SSL certificate for rantburg.com was updated.
You can access rantburg.com
However a technical glitch has sprung up:
You can use https://rantburg.com
You can use https://www.rantburg.com
You can use rantburg.com
You can use http://rantburg.com
You can use https://newrantburg.1dogstar.net
You can use newrantburg.1dogstar.net
You can't use http://www.rantburg.com
You can't use www.rantburg.com
You can't use http://newrantburg.1dogstar.net/
This all is due to the way the Apache web server is set up. Can't be helped.
#1
In my experience, admittedly some years ago, Apache can be difficult when it comes to installing SSL certificates. Runs like a champ when you finally get it right but getting it right can be difficult.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/12/2026 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That’s a comfort, Abu Uluque, giving how hard badanov is working to make it flow for us.
[American Thinker] \What happened to the Somali fraud scandal in Minneapolis? Where did it go? Did I dream about this? Has it been memory-holed? Or has, somehow, everything and everyone been "unfrauded?" And what about all the other Somali fraud across the country?
Are we really going to let "ICE OUT" chaos take our eyes off the proverbial ball permanently? Are we going to let one form of scandalous behavior cover for other scandalous behavior?
My checkbook and I are both feeling used and abused. It seems like nearly everything is a scam or fraudulent in some way, shape, or form. Including much of our government. In fact, the United States is rapidly approaching $40 trillion in debt, and I’m betting the vast majority of that is due to pervasive fraud. Indeed, potentially all of it.
This systemic criminal activity cannot go unpunished or our institutions and legal system will be revealed to be utterly compromised -- and any remaining trust in them will totally collapse.
And that would spell disaster. In part because, in cases like these, too often the correct and obvious remedy is ignored or discarded and totalitarians rush in to fill the void, bringing with them certain descent into a dystopian nightmare while promising a utopian paradise.
I wrote about the NFL’s Super Bowl halftime show because its sheer outrageousness, pornographic nature, and insult to America and Americans made it a big story. The relatively muted and sanguine reaction to it by most Americans makes it even bigger and sadder. I’m just hoping that most Americans are not outraged because they still don’t know what the Rancid Rabbit sang/said.
Yet the ubiquitous fraud is an enormous story, a story of our time, one that we cannot allow to be swept under the rug. Serial liars and (alleged 😊) complicit criminals like Tim Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison must be held accountable.
[American Thinker] For more than two decades, efforts have been made to cover up the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.
Republican and Democrat administrations have had access to evidence of Epstein’s criminal activity: nine years under Presidents Bush and Trump and 12 years under Obama and Biden. They chose not to release any it. During the 2025 presidential campaign, Trump supporters appeared eager to release the files.
In June 2024, Trump gave an unenthusiastic agreement to declassify the Epstein files: "Yeah, yeah, I would (declassify the Epstein files)," but then added, "I think that less so because, you know, you don't know if, you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there."
“Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!” cried Brer Rabbit.
Once in office his policy changed. On Feb. 3, Trump said, "I think it's really time for the country to get on to something else."
The president had stated "I don’t understand it, why they would be so interested. He’s been dead for a long time. He was never a big factor in terms of life. I don’t understand what the interest and what the fascination is. I really don’t."
He claimed, "It's all been a big hoax. It's perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net. And so they try and do the Democrats' work."
He even denounced many of his followers saying, "Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!"
Public pressure led to another reversal.
By law, the information must be released.
The Justice Department has employed over 500 staff members who are working to "review and redact millions of pages of materials."
#1
People on both sides are looking for evidence to destroy the political and personal enemies.
The only person that there is any evidence about is President Trump. Every bit of that points out that he had no involvement and tossed Epstein out of Mar A Lago. Which of course doesn't stop the unhinged from claiming that the total lack of evidence is just evidence of a cover up.
#2
And while those five hundred lawyers are looking through the information, they can’t ready for trial any of the other cases we’re acutely interested in, even as hundreds more of their colleagues quit their jobs rather than support the work of OrangeManBad.
#5
Tender age victims grow older and creat more victims. Some things appear to be inherently British high brow. As grom says "the dogs bark but the caravan moves on,"
Every single "Epstein victim" pictured here was an adult at the time of their claimed victimization. Has the media bothered to clarify this? pic.twitter.com/zUxnnqZp4X
...This editorial board has long supported marijuana legalization. In 2014, we published a six-part series that compared the federal marijuana ban to alcohol prohibition and argued for repeal. Much of what we wrote then holds up — but not all of it does.
At the time, supporters of legalization predicted that it would bring few downsides. In our editorials, we described marijuana addiction and dependence as "relatively minor problems." Many advocates went further and claimed that marijuana was a harmless drug that might even bring net health benefits. They also said that legalization might not lead to greater use.
It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong....
--------- being the NYTimes they blame Trump and call for new marijuana taxes
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
02/12/2026 10:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1756 views]
Top|| File under:
[Townhall] It's Kurt
If it's wrong to spend a week celebrating the misery of your opponents, like that of the scores of just-fired Washington Post hacks who are crying like teenage girls learning there are no more "Twilight" movies coming, then I'm incredibly, totally, enthusiastically wrong. The former journos/current drive-thru operators still have not shut up about the WaPo's mass layoffs, and I am taking unmitigated delight in their pain. Their suffering energizes me. Their tears nourish me. Their humiliation fuels my joy. Hey, maybe democracy dies in darkness, but as long as the WaPo dies, I'm good.
