Vincent van Gogh The Rispal Restaurant at Asnieres 1887
Doocy
NEW: Peter Doocy reveals that Vice President Kamala Harris ditched her press pool to avoid speaking to the media.
"Vice President Harris is supposed to travel everywhere she goes with a press pool. We just learned that she left her press pool behind to attend an event at Howard… pic.twitter.com/mv6zTh2oKh
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) August 14, 2024
One time
The one time they let Kamala talk.. After this Obama was like “Nah you aint talking again.”
pic.twitter.com/qCUqFpyBJn— aka (@akafacehots) August 13, 2024
Kamala headlines
BUSTED: The Kamala Harris campaign admits it conducted a massive online misinformation scheme with the help of Google. Google claims a glitch in its system allowed the Harris campaign to run counterfeit headlines that appeared to originate from the AP and Reuters. pic.twitter.com/bnUBCygPBb
— @amuse (@amuse) August 14, 2024
Internet czar
https://twitter.com/i/status/1823379194258010348
Taliban
BREAKING: Taliban currently holding a parade at Bagram Air Force Base with American military equipment the Biden / Harris administration left behind during their disastrous withdrawal.. pic.twitter.com/aUp5NKCcmm
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) August 14, 2024
Benz
you guys hear that? pic.twitter.com/sk7PK0kIrS
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) August 14, 2024
O’Leary
Elon Musk is like a modern-day Bruce Wayne—no BS, completely transparent, and knows how to get things done. You might not like his communication style, but you can’t argue with his results.
If we had more leaders like Elon in government, we wouldn’t be as divided, and this… pic.twitter.com/eyIQBBt4V4
— Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful (@kevinolearytv) August 13, 2024
RFK
https://twitter.com/i/status/1823592168549728720
RFK
As many of you saw, yesterday a NY judge disqualified me from New York ballot access, despite the nearly 150,000 signatures my campaign obtained from New Yorkers wanting to see me as a choice this November. The ruling came after the plaintiffs argued I am not in fact a resident… pic.twitter.com/7ROoSlYHTw
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 14, 2024
“This election will be the most important election in the history of our country. We’re going to save our country with this election.”
• Will Trump End Elections? Anatomy Of A Failed Hoax (Miele)
The good news is that Donald Trump is very familiar with the Democrats’ tactic of character assassination. For the past nine years he has been subjected to endless false attacks that aimed to polarize him as first a Russian stooge, then a white supremacist, and finally an enemy of democracy who threatened a “bloodbath” if he wasn’t reelected in 2024. Those attacks have all been exposed as partisan chicanery, but that doesn’t stop his opponents from repeating them every chance they get. Two weeks ago, Democrats and the mainstream media were caught red-handed as they tried to jump-start a new hoax that suggested Trump would cancel future elections if he were elected this year. The video that played on Sunday morning shows and across the universe of cable news channels for three days at the end of July came from a speech that Trump delivered to the Turning Point Action Believers Summit on Friday, July 26.
This clip from CNN typified the way Trump’s words were portrayed, with one commentator saying that “it certainly sounds like a presidential candidate that is determined to shut down the democratic process.” CBS News reached the same conclusion, saying that on social media there were “some calls of alarm in response to Trump’s comments, expressing concern that they alluded to authoritarianism and could be interpreted as an indication that he would not leave office if he wins the election.” That’s ridiculous, of course, and if there should be any concern about Trump’s words, it would be about how nonchalantly the media distorted them for the purpose of character assassination.
The part of Trump’s speech that was played or quoted ad infinitum by mainstream media for those three days was this: “Christians, get out and vote, just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians … In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.” Twisting those words to suggest Trump was planning “to shut down the democratic process” is just cynical. But if anyone were sincerely alarmed, you’d think that their next step would be to listen to the entire speech where these words were uttered to find out if there was any missing context.
