#4
Look at how perfectly round, evenly spaced and perfect the pans are.
"A 50 cow" isn't a misspellling, it's AI.
It's supposed to be 50 cal, as in caliber.
Always watch the shadows, AI can't do shadows well, not yet anyway.
I'd like to see the AI prompt that made this video, the secret to good results is good prompts.
If they were really filming it would be in the Golden Hour just before sunset, when all outdoor filming gets done.
#5
The phrase "50 cow" is a humorous internet joke, not a real firearm or ammunition type. It plays on the similarity between "50 cal" (short for .50 caliber) and the phrase "50 cow," referencing the idea that a .50 caliber round is so powerful it could easily kill a cow.
#7
The video is not AI slop. The channel is Yee Yee on YouTube, and these nutbars really do shoot things. They’re somewhere here in Texas. There’s some really cool slow motion videos of the .50 cal going through the skillets.
[NatalieGWinters] This isn’t retirement. It’s the reward.
They take care of each other. But now that the government spigot is closing, its their own money they’re passing from hand to hand, and ever less of ours.
Former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has quietly taken a role as a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an institution long entangled with Chinese influence networks, foreign government funding, and open-borders activism.
Previously led by former CIA Director William Burns, the think tank has whitewashed his historically awful tenure at DHS:
“In that position, he led 260,000 employees to achieve transformational change in a diverse set of missions, including counterterrorism and physical security, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, trade and travel, immigration, and response to natural disasters. He has been lauded for his leadership skills, raising employee morale to historic heights while leading the workforce through unprecedented crises and challenges.”
Here’s why the timeline and funding sources are concerning.
1) Carnegie’s Documented Ties to the CCP
For over a decade, Carnegie has maintained a documented relationship with the China‑United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) — a core instrument of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department, whose stated purpose is to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition” and steer foreign elites toward Beijing’s preferred positions.
The record shows:
CUSEF sponsored CCP officials to speak at Carnegie
Carnegie leadership published repeatedly in CUSEF’s journal, China-US Focus alongside PLA officers and CCP officials
Even after direct donations ended in 2017, institutional collaboration continued
Carnegie’s Beijing-based Carnegie-Tsinghua Center remained fully operational throughout this period, staffed with scholars employed by Chinese government institutions and senior fellows with explicit CCP government ties, including former officials from Beijing’s Foreign Affairs apparatus and advisers to China’s Ministry of Commerce.
These relationships were not incidental. They were structural.
The rest of the headings:
2) “Track 2 Dialogue” With Institutions Now Formally Run by the CCP
3) Soros Money and Open-Borders Ideology Fund the Institution That Hired Him
4) From Writing Immigration Policy to Taking Foreign-Funded Rewards
5) While Still DHS Secretary, Mayorkas Was Already Briefing Carnegie’s Trustees on Migration and Security
6) This Appointment Is the Score — Not the Side Gig
#7
Gosh, Jairong at #3, I thought it was the Chinese, and Bill Burns. He's not Jewish, is he? Sounds like a good, old fashioned WASP. Read the whole article, not just the headline. You could learn a thing or two at Rantburg but try not to be so annoying.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/10/2026 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mikhail Kolovangin
[REGNUM] The resignation of the British Prime Minister's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, has become one of the most high-profile political events for Keir Starmer's cabinet and has turned the recent scandal surrounding former Ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and paedophile Jeffrey Epstein into a direct threat to the entire government.
The British authorities are trying to pretend that this change is a routine personnel decision, but in reality it is an attempt to localise a crisis that hits where it hurts most, raising the question of political responsibility for a risky appointment to an important post.
REASON FOR RESIGNATION
Labour's key strategist and de facto right-hand man McSweeney has announced his resignation, admitting that it was he who recommended Starmer appoint Mandelson as British ambassador to the US.
In a statement, the politician directly called this personnel reshuffle a mistake and admitted that Mandelson “ damaged the party and the country.”
The resignation follows a new wave of document publications revealing the extent and nature of Mandelson's links to the late American financier and criminal Epstein.
And it was a response to growing pressure from both the opposition and the Labour Party itself.