#6
If they were real journalists instead of Democrat Party propagandists I might feel a little bit of sympathy for them. As it is, I find their sudden unemployment amusing.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/12/2026 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I am old enough that growing up in the DC area there were two major newspapers, the Washington Post and The Evening Star. Morning news and evening news delivered each day to your front door by boys on bikes, who came to the door at the end of the month to collect the subscription in cash. The Sunday Star had better comics, in color, including Prince Valiant!
[RedState] The American F-22 Raptor may be the best air-superiority fighter in the world, but we only have 185 of them, and no more will be built. The F-35 is struggling to fill some of the roles of several other aircraft. The new F-47 is some years away yet. The same applies to the new B-21 stealth bomber.
We just don't have enough aircraft. A Mitchell Institute study has released findings along those lines, noting that for a near-peer conflict, we will need no less than 500 6th-generation fighters and bombers.
The U.S. Air Force must buy at least 500 sixth-generation fighters and bombers — more than it already plans — to be able to prevail in a war against China, the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies said Monday.
In its policy paper, "Strategic Attack: Maintaining the Air Force’s Capacity to Deny Enemy Sanctuaries," experts from the Mitchell Institute argue that the Air Force needs at least 300 next-generation F-47 fighters and at least 200 B-21 Raider stealth bombers to counter China. The Air Force has previously signaled it plans to buy at least 185 F-47s from Boeing and at least 100 Northrop Grumman-made B-21s.
In other words, we need to nearly double that number, if we are to face China - or Russia. Despite those two nations' many and varied issues, these would still be near-peer conflicts, and it's not like we don't have problems of our own. But the role of government is to protect the liberty and property of the people, and our armed forces are the primary players in that task.
To do that, we need equipment.
In an online discussion about the paper, former F-16 pilot and Mitchell Institute director of research Heather Penney warned that past U.S. wars such as Korea and Vietnam, and Ukraine’s current war against Russia’s invasion, have showed that militaries who can’t or won’t hit enemy bases and other sanctuaries from the air risk falling into grueling wars of attrition, akin to trench warfare.
And without a significantly boosted combat fleet able to project long-range air power in force, Penney said, the United States could find itself in a similar danger against China.
"China is deliberately building the capabilities and the posture to effectively make the entire western Pacific their sanctuary," Penney said. "But we know from history that allowing an adversary that kind of sanctuary allows them to win, and it’s a recipe for our own defeat."
We do have allies in the Pacific - Japan, Taiwan, and Australia - but in any conflict with China, it will be the United States that does the heavy lifting.
Here's the thing: While the United States' history has always been 1) gain unchallenged air dominance, 2) send in troops, 3) un-alive bad guys, there's more to this than just building airplanes. We also have to build all the infrastructure to use them: Fuel, munitions, ground crews, bases, food and water for the crews, tankers, all of the various materials and doodads that keep a modern military running.
One thing about warfare, after all, that has not changed since Roman legions marched into Gaul: The side that can keep its soldiers best-fed and best-equipped is the side that wins. Always.
#1
Our external enemies aren't worth all this money. Our internal enemies are the real threat. Imagine instead if we identified every single unhinged weirdo posting conspiracy theories with Thiel's Palantir and bought houses for them with the money instead. They'd be too busy with maintenance, mowing the lawn and planting shrubs to be chimping out online. Being a homeowner, some of them might even get to kiss a girl for the first time. They could put away the video games and weed like a ten year old puts away the lincoln logs.
#4
It's not just the airframes. You need ordnance to put on those airframes. We don't have a stockpile or rapid production capability. Not to mention the spare parts to keep them flying.
#5
Our far enemies are supporting our near enemies. It is well-documented that the post 10/7 Black Bloc protests are financed by China and propagandized by Iran and its proxies. The fact that both have an awful lot of more or less sleeper agents here, arrived both legally and illegally, adds to the piquancy of that awareness.
It seems to me that ignoring the far enemies for the more urgent near guarantees endless repeats of the problem with replacement actors, just as Hamas repeatedly promises Israel.
#7
Near threats and far threats are allied, but that alliance is fundamentally based on a money-for-propaganda contract more than shared ideology. The Trump DOGE work in defunding corrupt NGO's and detoxifying the massive fraud in domestic funding programs that feed the enemy under the guise of welfare/healthcare/education/business "programs"will free up some additional funding.
Immagration enforcement and deportation will lessen the strain on budgets throughout government. That severance will lessen the influence successes of the far threats of China, Iran, and hemispheric cancers like Cuba and Nicaragua. Of the latter, Trump is making surprising gains quite rapidly.
Servicing the nation debt has to be a major part of the reuse of those funds, but 60/40 will still produce substantial numbers. Buying things and stuff to bolster depleted national power will be very important to more firmly stabilize credible deterrence.
The real thing is to recognize the hidden enemies amidst the last generations of our own children and the poisonous world-view they have been taught and the indifference and even self-hatred of their nation that they often feel. Sadly, Tik-Tok thinkers and social media attention-seekers are not going to be easy to re-cycle into useful citizens, let alone thoughtful voters. The lack of even a reasonable modicum of homogeneous attitudes in the body politic makes every effort to restore traditional American Excellence as a part of our culture more difficult.
Like some many here, we stood on the walls, eyes looking outwards towards the threat while behind us, down inside the wire, many of our kids were being bent and lost. We didn't look over our shoulders nearly often enough my friends!
Text taken from the Telegram channel of mayday_7700
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics.