A real journalist would look for answers before running with a hugely damaging and potentially slanderous story. But this episode demonstrates conclusively that there are very few real journalists left in America. I knew the real meaning of Trump’s words because I had watched the speech live on a streaming channel, but how much work would it take for a highly paid network reporter or anchor to look at the Believers speech after the fact before accusing the former president of plotting to eliminate elections? If they had, they would have found that, a little over 37 minutes into his speech, Trump explained to his audience that Christians vote in disappointingly low numbers, and if they wanted him to return to the White House, they needed to go out and vote “at least this election.” Here’s the full quote that I don’t believe was ever played, not once, by any major media outlet:
“And by the way, Christians have to vote. You know, I don’t want to scold you, but do you know Christians do not vote proportionately, they don’t vote like they should. They’re not big voters … They have to vote. If they don’t vote, we’re not going to win the election. If you do vote, we’re going to win in a landslide. Too big to rig. We’re gonna win in a landslide. … You know, you have tremendous power, but you just don’t know that. But you have to use that power. Christians are a group that’s known not to vote very much. You have to go out at least this election, just get us into that beautiful White House. Vote for your congressmen and women. Vote for your senators. We will change this country for the better. This country will be great again like never before. You gotta vote. … This election will be the most important election in the history of our country. We’re going to save our country with this election.”
Wonder who set up XY for this.
• Olympic Boxer’s “Cyberbullies” Lawsuit A Threat To Free Speech (MN)
A human rights lawyer has warned that a lawsuit brought by Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khelif against the likes of Elon Musk and JK Rowling could set a significant precedent against free speech. Khelif, who competed and won a gold medal in the women’s welterweight division, despite having XY chromosomes, is charging that prominent personalities and bodies engaged in “acts of aggravated cyber harassment.” Questions were raised by both the World Boxing Organisation and the International Boxing Association regarding Khelif’s eligibility to compete as a woman following two previous ‘failed’ gender tests. Speaking to GB News, human rights lawyer David Haigh warned that the lawsuit could lead to “policing of social media” across borders. Haigh outlined “If they proceed with this, the Paris prosecutors have the reach jurisdiction to come to other countries. And if that is the case, that then is a very concerning development.”
'This could be a very significant case both in free speech and gender politics.'
David Haigh discusses reports Imane Khelif is to sue Elon Musk and J.K Rowling over harassment about her gender. pic.twitter.com/Io0hBDOlqZ
— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 14, 2024
“You can have countries around the world basically policing social media in other countries. It could be a very, very significant case in free speech, the use of social media,” Haigh added. He continued, “are we now going to see France trying to extradite or issuing arrest warrants for JK Rowling? It’s a very slippery slope and it could become a very significant case.” The lawyer also noted that the case could also set a legal precedent in terms of gender ideology. “If it proceeds, and that’s a big if, it could have significant ramifications. Whether or not there has been harassment, you will have a debate on what is and isn’t a man or a woman in the court,” he noted. “If part of whether or not there has been harassment and abuse comes down to whether or not that boxer is a man or a woman, obviously evidence will need to be put forward on both sides of that,” Haigh further explained.
Trump will also be part of the suit. You could get a Paris prosecutor go after a US president for saying “I will keep men out of women’s sports!”
They want a French judge to redefine for the whole world what a woman is.
• Olympic Gold Winner Sues Musk Over ‘Cyber Harassment’ (RT)
French prosecutors have opened a probe into a claim by Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khelif over alleged “acts of aggravated cyber harassment” during the games by several prominent figures, including Elon Musk, according to Variety magazine. Prosecutors reportedly said on Wednesday that the X (formerly Twitter) owner was named in the criminal complaint, along with Harry Potter author JK Rowling. In the complaint, Khelif claimed she was targeted by a “misogynist, racist and sexist campaign” as she fought her way to gold in the women’s welterweight division. Nabil Boudi, the Paris-based attorney for Khelif, told the magazine that the complaint was posted to the anti-online hatred center of the Paris Prosecutor’s Office on Friday.
The prosecutor’s office reportedly confirmed that an investigation had been launched. “J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk are named in the lawsuit, among others,” Boudi told the magazine, adding that former US President Donald Trump would be part of the investigation. “Trump tweeted, so whether or not he is named in our lawsuit, he will inevitably be looked into as part of the prosecution,” he stated. The attorney also noted that the lawsuit was filed against X, which under French law means that it was filed against unknown persons. That “ensure[s] that the ‘prosecution has all the latitude to be able to investigate against all people,” Boudi said. The 25-year-old boxer, who on Saturday won the Olympic gold medal in the women’s 66-kilogram boxing competition, has found herself at the center of a gender controversy. Khelif became the subject of global attention after defeating Italian boxer Angela Carini in just 46 seconds in a preliminary match.