"RANDOM" CONNECTIONS AND THE DOMINO EFFECT
The origins of the crisis date back to December 2024, when Mandelson, a New Labour veteran and one of the architects of Tony Blair's success, was appointed British Ambassador to the United States. It was already known then that he maintained contact with Epstein even after his first conviction in 2008, but these connections were presented as superficial and casual.
The situation changed in the fall of 2025, when letters and emails between Mandelson and Epstein were published in the US: in them, the British diplomat called Jeffrey his “best friend,” discussed his legal prospects with him, and, according to a number of media outlets and politicians, actually pushed for a mitigated sentence.
An additional blow came from reports that Mandelson had shared sensitive economic information with Epstein in his previous ministerial posts.
In September 2025, Starmer was forced to remove Mandelson from his post as ambassador, and the diplomat himself issued a series of belated apologies, admitting that he had continued communicating with Epstein “far longer than he should have.”
.
The Mandelson scandal has automatically spilled over onto the prime minister himself. Starmer's critics and political opponents are asking the same question: was he aware of the depth and nature of these connections at the time of his appointment?
Some of the documents, which became public in 2025–2026, clearly indicate that by the time Mandelson took the post in Washington, London was already aware of his continued communication with Epstein after the 2008 trial.
This allows opponents to claim that Starmer deliberately overlooked the moral side of the issue for the sake of a convenient, experienced, and influential politician in Washington. For a former prosecutor who built his image on slogans of legality, transparency, and "new standards" in politics, such an accusation is especially damaging.
Over the past few weeks, pressure on the prime minister has been mounting. A series of revelations about Mandelson's emails, questions about the possible leaking of confidential information, and renewed attention to Epstein's victims have turned the story into a test of Starmer's political and moral leadership.
In Parliament, there are not only calls for an independent investigation into Mandelson's appointment but also direct hints at the prime minister's resignation: some Labour MPs are openly speaking of a "loss of confidence in the leader's statements," while the opposition is portraying the situation as yet another example of elite double standards. The media is increasingly using phrases along the lines of "the most serious crisis of Starmer's tenure."
TARGET FOR THE PRESS AND OPPONENTS
Against this backdrop, McSweeney looks like someone deliberately taking the heat to at least partially "deflect the fire" from the prime minister. In his statement, the politician emphasizes that he was the one who advised Starmer and convinced him of the wisdom of appointing Mandelson, and therefore he is the one who should bear the political responsibility.
At the same time, the former chief of staff makes it clear that he remains loyal to the government's course and to Starmer personally. This is a classic "lightning rod" formula in British politics: admitting the personal error of a close ally in order to preserve the illusion that the leader, despite having trusted poor advice, still remains above the scandal.
It is telling that in his public statement accepting McSweeney's resignation, the Prime Minister limited himself to the standard words of gratitude and emphasized the politician's "dedication, loyalty and leadership," which played a key role in Labor's election victory.
However, in his speech, Starmer never mentioned Epstein or Mandelson, preferring to speak in the most impersonal terms about “difficult decisions” and “the need to move on.”
Compared to his separate apology to Epstein's victims a few days earlier, this looks like a deliberate media strategy: acknowledge a moral error in general, but don't directly link the resignation of a key ally to Epstein's toxic personality.
A LIFELINE FOR STARMER
The question being asked in London and beyond is simple: will McSweeney's resignation save Starmer himself, or will it merely delay the inevitable political crisis?
On the one hand, Labour still has a huge majority in the House of Commons, and it is not easy to mechanically change the leader in the absence of an obvious alternative.
On the other hand, a combination of factors such as falling ratings, scandal fatigue among some members of the faction, and pressure from the media is creating a situation typical for Westminster, where one high-profile episode can trigger a chain reaction of intra-party rebellion.
McSweeney's resignation may temporarily pacify the most radical critics, but it doesn't address the core question: Why did a man with a legal background and a claim to moral leadership allow this appointment in the first place, and why did his instincts fail him precisely where the issue was not only about politics but also about issues directly related to sexual violence and exploitation?