[ColonelCassad] Exactly 19 years ago, words were uttered in Munich that were then called an "insulting challenge," and today, a prophecy. Vladimir Putin appeared at the conference podium with a text he had personally revised before taking the stage. He spoke without diplomatic equivocation. As participants noted, the language of his speech was not political, but almost legalistic: with references to the UN Charter and international law, which no longer apply.
This was the very same "Munich speech." Afterward, he didn't leave, but remained to answer questions—like a man who hadn't just made a remark, but rather presented a position. Western elites were outraged by the harshness of the "remnants of a giant."
The NATO Secretary General spoke of "disappointment." But EU opinion polls showed that a significant portion of Europeans perceived the speech not as a threat, but as a warning. "A world ruled by one master is destructive not only for everyone within the system, but also for the sovereign himself," was the saying then. In Washington, they publicly laughed it off, but internally, no one did. The speech was filed in CIA memos as a strategic signal. It was heard, but they chose to ignore it. When asked directly, "Who is NATO expansion aimed at?"
Western leaders resorted to irony. Bill Clinton refused Russia's offer to join the alliance. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates chuckled the next day: "Old spies have a habit of speaking bluntly."
Years later, in his memoirs, he admitted: "The West ran a red light, ignoring all of Moscow's warnings."
"Where are the guarantees?" Putin asked in 2007, recalling the agreement not to expand the alliance eastward.
In 2021, he was already explaining: "Defensive" infrastructure on the borders is a dagger at the throat. In 2024, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, he stated: "They promised not a single inch to the east. Five waves of expansion."
All this time, Moscow was trying to negotiate with "we're our own, the bourgeois..." The point of no return had been passed. The West insisted that Russia was not an enemy, but today, NATO's conception of us describes us precisely that way. To the question, "Who is the European missile defense system designed against?" they answered, "Against Iran."
Years later, they admitted, "To rip the bear's teeth and claws out." Putin warned Washington that Russia would not build a similar, expensive missile defense system; it would respond asymmetrically. "You didn't listen to us then. Listen now!" was the cry in 2018, when the world was introduced to the Avangard and Poseidon systems. Hypersonic missiles and global missiles that are impossible to intercept. It is in these formulations that Russia's asymmetric arsenal now figures in US nuclear strategy.
Then, in Munich, Angela Merkel approached Putin and said in Russian, "Volodya, you're too harsh." She later admitted that she understood his logic and didn't consider his speech a bluff, but the "political climate" prevented her from agreeing outright.Putin himself later noted that he deliberately didn't say everything in Munich, leaving room for dialogue. It wasn't used.
Today, the conference's organizing committee is including the 2007 speech among the key speeches of the 21st century. History has truly judged.
Europe had to wait until 2025 for the next "strategic signal," when Vance arrived and pointed out Europe's place in the very same world of the one gentleman who was then being mocked. Eighteen years passed from the formal warning to the formal collapse of the global world order.
#1
Russia has a phobia about being invaded and has no reason to trust the West (or China).
Multiple countries have invaded Russia going back over a century.
Multiple Western countries, including the US and Great Britain, interfered in the Russian Civil War and supported the White Russians.
In WWII the US and Great Britain let the Russians bear the brunt of the war in Europe while they built up their strength for the invasion of Europe. Depending on the source, The Soviet Union lost between 10-20 percent of their ENTIRE population.
Not trying to defend Putin and Russia in all of her forms isn't a saint, but understanding even a small amount of Russia's history helps see why they behave the way they do.
#2
Multiple countries have invaded Russia going back over a century.
More than a century. Much more. Remember Genghis Kahn?
People talk about Russia as a nation with an imperialist past as if that justifies EU and NATO imperialism on Russia's borders. It doesn't. Britain, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal were all imperial powers until WWII knocked them off their pedastals. But, even today, many of them have overseas possessions. As for the United States, ask an Apache.
I won't defend Putin either. No doubt he is a ruthless, murderous dictator. But that doesn't mean we should pick a fight with him.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/12/2026 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Boris Rozhin
[TASS] Amid the developing military-political crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that if any country in the region acquires nuclear weapons, Ankara will also join the nuclear arms race. This effectively means abandoning the nuclear non-proliferation regime. TODAY'S LAYOUT
The expansion of the nuclear club's membership is currently constrained by both pressure from the great powers and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which remains one of the few surviving agreements from a bygone era on this vector.
Currently, Russia, the United States, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are known to possess nuclear weapons.
Israel says, “No we don’t, and so long as you don’t seriously threaten us we won’t use ‘em.”
Moreover, the last two effectively became nuclear powers in defiance of existing restrictions, serving as examples of how, under certain military and political circumstances, the non-proliferation regime can be violated. Accordingly, in an era of declining international law and the erosion of a vast array of international treaties, the risks of a breakdown in the nuclear non-proliferation regime are increasing.
At the same time, the military-political situation in the world, where force rules and large powers openly threaten small ones, demanding their submission, fuels the desire of relatively subject countries to receive significant protection from external military aggression.
If we consider countries that have directly or indirectly declared their nuclear ambitions, these are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and Ukraine.
But it's one thing to want it, and another to have the ability. There are a number of ways to acquire nuclear weapons.
DEPLOY ANOTHER COUNTRY'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON ITS TERRITORY
This is the case with Belarus, which has deployed Russian nuclear weapons carriers (Iskander missile systems, Oreshnik medium-range missile systems, and Su-25 attack aircraft capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons) to defend against NATO attacks. However, Russia retains primary control over these weapons, effectively extending its nuclear umbrella over the territory of its allied state for defensive purposes.