The short bout sparked outrage online, with many calling the Algerian athlete ‘male’ due to previous failed gender tests. According to Algeria, Khelif is not transgender at all but a woman affected by a condition known as hyperandrogenism, characterized by a high level of testosterone and the presence of XY chromosomes. Following the match, J. K. Rowling posted on X a picture of the boxers, accusing Khelif of being a man who was “enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head.” Musk, meanwhile, shared a post that claimed “men don’t belong in women’s sports,” captioning it “Absolutely.” Trump’s post about the boxing match was accompanied by the message: “I will keep men out of women’s sports!” The International Olympic Committee, for its part, defended Khelif and denounced those peddling misinformation.
“..you think your job is to collude with the White House press secretary to censor Americans with whom you disagree?”
• ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ WaPo Urges White House Crackdown on Media (Sp.)
Washington Post White House reporter Cleve Wootson Jr. is taking flak from conservatives, media impartiality and free speech activists after a controversial exchange with WH press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre apparently urging the federal government to “stop” the spread of “misinformation” relating to the 2024 campaign and beyond. “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue. It’s an America issue. What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that, or stopping the spread of that or intervening in that?” Wootson asked in anticipation of the Elon Musk-Donald Trump interview on X Monday night, which reportedly wound up garnering as many as a billion combined views. “You’ve heard us talking about this many times from here about the responsibilities that social media platforms have when it comes to misinformation and disinformation.
I don’t have anything to read out from here about specific ways that we’re working on it. But we believe that they have the responsibility. These are private companies, so we’re also mindful of that too. But I think it is incredibly important to call that out as you are doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally,” Jean-Pierre responded. The Wootson-Jean-Pierre exchange spread like wildfire online, with commentators sarcastically recalling the Washington Post’s ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ slogan and expressing concern over the outlet’s apparent request that the White House “cancel the Bill of Rights,” whose Free Press Clause protects the publication of information and opinions, no matter their content. “The Washington Post trying to get the government to shut down private citizen interviews with presidential candidates. Because democracy dies in people speaking freely,” one popular response quipped.
“Washington Post reporter asks if Biden/Kamala administration should permit Trump to talk to Elon Musk or if the government should block their conversation. This is where we are, much of the media opposes free speech,” one person lamented. “Truly pathetic…You are a White House reporter for the Washington Post. And you think your job is to collude with the White House press secretary to censor Americans with whom you disagree? Do you understand how dumb and dangerous you sound? You’re truly shameful,” another wrote. WaPo critics’ outrage over Wootson’s suggestion is itself somewhat of a surprise, given the increasingly well-documented collusion between the US government, traditional media and Big Tech, from orders to ban or otherwise restrict foreign media (including Sputnik), to revelations in the ‘Twitter Files’ detailing some of the “specifics” mentioned by Jean-Pierre of government-big tech complicity in taking down stories and banning users to try to control informational awareness on topical issues ranging from wars and politics to elections.
The Washington Post’s request that the White House cracks down on “misinformation” also comes in the face of increasingly bald-faced attempts by the mainstream media to control the narrative relating to the upcoming US election, with a slew of blunt efforts by outlets to prop up one candidate, or silence criticism of said candidate’s lack of media interviews, being met with increasingly loud resistance.
“There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media..”
• WaPo Reporter Calls on White House to Censor Trump for America (Turley)
In my new book on free speech, I discuss at length how the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. The Washington Post, however, appears to be taking its anti-free speech campaign to a new level with open calls for a crackdown. The newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.” During Monday’s press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.” After making that affirmative statement, Wootson then asked
“…What role does the White House or the president have in sort of stopping that or stopping the spread of that or sort of intervening in that? Some of that was about campaign misinformation, but, you know, it’s a wider thing, right?” Note how his question was really a political statement. Wootson begins by stating as a fact that Musk and X are engaging in disinformation and it is a threat to the country. He then asks a perfunctory softball question at the end to maintain appearances. Jean-Pierre’s response was equally telling. While noting that this is a private company, she praised the Washington Post for calling for action, saying “[i]t is incredibly important to call that out, as you’re doing. I just don’t have any specifics on what we have been doing internally.” So let’s recap. The Washington Post used a White House presser to call for censorship of one of the leading candidates for the White House and then demanded to know what the White House would do about it. The censorship was framed as an “America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” has been entirely silent. No correction. No qualification. The Washington Post has long run columns supporting censorship of information that it deems disinformation or misinformation. For many of us in the free speech community, it has become one of the most hostile newspapers to free speech values. Now censorship has become “an America issue” for the Washington Post. The collapse of any semblance of support for free speech is complete. The call for censorship for disinformation is ironic given the Post’s publication of a series of false stories and conspiracy theories. When confronted about columnists with demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged.
