevege seg i dybden, da disse må finne ukrainske enheter for å kunne avansere. Det hindrer ikke tap av terreng til russerne som kan nå kutte av Kupyansk fra nordvest i Nordøstfronten. Men alle kunne se at noe hadde hendt; russerne har sannsynlig nådd grensen av hva de kan makte mens ukrainerne er ført mot randen av total utmattelse. Krigen kan ikke fortsette, Putins galskapsstrategi er akkurat hva erfarne makthavere i alle tider unngikk, å føre egen hær til ruin og gjør krigen altfor kostbar.

HÆH? Er dette et menneske som snakker slik?!! Jeg begynner å lure på om politikerne som Støre her har egen tankegang som ethvert menneske!

Galskapen omkring Trump bli nå verre og verre. Han har nylig utsendt en presidentordre som helt bryte med hele den amerikanske lovtradisjonen, som i tillegg er et direkte angrep på den føderale høyesterettens autoritet. Det er ikke mulig for en enslig person å utarbeide en straffelov på egen hånd, dette finnes det ikke tradisjoner for verken blant engelskkongene i 800 år eller blant presidenter i USAs historie! Det er rådsforsamlingen, det vil si parlamentet og kongressen, som skal ha fullretten til å utarbeide lover eller godkjenne lovforslag for å ha den nødvendige legitimiteten. Selv ikke Hitler, Mussolini eller Stalin hadde gjort dette! Ikke engangs de europeiske enevoldskongene som hadde maktapparat med seg når disse bestemte hva som var lov eller ikke. Denne presidentordren er helt uparallelt i hele den vestlige legalhistorien. Donald Trump issues order defying Supreme Court precedent På dette grunnlaget alene må Trump arresteres som en forbryter ved å forbryte seg ikke bare mot konstitusjonen, men også hele det amerikanske lovverkets legitimiteten, ved å reise en illegal lov omkring brenning og hærverk av flagg - som er i tillegg ekstraterritorialt ved å gjelde praktisk talt hele verden medregnet Norge. Det er ikke tillatt fordi flaggbrenning er ikke straffbart i tråd med den konstitusjonelle bestemmelsen i tråd med høyesterettsavgjørelsen Texas v. Johnson i 1989, hvor det var gjort klart at handlingen faller under ytringsretten som tillate fri ytringsfrihet - og det gjelder ikke bare flagg, det gjelder enhver av symbolsk verdi og politisk rettighetshevding, som ved å ha retten til å protestere. Dommerne hadde måtte gjentatte ganger forsvarte dette, fordi ytringsretten er sterkt sentralt i 1789-konstitusjonen - og dermed kan ikke lovgivere bare vedta en lov som forby flaggbrenning om de skulle ønske det. Forresten burde det minnes at flaggbrenning/flaggskjending var forbudt i Norge fram til 2015, selv om det stort sett bare gjaldt ikke-norske flagg og symbolikk. Retorikken som Trump kom med, er 100 % reinsprikka nazistisk. "They burn the American flag. They call it freedom of speech. When you burn a flag, the area goes crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy. You can do other things…but when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels we've never seen before." Trump bryter nå alle grenser og oppfører seg ikke engangs som en diktatur eller en enevoldskonge, mer lik en gudekonge.