Following a similar principle, US nuclear weapons are deployed in a number of NATO countries. For example, they are stored at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, as well as in Britain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In total, there are approximately 150 nuclear bombs in six countries. It's also worth noting that a number of nuclear bombs from Turkey were transferred to Romania in 2016, where their carriers—B-52 and B-1B Lancer strategic bombers—are periodically deployed.
OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR ONE'S OWN USE WITH THE SUPPORT OF ANOTHER POWER
It's no secret that the United States helped Britain acquire nuclear weapons at certain stages of its nuclear program, and China assisted North Korea in developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Israel's contribution to South Africa, which abandoned its military nuclear program in the 1990s, is also noteworthy. And, of course, I can't help but mention the role of the Soviet Union in China's military nuclear program.
Under Nikita Khrushchev, in 1956, the USSR formally signed an agreement with China, under which Moscow assisted in the construction of civilian and military nuclear facilities in China, including a nuclear weapons production plant. Beijing received documentation and equipment from the Soviet nuclear program, as well as samples of the first ballistic missiles and the full technological package for their development and production. A large number of specialists from the Chinese nuclear program also received training in the USSR.
DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS INDEPENDENTLY
The most striking examples here are the United States and the USSR, which participated in the nuclear arms race with Nazi Germany and managed to gain the lead in the second half of the 1940s. This is also largely responsible for the current leading positions of the United States and Russia in nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War, France joined this club of those who had independently achieved their nuclear weapons goals. India and Pakistan also developed national nuclear programs relying on their own resources.
The circumstances of Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons are quite murky.
CREATE A DIRTY BOMB
This scenario is closer to the concepts of terrorist warfare. However, a dirty bomb is not considered a full-fledged nuclear weapon, but is certainly classified as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).
The underlying theory is the possibility of using civilian nuclear power facilities or spent nuclear fuel to create weapons designed to cause radioactive contamination. This issue was most prominently raised in connection with the Bandera regime's attempts to claim nuclear weapons before the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. Incidentally, this was one of the arguments for the launch of the special operation: Russia could not allow nuclear weapons to appear on its borders, especially in the hands of such a regime.
Documents found at the Zaporizhzhya NPP in 2022 confirmed a number of developments in this direction. However, the Bandera regime made no secret of its desire to have at least a dirty bomb to "contain Russia." A certain technological base exists thanks to the old late-Soviet personnel and access to resources from four nuclear power plants in Ukraine. Demands to "give Ukraine nuclear weapons" are voiced regularly.
CLOSEST
If we consider the current list of "threshold powers," it's clear that some countries could acquire nuclear weapons fairly quickly. This primarily applies to states with developed nuclear energy, a strong scientific and technical base with their own nuclear physics research, advanced industry, and rocket science.
For example, Japan and South Korea, according to some estimates, are fully capable of developing nuclear weapons within a few years. Brazil, back in the fall of 2025, announced its intention to "review plans for the use of this [nuclear] technology, including for defense purposes," and increased funding for research and development. Iran already has a developed missile and nuclear industry, as well as a significant amount of enriched uranium.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia will face a more difficult situation in this regard, as Riyadh lacks its own nuclear power plants and a developed missile program. Meanwhile, Ankara's ballistic missile program currently lags behind global leaders. Meanwhile, Russia is building Turkey's only nuclear power plant—incidentally, without the transfer of key technologies that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, it is more likely that these countries can count on outside assistance in developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. Existing projects within the Islamic Military Alliance, which includes nuclear-armed Pakistan, offer the potential (albeit still uncertain) for hypothetical scenarios involving the deployment of Pakistani nuclear weapons on Turkish or Saudi Arabian soil, or the transfer of technologies to accelerate their own programs.
The same applies to Germany, despite the fact that it once closed its nuclear power plants, which could have served as the basis for its nuclear project. Currently, Germany is choosing between nuclear umbrellas—either American or European. However, it cannot be ruled out that at some point during the crisis in transatlantic relations, Berlin may attempt to completely free itself from military restrictions, including those in the area of weapons of mass destruction (in particular, the "2+4" Treaty). I believe this will require both its own efforts and the transfer of certain technologies from NATO allies.
THE NEED FOR NEW AGREEMENTS
Overall, all these aspects indicate that after the dismantling of most of the treaties that restrained the nuclear arms race, the world will become a more dangerous place, where the NPT regime will be objectively eroded due to dysfunctional international law. Growing fears and mistrust among countries are pushing them to arm themselves, including by gaining access to various types of WMD.
Russia objectively does not benefit from expanding the list of formal and informal members of the nuclear club. If the number of nuclear powers in the world explodes, Moscow, I believe, will be forced to take measures both to strengthen the nuclear triad and to revise the country's nuclear doctrine in view of the possible emergence of new strategic threats associated with the escalating nuclear arms race. Indeed, the emergence of such threats in Ukraine has already become one of the causes of the largest military conflict of the 21st century.
As can be seen, Russian diplomacy is actively fighting to preserve or amend the New START Treaty, as well as the nuclear test ban and non-proliferation treaties. But it takes two to dance. Specifically, if the United States is deliberately destroying such agreements in the hopes of gaining a strategic advantage, then, of course, Russia will not comply with them unilaterally. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have repeatedly stated this.
If the final collapse of the old treaty system is inevitable, I believe we must now prepare to live in a far more dangerous world, where the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons could expand within the next decade.