[..] The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision. Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake: “We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get beyond the gender and race of those who would be overseeing them. One staffer complained “we now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around. Yet, in this case, a reporter openly advocated for censorship and pushed the White House to take action against X and Trump; to use government authority to “intervene” to stop Trump from being able to make certain claims on social media.
We have previously written how the level of advocacy and bias in the press has created a danger of a de facto state media in the United States. It is possible to have such a system by consent rather than coercion. The Biden White House has become more open in its marching orders to media, including a letter drafted by the Biden White House Legal Counsel’s Office calling for major media to “ramp up their scrutiny” of House Republicans. President Biden has even instructed reporters “[t]hat is not the judgment of the press” when asked tough questions. To the credit of the Post, it is not killing “democracy in the darkness.” This incident occurred in the light of day for all to see as its reporter pushed the White House for the censoring of political opponents.
“It came down to their concern about my relationship with the Russian government, and that somehow I’m taking direction from the Russian government..”
• Scott Ritter Says FBI Monitored Him For Years (TASS)
Former US intelligence officer Scott Ritter said the FBI had monitored him for years. “They admitted that they’ve been monitoring me for years,” he said on a podcast called Judging Freedom, which is hosted by Andrew Napolitano. “I got nothing to hide here. But they [the FBI] are concerned. It came down to their concern about my relationship with the Russian government, and that somehow I’m taking direction from the Russian government,” the former officer said. On August 7, NBC television reported Ritter’s home was subjected to a search. The FBI confirmed to TASS that its agents conducted investigative actions at the former officer’s home. Ritter had previously said the searches could be related to the US government’s concerns about violations of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act. The Times Union reported that the law requires individuals and organizations representing foreign interests in the United States to register with the Department of Justice and disclose their activities. Ritter strongly denies all of the allegations. He also stated the US government is seeking to intimidate him.
“There was, literally, no valid reason to drop an atomic bomb on a Japanese city.”
• The Murder of Others (Scott Ritter)
Ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union and its leader, Joseph Stalin, were exhausted by a war that had destroyed a third of its industry and killed more than 27 million of its citizens and, as such, were looking for peace, not a new war with the West, Truman fell under the sway of his closest advisers, including his choice to be secretary of state, James Byrnes, who viewed the Soviets as a threat that had to be contained and, if necessary, confronted by U.S. military power in the post-war period. How to square the need to simultaneously defeat Japan, deal with the increasing political pressure to demobilize, and present a strong military posture to the Soviet Union was one of the more pressing challenges facing Truman and the men he had gathered in the White House cabinet room. The answer lay in the atomic bomb — J. Robert Oppenheimer’s “gadget ”— which was, at the time of the June 18 meeting, being prepared for testing in the badlands of New Mexico.
The huge responsibility that attached itself to the existence and potential use of this new weapon weighed heavily on the attendees. During this meeting, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson reminded those present that “our leadership in the war and in the development of this weapon [the atomic bomb] has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further.” When the discussion turned to the use of the atomic bomb as a “war winning” tool designed to break the spirit of the Japanese and compel them to surrender unconditionally, Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy proposed a compromise: why not show flexibility regarding the need for “unconditional surrender,” such as allowing the Japanese emperor to stay in place as the head of state, and, as a way of reinforcing to the Japanese the reality of America’s overwhelming superiority in arms, tell the Japanese about the existence of the atomic bomb, giving them the clear option of capitulating under reasonable terms or watching their cities be destroyed?
Truman, intrigued with the concept, had McCloy take his proposal to Byrnes to see what the future secretary of state thought about it (Byrnes was, at the time, in the process of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate). Byrnes, concerned about the perceived threat from the Soviet Union, rejected McCloy’s proposal, opting instead to go forward with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan with the dual mission of helping bring a rapid end to the war with Japan and, perhaps more importantly, since McCloy and others believed Japan was ready to surrender, obviating the need to use the bomb, as a demonstration of U.S. military power to the Soviet Union in an effort to deter any post-war antics on their part in Europe.
Byrnes’ strategy, however, was nonsensical given what subsequently transpired. On July 17, 1945, Truman was in Potsdam, Germany, for a major post-war conference with Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (the “Big Three”). The day before, July 16, Oppenheimer had successfully tested a prototype of a plutonium bomb in the deserts of Alamogordo, New Mexico. (Oppenheimer and his team of nuclear scientists had also developed an atomic bomb that made use of highly enriched uranium as its core. This weapon was far simpler in its design, and as such the need to test it was not as acute.)