Det er rasistisk politikk på gang. Donald Trump's administration highlights 20 Smithsonian exhibits it objects to The White House on Thursday unveiled a list of 20 Smithsonian exhibits the Trump administration alleges are being used to frame historical events through “ideological” narratives instead of factual evidence. Items categorized as unacceptable include an exhibit at the National Museum of the American Latino that portrays the U.S. as stolen land and characterizes U.S. history as rooted in “colonization.” The administration also slammed the National Museum of American History for its depiction of Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, as a slave owner and took issue with the stance that his “scientific accomplishments were enabled by the social and economic system he worked within.” A separate notation critiques an art piece showcasing migrants watching July 4 fireworks “through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall,” which reportedly states that America’s founders “feared non-white immigration.” Other exhibits highlighted focus on transgender communities. The Trump administration specifically targeted the American history museum’s “LGBTQ+ History” exhibit and condemned a separate display lauding the 50th anniversary of Title IX with a focus on transgender athletes. President Trump signed an executive order in February barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports. The decision to highlight more than a dozen exhibits and artworks as “woke” comes days after Trump criticized the history museum for its depiction of slavery and its impact on Black Americans. “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” the president wrote Tuesday in a Truth Social post. “We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made,” he added. “This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.” During his first term, Trump lauded the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture for its portrayal of harsh truths and storied victories for disenfranchised Black citizens. Trump’s issue with the depiction of slavery in museums has been widely challenged by Black historians and community leaders. “Just as the Holocaust is remembered in all its brutality, so must America reckon with the truth of chattel slavery, Jim Crow and racial terror,” Toni Draper, publisher of the Afro-American Newspaper — the archives of which were used to help curate the museum — wrote in a recent op-ed for Afro.com. “Anything less is historical erasure, a rewriting of facts to make the nation appear more palatable.” “But history is not meant to comfort — it is meant to confront. And only in confrontation do we find the lessons that lead us forward,” she added. Many items featured on the White House list were included in an article published by The Federalist last week that called out the Smithsonian for “anti-American propaganda.” Several years ago, the conservative Heritage Foundation also flanked the Smithsonian Latino exhibit for being a “disgrace” to American history. In lieu of the concerns, the Trump administration has vowed to work alongside the Smithsonian to review eight of its museums to bring exhibits into “alignment” with the president’s historical vision. The institutions being reviewed include the National Museum of American History; National Museum of Natural History; National Museum of African American History and Culture; National Museum of the American Indian; National Air and Space Museum; Smithsonian American Art Museum; National Portrait Gallery; and Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. President Trump Is Right About the Smithsonian – The White House Her er "listen":; 1) The National Museum of African American History and Culture debuted a series to educate people on “a society that privileges white people and whiteness” — defining so-called “white dominant culture“ as “ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time” and portraying “the nuclear family,” “work ethic,” and “intellect” as white qualities rooted in racism. 2) As part of its campaign to stop being “wealthy, pale, and male,” the National Portrait Gallery featured a choreographed “modern dance performance“ detailing the “ramifications“ of the southern border wall and commissioned an entire series to examine “American portraiture and institutional history… through the lens of historical exclusion.” 3 ) The American History Museum prominently displays the “Intersex-Inclusive Progress Pride flag” at its entrance, which was also flown alongside the American flag at multiple Smithsonian campuses. 4) The National Portrait Gallery features art commemorating the act of illegally crossing the “inclusive and exclusionary” southern border — even making it a finalist for one of its awards. 5) The National Museum of African Art displayed an exhibit on “works of speculative fiction that bring to life an immersive, feminist and sacred aquatopia inspired by the legend of Drexciya,” an “underwater kingdom populated by the children of pregnant women who had been thrown overboard or jumped into the ocean during the Middle Passage.” 6) The American History Museum’s “LGBTQ+ History” exhibit seeks to “understand evolving and overlapping identities such as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer, transsexual, transvestite, mahu, homosexual, fluid, invert, urning, third sex, two sex, gender-bender, sapphist, hijra, friend of Dorothy, drag queen/king, and many other experiences,” and includes articles on “LGBTQ+ inclusion and skateboarding“ and “the rise of drag ball culture in the 1920s.” 7) The National Museum of the American Latino features programming highlighting “animated Latinos and Latinas with disabilities” — with content from “a disabled, plus-sized actress” and an “ambulatory wheelchair user” who “educates on their identity being Latinx, LGBTQ+, and disabled.” 