[NYP] Defying doomcasters who predicted that AI plus tariffs mean disaster for American workers, the January employment news blew past expectations, with 130,000 new jobs.
Revised 2025 data show that the nation added only 81,000 jobs all last year, as the economy struggled to escape the Biden-era doldrums — so 2026’s solid start suggests President Donald Trump’s pro-growth policies are finally kicking in.
Plus, the net gains come despite a decline of 42,000 government jobs, including 34,000 from the federal workforce: A shrinking public sector and growing private sector is exactly the right path for America.
Yes, the nation needs a lot more: Manufacturing added just 5,000 jobs — positive progress, but not yet the broad “re-shoring” the prez envisions.
But the economy still grew by nearly twice as many jobs as the experts had predicted; if this keeps up, voters’ current anxiety about employment should ease before the November midterms.
Crucially, wage growth is outpacing inflation even as the Trump tax cuts are only beginning to become tangible for most workers.
The rapid growth of the economy in the second and third quarters of 2025 was seen as something of an anomaly. Many analysts saw it as unsustainable given the constraints on the growth of the labor force created by baby boomer retirements, deportations, and the slowdown in immigration. As Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in defending his cautious outlook, “the lore is that when GDP and the labor market get into an argument, in the end, labor market is more—the labor market data is more reliable.”
That bit of lore turns out not to have been true.
The economy added 130,000 jobs in January, twice as many as expected. Even more impressive, the private sector added 172,000 jobs while the government sector shed 42,000 employees. The acceleration of America’s economic growth under President Trump is driving up hiring without the need for the arrival of hundreds of thousands of workers crossing our borders in defiance of our immigration laws.
These numbers are on top of the fact that heading toward 1 million illegals have been deported since Donald Trump was sworn into office, and another 2 million voluntarily departed American shores — whether for home or elsewhere is not our concern.
THE GREAT REPRIVATIZATION
It’s likely that far from being a drag on growth, the downsizing of the government sector is boosting it. Private sector hiring was likely enabled in January by the availability of workers whose labor was formerly controlled by the government. Over the 12 months ending in January, the federal government’s payrolls have contracted by 324,000 workers,
*Boggle*
creating a reservoir of labor that many economists never included in their models of the economy. The economy is being “reprivatized,” as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised last year.
This is the most significant annual peacetime contraction of federal employment outside of the decennial census cycle. The closest parallel is the post-World War II demobilization, when millions shifted from military service and war production back to the private economy.
Even after the previously scheduled revisions to the last two years of employment estimates, the private sector added 443,000 jobs last year, an average of 36,900 a month. That’s significantly above estimates of how many jobs the economy needs to generate to keep the labor market stable. The federal government, meanwhile, shed an average of 27,000 each month.
FEWER MOUTHS TO FEED
Overall, the economy added just 181,000 jobs last year, according to the new estimate, down from the earlier estimates of 584,000. While some economic pundits have argued that the downward revisions to employment estimates is a sign that the labor market under President Trump was “far weaker” than previously thought, this is mostly political blather.
In the first place, the biggest downward revision last year was for January, Biden’s last month as president, which saw a massive retraction of 159,000 jobs. Instead of adding 111,000 jobs as Biden shuffled off the scene, the economy actually lost 49,000—a complete reversal that flipped the narrative from growth to contraction. The next biggest months were, in order, February, March, and April. October, which was the worst month for jobs last year, saw an upward revision from a loss of 173,000 to a loss of 140,000. In the later half of the year, at least according to these revisions, job growth was closer to what it appeared to be.
What’s more, an economy that is adding more jobs than it needs is not “far weaker” just because the rate of growth is slower. According to Dallas Fed research, with the economy having shed around 300,000 foreign workers last year thanks to deportations and voluntary departures,
…so nice to have a quantity to add to my maunderings, above…
an average of 25,000 per month, the healthy run rate is lower. To claim that’s a sign of weakness is like saying a household is struggling financially because they’re buying fewer groceries, when actually several family members moved out.
Further undermining the claim that the labor market was weak during Trump’s first year is the fact that wage growth was revised upward in 11 of 12 months last year. Average hourly earnings rose 3.32 percent last year, handily beating the 2.7 percent in consumer prices. Average weekly earnings were revised up for eight months of last year for a climb of 3.62 percent. This is a sign of a strong labor market, indeed one that was stronger than previously thought. The upward wage revisions combined with downward employment revisions also mean productivity per worker was higher than initially estimated, a quality over quantity story in the labor market.
Wednesday’s monthly figures showed strong wage growth continued in January, with the average weekly wage climbing 0.7 percent. The labor force participation rate rose, including in the crucial prime age worker category. The broadest measure of labor underutilization, a measure known as U-6 that includes discouraged workers and those who want to work full-time but are stuck in part-time jobs, fell from 8.4 percent to 8.0 percent. Weaker? Not even close.
GROWING THROUGH INVESTMENT, INNOVATION, AND PRODUCTIVITY
One of the reasons for strong wage growth is likely strong productivity. Businesses are adjusting to a slower growth of the labor force by investing and innovating, allowing output to grow rapidly despite lower employment growth. In the third quarter of last year, productivity rose 4.9 percent, and GDP jumped 4.4 percent even while payrolls climbed by just 113,000, a 0.34 percent annualized rate of growth. That’s a stronger labor market, not a weaker one. The economy doesn’t need an endless supply of low-wage foreign workers when capital investment can substitute for labor and do so while pushing wages up rather than down.