Truman revealed the existence of this weapon to Stalin on July 24. The Soviet leader, nonplussed, said he hoped the Americans would put it to good use against the Japanese. Stalin had committed to entering the war against Japan no later than Aug. 15. Soviet forces, fresh from their victory over Nazi Germany, were being redeployed to the Soviet Far East, where they would be used to defeat the more than 1 million Japanese soldiers who occupied northern China and Korea. With the promised involvement of the Red Army, the military defeat of Japan was assured. Truman, in notifying Russia of the existence of the bomb, had put the Soviets on notice about the reality of American military might. There was, literally, no valid reason to drop an atomic bomb on a Japanese city.
“The Ambassador already replied to one letter from Mr. Biden. He may be shopping for more support than he got here..”
• Hunter Biden Asked State Department To Aid Burisma Deal While Joe Was VP (ZH)
While Joe Biden was vice president, his son Hunter attempted to obtain State Department assistance in securing a deal for Ukrainian gas company Burisma, of which Hunter was a highly-compensated board member despite having no experience in its industry, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. The revelation of the 2016 episode underscores allegations that Hunter sought to enrich himself by trading on his father’s influence. The Times report draws on newly-released government records pertaining to Hunter’s pushing of a Burisma deal in Italy. The Biden White House had resisted releasing the files for years, only to relent soon after Biden was pressured into abandoning his reelection bid. The Times says it was unable to read Hunter’s email to the US ambassador, as it appears to have been “redacted in its entirety” somewhere within the trove of documents turned over by the government.
However, in communications sparked by Hunter’s 2016 inquiries, federal government officials appear to have been anxious about Hunter’s request. For example, a Commerce Department official assigned to America’s embassy in Rome wrote: “I want to be careful about promising too much. This is a Ukrainian company and, purely to protect ourselves, USG should not be actively advocating with the government of Italy without the company going through the [Commerce Department] Advocacy Center.”
The White House told the Times that then-Vice President Biden had no knowledge of his son’s inquiries. Hunter’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, acknowledged that Hunter asked US ambassador to Italy John R. Phillips and “various people” for help facilitating a dialogue between the president of Tuscany and Burisma leaders. “No meeting occurred, no project materialized, no request for anything in the U.S. was ever sought and only an introduction in Italy was requested,” Abbe told the Times. Burisma was pursuing a geothermal energy project. Though Burisma didn’t respond to inquiries, an unnamed businessman associated with the Italian machinations told the Times that Biden’s moves came when Burisma or partner entities were struggling to obtain regulatory approval for a geothermal project.
The initiative was also the subject of communications that were found in Hunter’s infamous laptop, which he abandoned at a Delaware repair shop. For example, Hunter business partner Eric Schwerin wrote an email to an Italian businessman who had connections to Tuscany’s president. “Burisma is hoping that some of its executives can get a meeting with the president to discuss their geothermal business in Tuscany,” he wrote in July 2016. Meanwhile, the government records seem to suggest a persistent effort by Hunter across multiple US government channels. “The Ambassador already replied to one letter from Mr. Biden. He may be shopping for more support than he got here,” a Commerce official emailed other federal officials.
To what extent did they push for the assault?
• Biden Admits ‘Direct Contact’ With Ukraine Over Assault On Kursk (RT)
Washington is in touch with Kiev about Ukraine’s ongoing incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region, which is creating a problem for Moscow, US President Joe Biden has said. Last week, Ukraine sent several thousand troops across the Russian border to seize a dozen villages and indiscriminately target civilians, according to Moscow. “I have spoken with my staff on a regular basis, probably every four or five hours for the last six or eight days and it’s creating a real dilemma for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” Biden told reporters on Tuesday, in his first remarks about the Kursk offensive. “And we’ve been in direct contact, constant contact with the Ukrainians. That’s all I’m going to say about it while it’s active,” he added. The US leader spoke just outside Air Force One, as he arrived in New Orleans. Earlier in the day, EU foreign policy commissioner Josep Borrell said that Kiev had the bloc’s “full support” for the Kursk offensive.