8+) The National Museum of the American Latino characterizes the Texas Revolution as a “massive defense of slavery waged by ‘white Anglo Saxon’ settlers against anti-slavery Mexicans fighting for freedom, not a Texan war of independence from Mexico,” and frames the Mexican-American War as “the North American invasion” that was “unprovoked and motivated by pro-slavery politicians.” 9) According to the National Museum of the American Latino, “what unites Latinas and Latinos“ is “the Black Lives Matter movement.” 10) The National Portrait Gallery commissioned a “stop-motion drawing animation” that “examines the career“ of Anthony Fauci. 11) The American History Museum’s exhibit marking the 50th anniversary of Title IX includes biological men competing in women’s sports and argues in favor of “transgender” athletes competing in sports against the opposite biological sex. 12) A exhibit at the American History Museum depicts migrants watching Independence Day fireworks “through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall” and says America’s founders “feared non-White immigration.” 13) The American History Museum features a display that refers to the founding of America as “a profound unsettling of the continent.” 14) The American History Museum’s “American Democracy” exhibit claims voter integrity measures are “attempts to minimize the political power” of “new and diverse groups of Americans,” while its section on “demonstrations” includes only leftist causes. 15) An American History Museum exhibit features a depiction of the Statue of Liberty “holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet.” 16) The National Museum of the American Latino features an anti-American exhibit that defines Latino history as centuries of victimhood and exploitation, suggests the U.S. is stolen land, and characterizes U.S. history as rooted in “colonization.” * The exhibit features writing from illegal immigrants “fighting to belong.” * The exhibit displays a quote from Claudia de la Cruz, the socialist nominee for president and a director an anti-American hate group, as well as another quote that reads, “We didn’t cross the border; the border crossed us.” * The exhibit remains prominently featured on its website alongside a quote from the Communist Party USA’s Angela Davis, who was once among the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitives. 17) The National Museum of the American Latino describes the post-Mexican-American War California describes a “Californio” family losing their land to American “squatters.” 18) The Museum of American Art uses American sculpture “to invite dialogue and reflection on notions of power and identity.” 19) The American History Museum’s “Upending 1620” exhibit claims Pilgrims are a “myth,” instead framing them as colonizers. 20) The American History Museum’s exhibit about Benjamin Franklin focuses almost solely on slavery, directing visitors to learn more about his “electrical experiments and the enslaved people of his household,” noting his “scientific accomplishments were enabled by the social and economic system he worked within.” 21) The National Portrait Gallery was set to feature a “painting depicting a transgender Statue of Liberty” before the artist withdrew it. 22) The former interim director of the future Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum declared the museum will be “inclusive” of biological men posing as women. Dette i praksis er en retur til pre-1968 tilstand, mer bestemt til begynnelsen på 1950-tallet. Man ønske å tie i hjel rasisme, slaveri, kjønnsdiskriminering, "sosialisme" og historiske fakta knyttet til kolonisering og territoriale ekspansjon. Det er noe som smaker nazistisk av det hele.

Det er begynnende tegn på at amerikanerne er i ferd med å gå inn i en moralsk krise. Det registreres at færre går inn i begge partier, flere blir selvstendig, hele markedsnisjer undermineres - arbeidsmoral i bedrift etter bedrift som konsern etter konsern går nedover, det merkes at mange vil ikke arbeide mer enn minimum fordi de har mistillit mot arbeidsgivere. Det blir mer og mer stress, polariseringen og det republikanske angrepet på demokratene har ført gemyttene mot bristepunktet mens mange blir skadelidende pga. Trumps politikk omkring nedkutting, skatteplan, tollsatser og angrep på demokrater som deportasjon av illegale og legale migranter. Det meldes at hele 55 mill. legale migranter risikere å miste deres oppholdstillatelse - og mange bedrifter oppgi at de ikke lenge kan hyre arbeidere som mer og mer utebli. I sommeren hadde forretningsmennene gjort sitt best for å holde tilbake, men i midten av august sier de nå at prisene vil stige, at de vil ha knapphet på tjenester, varer og tilbud - Chaos Theory Meets Trump: Why America's Institutions and Psyche Are Under Siege ‘Everyone is coming into fire’: students return to US campuses bruised and changed by Trump’s assault We Shouldn’t Have to Work This Hard Det foregår en fordumming som bli verre og verre; snart må vi koble internett helt ut og gjør boklesing obligatorisk for alle. The death of reading is a civilisational catastrophe The truth behind the endless “kids can’t read” discourse Det kommer bare dårlige nyheter fra USA.