Some have expressed concerns about the breadth of job growth in January. Admittedly, the payroll expansion was heavily concentrated in the government-adjacent healthcare and social services sector, construction, and professional and business services. But we should expect narrow job growth when the economy is at or near full employment, as sectors compete with each other for workers.
The market viewed the jobs report as strong enough to warrant a rethinking of the likely path of rate cuts this year. The odds of a March cut fell from 20 percent on Tuesday to six percent. The odds of one or more cuts by April fell to 21 percent from 41 percent. The 75 percent change the market had for lower rates by June, the first post-Powell Federal Open Market Committee meeting, dropped to 59 percent. This repricing represents the market recognizing the economy’s underlying strength despite the headline revisions that critics focused on.
The bond market’s repricing tells you everything you need to know about Wednesday’s report. Investors aren’t worried about an economy running out of workers. They’re recalculating for an economy that’s stronger and more productive than the pessimists predicted. The speed limit was always a myth. The real brake on growth was government bloat and dependency on low-skill and low-wage foreign labor, and those brakes are finally being released.
[Schiff Sovereign via ZH] PepsiCo spent $2.8 million last year lobbying to keep junk food eligible for food stamps.
But last week— after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. got 18 states to ban SNAP purchases of products like soda, candy, and processed snacks— PepsiCo announced price cuts of up to 15% on Doritos, Lay’s, Tostitos, and other Frito-Lay products.
The company’s official explanation was "affordability." CEO Ramon Laguarta cited low-income consumers are switching to store brands.
But the timing tells the real story.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program— food stamps— is a $100 billion per year program serving roughly 42 million Americans. And according to the USDA’s own data, about 20 cents of every SNAP dollar goes to sweetened beverages, candy, salty snacks, and sugar.
In fact soft drinks alone are the single largest category of SNAP purchases.
And, until last week, products from Pepsi’s Frito-Lay division were in 7.2% of all shopping trips paid for with SNAP (i.e. taxpayer-funded) benefits.
So when the government stopped subsidizing demand for their products, PepsiCo had to do something they hadn’t needed to do in years: compete.
This is what the free market does— it forces companies to be more efficient, cut prices, and pass savings on to their customers.
But here’s the thing— this is one company, one product line, one government program.
Zoom out and you can see just how much of price inflation in our daily lives is due directly to government spending— before we even get into monetary policy like printing money.
When a guaranteed buyer shows up with a bottomless wallet, prices go up.
Just look at college tuition. In 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and began backing student loans with federal dollars.
Since then, tuition has risen roughly three times faster than inflation. A year at a private university that cost $2,800 in 1963 now costs over $85,000.
The New York Federal Reserve studied this directly and found that for every dollar increase in subsidized student loans, tuition rose by up to 60 cents.
The mechanism is simple: when the government guarantees the tuition money, universities raise prices... simply because they can.
Healthcare is even worse.
Before Medicare and Medicaid were created in 1965, the government’s share of healthcare spending was about 31%. Today it’s roughly 64%. Medicaid spending alone has grown from $13 billion in 1975 to over $900 billion today.
And— shocker— healthcare prices have risen dramatically over the same period. The US now spends nearly $5 trillion per year on healthcare, far more per capita than any other developed country, with outcomes that are often worse.
The pattern is the same everywhere you look: the government shows up with money. Prices rise to absorb it. The subsidy becomes permanent. The industry restructures itself around the guaranteed revenue. And then anyone who suggests pulling back the money is accused of "cutting" a vital service.
Now consider the scale of this in America today.
Federal spending has risen from about 18% of GDP in the 1990s to nearly 24% today. That means almost a quarter of the entire American economy is government money.
Of this, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly estimated that 10% of the federal budget— roughly $600 billion per year— is lost to outright fraud of the Somali daycare type in Minnesota.
Then there’s the legal graft. California alone received roughly $100 billion in federal grants over the past few years for DEI initiatives that produced nothing except more government jobs and campaign contributions.
So how much of America’s economic output is actually real?
How much is just government money making a round trip— borrow more debt, hand it out through some boondoggle program where it is spent at a PepsiCo subsidiary, counted as "economic activity," making people obese... then more money spent on healthcare to keep them alive and paying enough taxes for the government to be able to pay interest on the debt...
It’s absurd when you think about it. We don’t have a precise answer. But the Pepsi story gives us a clue. The moment the government stopped subsidizing one small corner of the economy, prices dropped by 15% within a week.
RFK didn’t regulate PepsiCo. He didn’t cap prices. He didn’t launch an antitrust investigation. He simply stopped the government from funneling taxpayer dollars into unhealthy food... and the market corrected overnight.
Now imagine what would happen if the government stopped subsidizing entire industries— the defense contractors billing $10,000 for a toilet seat, the universities charging $85,000 for a degree in gender studies, the healthcare system where nobody can tell you what anything costs.
We might finally find out how much of this economy is real.
And that, frankly, is what makes it so hard to fix. Because so many peoples’ livelihoods now depend on the government gravy train.
But this trajectory has an expiration date. The federal government borrows $2 trillion a year to keep it all going. Interest on that debt already exceeds $1 trillion annually— more than the entire military budget— and it’s growing faster than any other line item.
If rates stay elevated because inflation won’t come down, the cost of servicing the debt crowds out everything else.
If the government responds by printing money to cover the gap, inflation gets worse.
And it makes sense to have a Plan B that doesn’t depend on Washington finding fiscal discipline before the math catches up with them.