Washington and Brussels have previously responded to press inquiries about the events in Kursk by quoting generalities about support for Ukraine and unchanging policies. “We’re in touch with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we are working to gain a better understanding of what they’re doing, what their goals are, what their strategy is, and I’m going to leave a little bit of space for us to have those conversations before I try to characterize what’s going on,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on Friday. Later that same day, the US announced another $125 million in military aid to Ukraine. On Monday, however, Senator Lindsey Graham – a South Carolina Republican – went to Kiev and praised the Kursk incursion as “bold” and “beautiful.” He also urged retired Western pilots to enlist in the Ukrainian air force and fly NATO-provided F-16 fighters against Russia.
At least 12 Russian civilians have been killed and another 121 wounded by Ukrainian invaders, acting regional governor Aleksey Smirnov said on Monday. Ukrainian soldiers who spoke to Western outlets have admitted taking significant casualties in the invasion. They also said their objectives were to capture some territory that could be traded away in possible peace talks with Moscow, as well as to relieve pressure on the Donbass front. On Monday, Putin said that the Russian forces were actually advancing at a faster pace, while military enlistments were up because of the fighting in Kursk.
Failed.
• Ukraine Wants Talks Using Kursk Nuclear Plant Seizure as Ultimatum (Sp.)
The Ukrainian Armed Forces went on the offensive on August 6 to seize territory in Russia’s Kursk region, but their advance was stopped, said Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia’s General Staff. He stressed that the operation in Kursk will be completed by defeating the enemy and reaching the state border. Units of the Russian Armed Forces are in the Kursk city of Sudzha, which the enemy does not control but there are daily clashes, commander of the Akhmat special forces Apti Alaudinov told Russian media. “Today there are units of the Russian Defense Ministry in Sudzha. There is an enemy around and in some parts of the city. There are active clashes there every day. The enemy cannot say that he completely controls Sudzha, because he does not really control it,” Alaudinov said.
The major general also said that Kiev is planning on seizing the Kursk nuclear power plant on August 11 and use this to start negotiations with Moscow with an ultimatum. “We received very interesting materials — the whole layout of the operation, which was being prepared, by what forces and what was planned. What can I say: on the 11th [of August] it was necessary to take the nuclear power plant in Kurchatov… [Ukrainian President] Zelensky’s blitzkrieg, which was planned with the seizure of the Kursk nuclear power plant and already entering negotiations with an ultimatum… failed,” Alaudinov explained. The operation had not been completed, despite all the reserves directed by Kiev in this direction, Alaudinov said. “Most of the equipment has already been destroyed from what was deployed in the Kursk direction,” Alaudinov concluded.
There’ll be nothing left after Zelensky.
• Ukraine Has Defaulted – Fitch (RT)
Fitch Ratings has downgraded Ukraine’s credit rating to ‘restricted default’ on Tuesday, citing the expiry of a ten-day grace period for the coupon payment on the country’s $750 million 2026 Eurobond, which was due on August 1. The US-based credit-rating agency said it has lowered the rating on the 2026 Eurobond to ‘D from ‘C’ and affirmed the other foreign-currency bonds at ‘C.’ The downgrade comes after Kiev passed a law permitting the suspension of foreign debt payments until October 1. On July 18, the Ukrainian parliament approved legislation that allows the government to temporarily suspend payments on state and state-guaranteed external commercial debt until a restructuring agreement with external commercial debt creditors is completed. “This marks an event of default under Fitch’s criteria with respect to the sovereign’s IDR [Issuer Default Rating] as well as the individual issue rating of the affected security,” Fitch stated.
Rival US ratings agency S&P Global also cut Ukraine’s rating to ‘selective’ default on August 2. Ukraine has been negotiating with creditors a restructuring of its nearly $20 billion in international debt. A preliminary deal with a committee of its main bondholders was achieved on July 22, two weeks before the grace period for coupon payment expired. Kiev secured a preliminary deal to suspend debt repayments back in 2022 after the escalation of its conflict with Russia. The two-year payment moratorium on payments expired on August 1. Fitch had earlier projected Ukraine’s state deficit to remain high, at 17.1% of the country’s GDP this year, noting that defense spending amounted to 31.3% of its annual economic output in 2023. The agency expects government debt to surge to 92.5% of GDP in 2024.
According to the Ukrainian Finance Ministry, the country’s public debt surged by more than $1 billion in June, with its total volume now exceeding $152 billion. The International Monetary Fund in June revised downwards Ukraine’s gross domestic product forecast for this year to 2.5% from its April estimate of 3.2%, citing worsening sentiment among consumers and businesses over the course of the conflict with Russia.
“It is acting with complete, insouciant, contemptuous disregard for international law, conventions, and common morality..”