Ultimately, the resignation of the prime minister's chief of staff appears to be less the final point of the scandal than an interim resolution intended to demonstrate to the public and the party that the person responsible has been found and a sacrifice has been made.
Whether that is enough will depend on the outcome of the parliamentary inquiry and whether new evidence emerges about Starmer's role in promoting Mandelson, as well as how deeply the shock of the Epstein story has taken hold in British society.
If no new revelations follow and the economy gives the prime minister a respite, he has a chance to weather the storm.
However, if it turns out that he knew more than he is willing to admit publicly, or if a decision is made within the British establishment to update the cardboard cutouts of politicians to reduce the level of discontent, then McSweeney's resignation will be only the first, but not the last act in a long political drama.
[JTN] It’s Financial State of the Cities 2026 report examines the fiscal health of the cities of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York City, with New York City again leading the U.S. with the greatest taxpayer burden.
The five largest cities in the United States, all led by Democrats, did not have enough money to pay their bills in 2024, according to a new Truth in Accounting report first provided to The Center Square.
It’s Financial State of the Cities 2026 report examines the fiscal health of the cities of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York City, with New York City again leading the U.S. with the greatest taxpayer burden.
The analysis is based on the most recent audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports from fiscal year 2024. It assesses the amount of money city governments need to pay their bills, dividing this number by the estimated number of city taxpayers. The difference is the taxpayer burden, or what every taxpayer owes in order to pay off the city’s debt, TIA explains.
According to the data, New York City residents have the highest taxpayer burden of $61,700, followed by Chicagoans’ $42,600, Philadelphians’ $17,000, Houstonians’ $4,800 and Los Angeles residents’ $1,300.
Each city’s financial reports are different and not apple-to-apple comparisons.
“Because of varying state laws, cities operate under complex and varied governmental structures, making comparisons difficult and reducing transparency,” TIA say. “For example, New York City includes its school district in its financial reports, while Chicago Public Schools are reported separately. If Chicago and the public school system were combined, it would significantly change Chicago’s reported numbers. These structural differences can obscure what is included in city financial reporting, making it harder, if not impossible, for voters to assess city financial performance when voting.”
TIA has historically issued reports evaluating the top 75 most populous cities every year. This year, the report focuses on the top five cities because “prior analysis found that the five largest cities accounted for over 80 percent of total city debt,” it explains.
At the end of fiscal 2024, all five cities didn’t have enough money to pay their bills despite having balanced budget requirements. In order “to claim their budgets were balanced, as is required by law in the five cities, elected officials” didn’t include “the full cost of government in their budget calculations and shifted costs onto future taxpayers,” TIA said.
Combined, the five cities had $144 billion in assets; their combined debt, including unfunded pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB), totaled $384 billion. Their combined shortfall was $240 billion, according to the analysis. This included $92 billion in pension debt and $112 billion in OPEB, mainly retiree health care, debt.
A “common and pressing challenge persists” in all five cities, the report notes: “long-term costs of pensions and retiree health care benefits continue to strain their financial health despite short-term improvements or varying circumstances.”
“While investment gains have temporarily eased pension liabilities in cities like New York City and Houston, these gains remain unrealized and uncertain,” it says. New York City’s growing retiree health care obligations “remain vastly underfunded,” as do the other cities’ it notes.
“Chicago exemplifies the consequences of chronic pension underfunding, with liabilities exceeding assets and recurring budget shortfalls,” it adds.
“Los Angeles and Philadelphia, which have made progress in funding, face limitations in financial flexibility due to increased capital investments and rising expenses,” it adds.
The report also grades each city based on its taxpayer burden. New York City and Chicago received F grades; Philadelphia received a D; Houston and Los Angeles received C grades for fiscal health.
The 32-page report expounds on city pension systems, city retirement promises and calls on Congress to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to safeguard private sector pensions.
It also makes recommendations for local governments related to preparing financial reports and encourages citizens and the media to “hold leaders accountable.”
Posted by: Skidmark ||
02/10/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1782 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
[DailySignal] The practice [of using fetal tissue from elective abortion] and the promises predate Roe v. Wade. In over 100 years of fetal tissue research, not a single cure has been developed, and this more-or-less medieval research tool has produced only equivocal results even in basic biological studies.