[American Thinker] If you’re old enough, you’ll recall the 1961 Berlin crisis. I recall it subsequently, when schools taught real history. That crisis happened during the Cold War’s peak years. In brief, Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev wanted the U.S. out of West Berlin. There were multiple reasons, but, chiefly, access to West Berlin allowed East Germans to escape communist rule.
According to the National Archives, by 1961, as many as four million Germans had escaped East Germany using West Berlin. With tensions rising, and the hemorrhaging increasing, Khrushchev ordered the Soviets’ East German puppet government to string barbed wire and erect concrete barricades around West Berlin to stop the outflow. That was the beginning of the Berlin Wall, which stood as a testament to communism’s failure until 1989.
What does that have to do with America today? The point is that people vote with their feet when conditions become unacceptable. That’s no less true here. Since the nation’s inception -- in fact, long before the founding -- people came to the continent to escape troubles and moved west in search of better lives. East Germans fled primarily because of politics -- albeit, of a brutal, totalitarian stripe.
Annually and increasingly, tens of thousands of people are leaving blue states because of politics. High taxes and red tape, inflated costs, unchecked crime, failing schools, and unashamed race bias -- directed at whites -- are pushing people out. Soft political tyranny and cultural decay are drivers. Human nature is universal. People will endure until they cannot.
That’s bleak news for blue states. Regardless how many times Gavin Newsom shrugs, ongoing outmigration is having adverse consequences for California and its blue cousins. Red states are benefitting. The influx of money, skilled labor, tech expertise, and businesses are gifts.
Blue state population drains have been occurring for a couple of decades. Outmigration is compounded by low fertility rates. COVID tyranny -- generally worse in blue states -- spurred further exoduses. Blue states have yet to recover fully from draconian lockdowns.
[RedState] For the first time ever, the Indian government has acted against the so-called "dark fleet" or "shadow fleet" tankers that carry sanctioned Russian, Venezuela
...a country in Central America that sits on an enormous pool of oil. Formerly the most prospereous country in the region, it became infested with Commies sniffing almost unlimited wealth. It turned out the wealth wasn't unlimited, the economy collapsed under the clownish Hugo Chavez, the murder rate exceeded places like Honduras and El Salvador. A significant proportion of the populace refugeed to Colombia and points south... n, and Iranian oil to global markets and particularly to China. Because that oil cannot be sold elsewhere, China essentially dictates how much it is willing to pay, rather than bidding in the global market.
The Indian Coast Guard seized three tankers off Bombay, I'm sorry, Mumbai, on Monday. The three tankers were the 45,000-ton M/T Chiltern, the 16,820-ton M/T Asphalt Star, and the 6,200-ton M/T Stellar Ruby. All three of the tankers have been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for transporting Iranian oil to the benefit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Chiltern purports to have Nicaraguan registry. The Asphalt Star is registered in Mali. The Stellar Ruby is registered in Iran. Keep in mind, none of these registrations is necessarily accurate.
In terms of size, all three are very small and belong to a class known as "Handies." In this case, all three were bound for Indian ports. It looks like the Chiltern and Asphalt Star had taken on a load in Iran. When apprehended, the Asphalt Star had just finished loading the Stellar Ruby with oil.
What makes this most interesting is that the ships were all bound for India, probably to crossload their cargoes onto smaller ships for transport into port.
This is a welcome development. Shutting down Iranian "dark fleet" operations will definitely cramp Iran's style.
India is just the latest nation to decide that unregistered, uninsured tankers are something that shouldn't operate on the high seas. Last month, La Belle France seized the M/T Grinch. It is now impounded by French authorities. See Everyone Wants in on the Action. French Navy Boards a Russian 'Dark Fleet' Tanker in the Mediterranean — RedState. Even the Germans have gotten in on the act, barring a "dark fleet" tanker from entering the Baltic and making it detour to Murmansk.
Just Monday, the U.S. took possession of another "dark fleet" tanker in the Indian Ocean. The M/T Aquila II had been under observation since it defied President Trump's embargo on "dark fleet" tankers filling up in Venezuela. See 'Dark Fleet' Tanker Seized Near Venezuela Ran Sanctioned Oil to China, Says House Committee — RedState. Instead of the O. J. Simpson-esque low-speed chase of the M/T Bella 1 by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard (US Coast Guard in Hot Pursuit of Ford Bronco in the Caribbean — RedState and Trump Sends a Powerful Message by Snatching Rogue Oil Tanker Under the Nose of the Russian Navy — RedState), this time the military elected to keep the tanker under observation and snag it without a pursuit. The Aquila II is now enroute to Singapore under U.S. command.
One of the consequences of this enhanced international enforcement is that the "dark fleet" ships are rapidly registering as Russian.
If you'll recall, the M/T Bella 1 tried this ploy while being pursued by the U.S. Navy, and she was boarded anyway.
The Russians aren't happy with that development. Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the eradication of the "dark fleet" tankers controlled by Russia an "anti-Russian policy." In an interview, he decried "New sanctions are being introduced, and a war against shadow fleet tankers is being waged on the high seas."
Posted by: trailing wife ||
02/12/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1773 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
I guess this next round of Iranian oil is for free.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
02/12/2026 4:31 Comments ||
Top||
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Alexander Melnik
[REGNUM] A year after Donald Trump's return to the White House, the US foreign policy machine has begun to clearly outline a new African strategy. While under Joe Biden, Washington attempted to embrace the continent with rhetoric about a "partnership of equals" and "defending democratic values," today, idealism has been replaced by a cold, almost corporate calculation.