• Pro-Israel Lobby Overrides US Public Opinion on Gaza (Miles)
“It is most especially in the conduct of foreign relations that democratic governments appear to me to be decidedly inferior to governments carried on upon different principles,” wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 after his famous visit to the United States. The famed French political philosopher was impressed by the still-nascent experiment in self rule underway in the young country, walking away with numerous insights and accolades. But Tocqueville questioned whether the country’s democratic principles could extend to the realm of international affairs, writing, “foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which a democracy possesses; and they require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost all those faculties in which it is deficient.” Nearly two centuries later questions remain over the extent to which the popular will can dictate matters of foreign relations, which often require rapid and complex decision making.
Analysts claim the functioning of the US government has only become more opaque since the mid-twentieth century, with the development of nuclear weapons requiring an unprecedented level of secrecy that informed the creation of the modern-day “deep state.” Independent journalist Dr. Jim Kavanagh joined Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program Tuesday to discuss the Biden administration’s foreign policy and the growing gulf between public opinion in the United States and its actions on the world stage. “Israel has crossed all and everybody’s red lines,” Kavanagh wrote in a recent piece published on the website The Polemicist. “Israel is telling the world it will kill anyone and any number of people, anywhere, at any time of its choosing and it does not give a damn about what anyone in the world thinks of it. It is acting with complete, insouciant, contemptuous disregard for international law, conventions, and common morality, certainly of the people and nations it considers its adversaries and of the countries on whose support it depends.”
“Israel is only slightly less contemptuous of Americans than the Palestinians,” the journalist claimed, noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s skill in manipulating the United States to serve his interests. “Palestinians they consider subhuman and dispensable persons versus the Americans they consider necessary fools whom they have to pretend they’re interested in ceasefires and two-state solutions for because the Americans are stupid enough to believe it.” “They just got to keep the Americans around because the Americans are their patrons,” he continued. “The United States of America is the indispensable patron of Israel. They could not do anything that they’re doing without it. And we are completely complicit in it.” The longtime Israeli Prime Minister once claimed the United States is “a thing you can move very easily” in private comments secretly recorded in 2001. Since then the controversial leader has often publicly waded into US politics, perhaps most famously in 2015 when he gave a speech to a session of the United States Congress denouncing former President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
“..its most prized defensive weapon is part of a broader branding effort, rooted in techniques pioneered by Edward Bernays..”
• Cracks in the Dome: Israel’s Security Mirage (Raiss)
The Iron Dome, touted as Israel’s most-effective defense shield, was designed to project an image of security and technological superiority. Promoted as a cutting-edge mobile air defense system, it was intended to symbolize an impenetrable barrier safeguarding the occupation state from external threats. However, the reality reveals a different picture: much like a child in a knight costume – impressive against plastic swords but utterly defenseless against real weapons – the Iron Dome excels mainly against the relatively crude weapons of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Israel’s carefully-crafted image of its most prized defensive weapon is part of a broader branding effort, rooted in techniques pioneered by Edward Bernays. The occupation state has positioned itself as a cosmopolitan, progressive, and democratic society – in stark contrast to neighboring West Asian states, which it portrays as violent and repressive.
The Iron Dome is not just a defense system but also a psychological construct designed to reinforce the image of an invulnerable entity under constant threat from less enlightened neighbors. Despite its reputation, the Iron Dome’s performance has often fallen short. Numerous videos have surfaced showing malfunctions – the Tamir missiles performing erratic maneuvers, exploding near civilian areas, or being triggered by false alarms and causing damage to infrastructure. These failures contrast starkly with Israel’s claims of a 90–99 percent interception rate. Professor Emeritus Theodore Postal of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) offers a vastly different assessment. “I would say that the intercept rate is at best 4 or 5 percent,” Postal said in an interview with the Boston Globe last October. In a 2018 study published in the Journal of Global Security Studies, Michael Armstrong also questions the Iron Dome’s touted “90 to 99 percent” interception rate.
For starters, he clarifies that “the interception rate is the percentage of rockets destroyed before they hit defended areas; it ignores rockets over undefended areas.” In other words, the defense system is, from the onset, only targeting a small portion of the rockets fired. For example, Israeli officials claimed that of the approximately 1,000 projectiles fired into Israel by Hamas during November 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense operation, Iron Dome identified two-thirds as “not posing a threat” and only intercepted 90 percent of the remaining 300 rockets. Armstrong points out further holes in the calculations of Iron Dome proponents:
The empirical analysis suggests that Iron Dome batteries intercepted less than 32 percent of all hazardous rockets during Pillar of Defense, but between 59 and 75 percent during Protective Edge … The calculations further suggest the number of rockets hitting populated areas during Pillar of Defense may have been understated. The number of threats to populated areas, on the other hand, may have been overstated. This implies that Iron Dome’s effective interception rate may have been significantly lower than reported.