Snip
A further backlash against the use of tissues and cells from elective abortion was seen in the rejection of COVID-19 vaccines by a large swath of the American people for ethical reasons. As opposed to the despotic mandates of the Biden administration, simply acknowledging these concerns and creating vaccines using non-fetal cells, technologies which already exist, would have garnered public appreciation for the pharmaceutical industry, not to mention a larger share of the public getting vaccinated.
More on stem cells, especially for the moms out there
[SaintPaulVI] ..fetal cells persist in maternal blood and tissues postpartum and "may respond to maternal injury" by helping the moms heal themselves reinforces what I have called "the hoplite phalanx effect" of pregnancy.
[LaughingWolf] Iran has been a powder keg for a while now, and I’m truly surprised efforts to end the rule of the mad mullahs didn’t kick off a year or so ago. So I was unsurprised when things did start to blow up and an effort begun to bring back a return of the Shah. Sadly, I now think that may fail and do so because the President did not keep his word. This has implications far beyond Iran as well.
First, let me state yet again that I do not believe we should put boots on the ground. While it would be great to get rid of the mullahs, it is something that has to come from inside, and there are hundreds of thousands who have taken to the street — and tens of thousands who have died. Our support of that needs to be logistical and via eliminating certain infrastructure, preventing troop movements, and related.
Someone is already doing that, on a limited scale, and I have an idea who is doing it. That said, more is needed and we can do such via airpower. Some very good thoughts are over at The Lawdog Files here, here, and here. Think I linked to them before, but doing so again as they are good reads. But, again, and again, and again: freedom can’t be brought in or imposed from the outside via boots on the ground, it has to come from the inside.
Thing is, President Trump told the Iranian public that he had their back, to take to the streets and if the regime tried or started to kill them, he would strike. That was weeks ago and as I said before, the deaths appear now to be in the tens of thousands. Machine guns and more are being used; militia from Iraq have been brought in to help control certain regions; and, Arabic troops/mercs have also been brought in. The revolution is now in danger of failing, at least in my opinion.
Something to consider is this: at the start, when Trump first called for them to take to the streets, America was in a good position both to help and to have a very good relationship with the Shah and others in the new government. Now, we do not and will not enjoy such as the people are remembering that America’s word really isn’t worth much in the Middle East. As the blood flows thicker and deeper, the willingness to trust and work with the U.S. is dropping. If the revolution does succeed without the promised American help, the relationship with the U.S. is going to be rather cool — and there will be plenty of countries helping push that.
Worse, right now the mullahs feel emboldened because Trump/the U.S. hasn’t kept it’s word. They see the desire to negotiate as weakness. If the revolution fails and all they see are games being played with drone tracks, they are going to take that as a go signal to speed up efforts to restore nuclear development and go nuclear, as well as to go all in on terrorism by proxy. The downsides are severe, and the damage to the reputation of both Trump and the U.S. can’t be overstated. It will likely end effective foreign policy for this administration.
I have suspicions as to what has been going on, and I truly hope that Qatar does not have its hooks into certain members of the administration. Sadly, there is a lot of damage done right now regardless of the source. A promise was made, a red line set, and nothing done when the mullahs gleefully crossed it. There is still time, but a lot of damage has been done and it will take more than words to undo it.
What is happening is an unforced error on the part of the administration. One that has serious implications for stability and peace in several parts of the world. If the mullahs fall, it changes the calculus on Russia/Ukraine, it cuts a number of nasty terrorist groups off from major funding and operational assistant (and remember some of them were operating out of Venezuela), and it ends one of the most serious nuclear threats out there. If they don’t fall, and we don’t act, all of that gets put on steroids and we will be lucky if it only redoubles.
Not words I thought I would be writing when this started, but words that need to be said. I think Trump is getting some very bad advice and I have questions about the intel he is getting on operations and the numbers of Iranians killed by the mullahs. It would have been far better if he had kept his mouth shut and not made a promise he wasn’t going to keep. There is still time to turn things around, but it is fast running out.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
02/10/2026 07:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1758 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