Enig. Og det er en pris som vokser for hver dag, som kommer til å måtte betales i fremtiden - akkurat som i 1986-1991 før det brøt løst for alvor i Jugoslavia.

Is Trump a socialist? For decades, a core part of the Republican Party’s identity was the whole-hearted embrace of free-market capitalism. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the market was understood to be infinitely preferable to government meddling. Lately, though, President Donald Trump has been having second thoughts. Forget the invisible hand — what about, uh, Trump’s hand? The second Trump administration has cut a revenue-sharing agreement with Nvidia, it’s taken partial control of US Steel, it’s considering taking a stake in Intel, and it’s created a loyalty ranking system for US companies. And did we mention that Trump has taken to brow-beating companies into not raising their prices in response to tariffs? All this adds up to unprecedented intervention into the market, and pushes America toward a “state capitalism” model practiced by countries like Russia, India, and China. The Wall Street Journal’s chief economics commentator, Greg Ip, calls it “state capitalism with American characteristics,” a nod to the Chinese Communist Party’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Free-market fans aren’t happy. Neither are most Democrats. There is one small but vocal faction in US politics that has historically been more open to this kind of intervention, so Today, Explained gave a prominent member of that group a call to get his thoughts. “Obviously, as a socialist, I start from the principle that private industry should be subject to more democratic control and oversight,” Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation magazine and founding editor of Jacobin, told Today, Explained co-host Noel King. Sunkara talked to King about how the history of state capitalism doesn’t neatly map onto current political divides, why he respects Trump for putting tariffs back on the table, and why he’s skeptical Trump’s latest interventions will do anything for the working class. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Is capitalism dead? Is it in trouble? You know, I wish it was dead for a variety of reasons. I think it’s perfectly legitimate for the state to intervene in private enterprise. In the US, we often frame the free market as a conservative ideal and state intervention as a socialist ideal. But history shows it is a lot more complicated than that. In the 20th century, right-wing authoritarian governments in places like South Korea and Taiwan used really heavy state direction. They used tariffs, subsidies, and credit allocation to build out globally competitive industries and lift their countries out of poverty. They did a lot of horrible things against political rights and labor rights and so on, but they did that, to their credit. In the US we sometimes just knee-jerk react: More state intervention means more socialism. For me, the real question is: Is what we’re doing coherent? Does it make sense? My worry with Trump’s approach is that it looks more like ad hoc favoritism and punishing some industries and subsidizing other industries on a whim, and less like a long-term plan. Where do you stand on the tariffs? I have a lot of the same concerns. I think that there’s a place for tariffs in the toolkit of creating a viable economy. I think there’s a place for protecting certain industries as part of a wider plan. I really appreciate that Trump in his first term put on the table the toolkit of tariffs and talked about industrial policy. I didn’t agree with how he executed those tariffs in his first term, but I think it paved the way for Joe Biden to be much more successful in industrial policy. At a time when countries like Germany were losing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, the US was gaining hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. But in this particular case, I just can’t see the long-term plan behind Trump’s use of tariffs, and I really worry that it will make the US, in the long run, a poorer country, and that won’t be good for any sort of egalitarian politics. The thing Joe Biden was never willing to do was to call companies and say, don’t you dare raise prices on Americans. This is one of those things that, again, with Trump, if you are working-class and you hear that the president has called a corporation or telegraphed to a corporation, the tariffs may be pushing up the cost of goods, but you are not going to raise them on American citizens. It’s appealing. It’s a little strongman, but it’s appealing, right? I’m not impressed because I don’t think it’s sustainable. And also I think Trump was able to get away with this