The situation is particularly dire in northern occupied territories, where the town of Kiryat Shmona – a settlement once believed to be under the Iron Dome’s protection – has seen its population flee from rising threats. Thousands of residents have abandoned their homes, exposing the vulnerabilities the Iron Dome was supposed to eliminate. With Hezbollah expanding its rules of engagement, the number of displaced persons is likely to rise, further exposing the system’s inadequacies. As Israel desperately scrambles to expand its defense options, the new solutions prove equally flawed, leaving the population vulnerable beneath a defense system that no longer lives up to its myth. The once-vaunted shield is crumbling, and with it, the carefully constructed narrative of invincibility that has long underpinned Israel’s security strategy.
No-one ever mentions their ad monopoly.
• FTC Hints Tech ‘Monopolist’ Google Should Be Broken Up (ZH)
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amicus brief in the Epic Games antitrust lawsuit against Google’s monopolistic behavior, suggesting that the court impose stringent actions against such practices. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 by developer Epic Games against Google. Epic claimed that Google violated antitrust regulations by monopolizing two markets: the market for distribution of mobile apps for Android users and the market for processing payments. In addition, Google benefits from gaining access to user data. “Google has thus installed itself as an unavoidable middleman for app developers who wish to reach Android users and vice versa,” Epic said. In December 2023, a district court jury in California ruled in favor of Epic, finding that the game developer proved that Google was in violation of antitrust laws. District Judge James Donato has yet to decide on what relief Epic should be provided.
Naveen Athrappully reports for The Epoch Times that on Aug. 12, the FTC filed an amicus brief in the case, suggesting how the court could consider remedies. Ensuring antitrust laws are strictly enforced “is essential for protecting and preserving economic freedom and the free-enterprise system,” the agency pointed out. “When a company engages in business practices that are found to violate the antitrust laws, courts are empowered to remedy those violations by ordering all relief necessary to restore competition in the affected markets,” it stated. This includes “identifying and requiring actions that the defendant must affirmatively take toward that end.” If companies violating antitrust laws reap the advantages secured through such actions, it will end up incentivizing other firms to engage in similar behavior, the agency warned. As such, the district court should ensure that the violating firm does not continue securing the benefits obtained via breaching antitrust rules, it stated.
Though it should be said that at no point does the FTC outright say that Google should be broken up, Duncan Riley reports via SiliconAngle.com, that any lay reader with a knowledge of U.S. antitrust law and English can reasonably come to that conclusion. And there’s more. “Looking forward in cases like Epic v. Google often requires the consideration of network effects, data feedback loops, and other key features of digital markets,” the FTC writes. “This could help ensure that potential competitors can overcome the advantages established digital platforms often gain, which include network effects and data incumbency.” But the real kicker comes towards the end. “Google’s monopolistic behavior has significantly harmed millions of users in the United States,” the FTC adds. “Allowing monopolists to reap the rewards of illegal monopolization while avoiding the costs of restoring the competition that they unlawfully eliminated would undermine deterrence.” There is a strong possibility that the FTC is hinting at a possible breakup of Google as a negotiating tactic; nonetheless, it should be taken seriously.
D*ck
If you aren’t randomly yelling WHERE THE F### IS MY D###, SANDRA?? across your house at least once a day, are you even living?
This is, hands down, the funniest thing you’ll see all week. Follow @marycatedelvey because she’s the funniest T3RF on this app. pic.twitter.com/5t5IV1qGHy
— Hazel Appleyard (@HazelAppleyard_) August 13, 2024
Trump Roseanne
https://twitter.com/i/status/1823751458988167540
AI
https://twitter.com/i/status/1823742501884453312
Mark Jon
https://twitter.com/i/status/1823790299061030988
Lesson
What lesson did you learn from this? pic.twitter.com/sTGzOq9GXc
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) August 14, 2024
Why?
Why?? pic.twitter.com/K8SJZvgVGP
— Nature is Amazing ☘️ (@AMAZlNGNATURE) August 13, 2024
Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.