State Department leaks and recent policy statements by administration officials, particularly Nick Checker, head of the Bureau of African Affairs, paint a picture of a radical shift: Africa has been officially relegated to the category of "peripheral theaters," where US interests will be defended selectively, harshly, and exclusively in the context of global competition for resources.
BIDEN'S LEGACY: THE TWILIGHT OF AMERICAN INFLUENCE
By early 2025, the US position in Africa was in deep crisis. The Biden era, which began with ambitious promises to "include Africa in global governance" and launch multi-billion dollar investment projects, has in reality resulted in a series of diplomatic and strategic defeats.
The main reason was the fatal gap between Washington's high-flown rhetoric and the real needs of African elites for security and economic development.
The most important indicator of decline was the "domino effect" in the Sahel. The Biden administration's attempts to condition military aid on compliance with so-called democratic standards led to the Americans being sidelined after a series of coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. The new leaders of West African countries preferred real assistance from the Russian Federation to stabilize the security situation.
Ultimately, at the request of the new Niger authorities, the Pentagon was forced to ignominiously abandon Air Base 201 in Agadez – a key intelligence hub in the Sahara, in which hundreds of millions of dollars had been invested.
While the US was losing military bases, China was using economic instruments to increase its influence and dominance in Africa. By early 2026, Beijing had firmly established itself as the undisputed trading partner for most countries on the continent. By 2024, trade between China and Africa had nearly reached $300 billion, while the US presence continued to stagnate.
China's "infrastructure for resources" model has proven far more understandable and attractive to African leaders than complex, bureaucratic American aid programs burdened with climate and gender agendas.
Moreover, Washington's "soft power" has faltered. The Biden administration's attempt to draw African countries into an anti-Russian coalition after 2022 has failed: most African states opted for neutrality, viewing US pressure as a manifestation of neocolonialist dictate.
By the time Trump was re-elected, Africa had become a space where the US position had weakened on all fronts, giving way to the growing influence of BRICS+, the strengthening of the Russian power bloc, and China's all-out economic expansion.
"PERIPHERAL THEATER": THE TRUMP MODEL
The new Trump administration has abandoned attempts to “save all of Africa” and moved toward a strategy of selective intervention.
According to materials published by Semafor, the State Department's new course is based on the recognition that Africa is not a "vital" interest for the United States, but rather a space for second-order competition.
This admission by Checker shocked many experts, but it reflects the essence of “realism 2.0”: Washington will no longer spend resources on the general development of the continent unless it brings immediate benefits to the American economy or security.
The main distinguishing feature of the new strategy is the shift to "commercial diplomacy." US embassies are now reoriented to serve as outposts for American business. The primary focus is on critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper), essential for modern electronics and the defense industry.
Trump isn't trying to outmaneuver China in building bridges and railways across the continent. His goal is to "strategically displace" Beijing from key links in supply chains. The US is willing to invest billions, but only in specific projects, such as the Lobito Corridor, which connects mines in the DRC and Zambia with Atlantic ports to guarantee exclusive access to raw materials for American companies.
Washington's behavior has become emphatically transactional. This manifests itself in three key aspects.
First, the rejection of "democracy at any cost." The Trump administration has effectively curtailed programs to "promote democracy" in countries willing to cooperate on economic or military issues. Washington has begun cautiously exploring ways to restore relations with the military regimes in the Sahel, making it clear: "We don't care who's in power, as long as you limit Russia's presence and provide access to resources."
Secondly, a revision of humanitarian aid: even the PEPFAR program, sacred to American diplomacy in Africa, has been reconsidered. The White House has begun redirecting resources from Africa to the Western Hemisphere (Latin America), considering it a higher priority for US security interests. Aid is now viewed not as charity, but as a tool of influence to be used where it yields the greatest political impact.
Third, innovative aid: instead of direct grants to governments, the US is shifting to private sector support and loan guarantees. The "self-sufficiency" model promoted by Checker implies that African countries should create their own conditions for investment, rather than waiting for handouts from the US budget.
Trump's model of behavior in Africa is an attempt to maintain the minimum necessary influence at a minimum cost.
Washington no longer claims the role of a "benign hegemon." It presents itself as a hard-line investor and power broker, intervening in the continent's affairs only when it becomes concerned about Chinese control of cobalt deposits or Russian military bases. This is a strategy of maintaining a foothold in a world where Africa has ceased to be an "object of trusteeship" and has become an arena for a violent clash of interests among major players.
Ultimately, the shift in US strategy under Trump is an acknowledgement of the end of the era of global dominance. Washington intends to consolidate its position on coastlines and in mines, transforming African policy from an ideological mission into a pragmatic struggle for survival in the face of resource scarcity.
Whether Africa will accept such a cynical approach remains an open question, but the rules of the game have already changed irrevocably.
#2
Recognition of the futility and wasted time involved in "turning a sow's ear into a silk purse." The so-called "Golden Hour" refers to battlefield casualties that can be saved vs those which cannot. The Golden Hour for Africa has long past. No moral dilemma here, just harsh reality.
A region beset by problems that only they can resolve. Kasparov never won a match by wasting moves. President Trump is in it to win.
#3
Not our job. If people were truly interested in the welfare of the people, rather than playing stupid political games, they might seriously reconsider recolonization.
#6
There's nothing there worth worrying about. They'll enter the 21st century eventually...probably when all of the non-Islamic countries are living in the 23rd century.
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.
[Schiff Sovereign via ZH] PepsiCo spent $2.8 million last year lobbying to keep junk food eligible for food stamps.