stuff, or has been able to, partially because he is a right-wing president who came in with a lot of goodwill from business. At least initially, he delivered huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and capital at least until recently, I think, trusted him. I don’t think the markets would’ve been nearly as tolerant if it was President Bernie Sanders trying the same thing. And it’s very clear to people that he’s trying to rig the game to reward friends and punish enemies. And because of that, CEOs like Apple’s Tim Cook feel like they have to play along and stay on his good side. And that’s behind the very awkward and kind of embarrassingly gauche gift-giving. If you visit the sovereigns, you better come with a big, gaudy gift. The irony is that a lot of the American right has spent decades railing against left-wing, in their mind, strongmen leaders governing in this fashion. And yet Trump is really mimicking the worst of that style. I imagine you have rubbed your hands in glee looking at the polling that shows us that Americans are frustrated with capitalism. Young people in particular are giving up on it. Whether you like him or not, President Trump is doing uncapitalism. Zohran Mamdani would like to do uncapitalism. Do you think we’re at a point where the left and the right are converging on America with socialist characteristics? I love being contrarian. I would love to tell you that Trump’s action is bringing us closer to being a socialist country, but I honestly believe that Trump is taking us further away from my vision of a good society, and further away from any vision of a socialist society. I think in part because he’s deploying legitimate tools of economic policy, like tariffs and industrial policy, in such a chaotic, self-serving way. I think he’s going to create a backlash that makes it harder for the left to use those tools in the future. 'Not what I voted for': MAGA decries Trump's latest move as 'socialism' On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. government was now a part-owner of a major publicly traded tech company. The reaction among his base was less than enthusiastic. Trump announced via his Truth Social platform that as of Friday the U.S. is a multibillion-dollar shareholder in Intel as part of an agreement with CEO Lip-Bu Tan — with the U.S. supposedly paying nothing for its new stake. The announcement notably came roughly two weeks after Trump's angry social media tirade against Tan, in which he demanded that Tan "resign immediately" from his role due to his investments in Chinese tech companies. "It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future," Trump wrote in his signature style of oddly placed capital letters. "I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter." While some of the responses to the Trump administration's post on X announcing the news were complimentary, many replies were deeply critical of the government taking ownership of a private company. One user who described themselves in their bio as a "Constitutional Conservative" wrote: "Not what I voted for. I voted against this specifically." Conservative podcast host @amandatalks_ tweeted: "ngl [not gonna lie] don't love this guys." " I'm a Republican but I do not agree with this," another user posted. "Government and privately owned businesses should not mix." "Governments shouldn't own private business," tweeted retired Naval officer Mike Rodman. Aerospace engineer Michael Heil also weighed in, responding to the White House's post by writing: "Not good. Even partial government ownership of private industry is socialism." Enda mer om den voksende kritikken mot Trumps åpenbare korrupte innblanding i privatmarkedet gjennom misbruk av statsapparatet for å true til seg lukrative godser på bekostning av oligarker og andre som valgt å gi opp fordi Roberts hadde saboterte domstolenes evne for å stanse maktmisbruk mens republikanerne ivret sterkt for sine ideologiske målsetninger som er snakk om å erstatte staten med enmannsregime. Republikanerne hadde lenge sagt at de var mot "the Big Government", men nå ser alle at dette er løgn, den føderale staten mer og mer bruker sin makt enn før, samtidig som det er latt merke til at delstatlige republikanerne er i ferd med å sammenføye ulike delstaters lover og praksis slik at de delstatlige forskjellene kan forsvinne - og Trump har innført en "Big Government" som aldri tidligere var sett i historien, med en villighet til å tilsidesette enhver og alt for egeninteresse. Trump har grepet inn på en måte som aldri tidligere var bevitnet i USAs historie, selv ikke i den engelske historien var liknende sett helt siden Stuartene - Karl 2. som ble halshogd var en Stuart. Dette kommer til å ende katastrofalt.