Conference Board Consumer Survey Signals Ugly Job Market, Weakest 'Present Situation' In Over 5 Years

Amid a plethora of revisions (lower), The Conference Board's measure of Americans' Consumer Confidence rose very modestly in June (from 90.6 to 91.2 - a big miss on the headline print's expectation of 94.4).

However, while Expectations rose to their highest level of the year, the Present Situation tumbled to its lowest since March 2021...

“Consumer confidence inched up in June as falling oil prices in recent weeks provided some relief to consumer inflation fears,” said Dana M Peterson, Chief Economist, The Conference Board.

“Consumer appraisals of current business conditions were slightly more positive compared to last month.

However, perceptions of the current labor market softened measurably as the percentage of consumers saying jobs were ‘hard to get’ rose to 22.5%, the highest level since January 2021 (22.8%).

Moreover, consumers anticipate little change in the labor market six months from now.

This was offset by improving expectations for business conditions and incomes.”

Consumers’ average and median 12-month inflation expectations were less elevated...

Among age groups, confidence for consumers under age 35 remained the highest, but confidence for all age groups trended downward on a six-month moving average basis.

By income, on a six-month moving average basis, confidence was mixed or little changed across all categories.

By generation, confidence fell the most for the Silent Generation but was stable or lower for others on a six-month moving average basis.

By political affiliation, confidence among Independents and Democrats rose while Republicans were somewhat less positive on a month-over-month basis.

Consumers’ write-in responses on factors affecting the economy continued to skew towards pessimism in June.

References to prices and oil and gas eased in frequency but remain elevated. Mentions of war, geopolitics, and conflict eased, reflecting some easing of consumer concerns about the inflationary impacts of the war in the Middle East.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:16

Today Will Or Won't See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be "Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not"

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Build 'em up or Burnham down?

In typical form, today will or won’t see a US-Iran meeting in Doha; which will be ‘perhaps important, perhaps not’; and either discussing the MoU or unfreezing $6bn of Iranian assets. So, the ‘peacefire’ continues, as expected, but with little chance this holds permanently. Likewise in Lebanon, where the US is pushing to disarm Hezbollah --which refuses-- and Israel won’t leave until that happens. And Gaza, where the Board of Peace is finalising its plans as the IDF warns Hamas is readying for war. And Iraq, which just set a September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm. And Libya, where Marco Rubio is fighting another crisis. To give an early Christmas present to Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Israel also says it’s developing space lasers.

That’s as South Korea announced a $1.3 trillion AI and IT investment plan to maintain an edge vs. China over the next decade – which is showing footage of a 6G fighter jet and conducting tests of a hypersonic ramjet that can change shape in flight; China has restricted dual use exports to Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Komatsu units; Supermicro’s Taiwan offices were raided in a chip smuggling probe; and a Rakuten-led group is set for state subsidies to build Japan's answer to Starlink. In short, what we see around us is as about massive, urgent investment in defence and AI as much it is about related energy (i.e., Hormuz), broader commodities, and supply chains.

That’s unbelievably expensive to address. For example, the US is pushing for a $1.5 trillion defence budget, while keeping up with South Korea alone would require Europe to invest $14 trillion to match it equivalently. Tellingly, the UK will today unveil its new defence strategy, which shifts to cheap drones from larger platforms --guided missile destroyers and frigates are cut-- as outgoing PM Starmer presides over a plan that will only reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, not the promised 3.0%; some say he wants to run NATO next (to tell his successor he must reach 3.5%).

So, we may soon require:

• Creative book-keeping: Hungary’s new PM claims his predecessor hid half of the budget deficit, which is actually 8% of GDP.
• Spending cuts: and good luck with that.
• New taxes: France is now looking for EU-wide taxes to fund a planned €2 trillion commission budget, with the idea that foreign firms, like US tech and polluters, could pay more.
• Tariffs: last week, US Treasury Secretary Bessent cited Hamiltonian economic statecraft; yesterday, White House macro-maven Miran penned a WSJ op-ed arguing for US tariffs. The EU just gave China an October deadline to address their huge --and predictable-- trade imbalance, kicking the can down the road, but pointing to a trade war and/or Hamilton (and Trump) moment ahead, which could prove transformative. Even Paul Krugman is telling the EU to tariff China.
• Industrial policy: which is very much back in vogue, even if what this means is vague for many.
• A compliant central bank: There, the Supreme Court just overturned precedent to allow the White House to remove heads of federal agencies, greatly empowering the executive. It kept FOMC member Cook in her seat for now until due process plays out but did not address whether “for cause” removals at the Fed are also constitutional or not, allowing Trump to restart the process of trying to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud and, in time, to potentially relitigate if the Fed is a special case or not.

The ECB’s Lagarde, who years ago said the Bank should work hand-in-hand with governments to overcome geopolitical crises, just stated Europe is getting better at coping with economic shocks due to a better financial framework and the green transition. European refineries’ flexibility on jet fuel helped; but China did more by not importing as much oil, and the US and Japan by draining their SPRs, all due to *their* economic statecraft. Now the risk is rising of a China cut-off of rare earths to Europe, which account for half its total (and Russia a quarter), and of more expensive Chinese imports across the board. What if that transpires from October onwards – and if we get more war vs. Iran after the US midterms?

In the UK, the question is ‘Build ‘em up or Burnham down?’ as the soon-to-be UK PM just called to “rewire” the UK economy. He’s talking about devolution - which hasn’t boosted growth in Scotland; equalisation across regions – which most countries want but fail to achieve; (expensive?) public control of utilities; and reindustrialisation – in a period of protectionism and bloc-based realignment. In short, is the UK going to tariff everybody, or the US, or Europe, or China? Logically, one should start from there, not locally, only to then hit a low tariff ceiling on the attempted way back up.

In short, political economy remains in flux. Markets don’t think things through in such detail or depth: whatever happens is an input into the ‘up or down from here’ binary. However, the scale on which things can move up or down based on how political-economy transforms shouldn’t be understated. JPY is at a 40-year low vs. the dollar at time of writing: where will other crosses go as things unfold?

Yet even as politicians --and central bankers-- try to relearn things from first principles, revolutionary change can reshape the architecture which they think they are operating in. For example, regular readers may recall that years ago I floated the idea of letters of marque as a way to channel private sector energies and capital into national security without busting budgets or political constraints like no boots on the ground. On that note, see the following proposal taken from X and think about it seriously:

“A durable solution to the Iran problem is pretty easy:

1. Form the American Persian Energy Company (APEC)
2. Give 25% to Exxon and Chevron, who will capitalize it and provide expertise
3. Ground invasion of Iran, but only with volunteer troops who will be compensated with APEC stock
4. US military provides air cover and logistical support
5. Defecting Iranian generals will also be compensated with a quantity of APEC stock dependent on their rank and the number of soldiers they bring with them
6. All oil and gas rights in Iran are granted to the APEC
7. New $2 trillion American company is created out of thin air
8. Iran temporarily governed by APEC CEO while a transition to a suitable civilian government is negotiated”

If you think this kind of thing doesn’t happen (anymore: it used to) then you haven’t noticed how 18th and 19th century thinking is not just back in vogue but is actively winning vs. the post-Cold War political establishment consensus; or how modern mercenaries like Blackwater operate.

Political economy is changing; it will change much, much more; and markets will change with it. The volatility we are seeing in the Hormuz ‘peacefire’ is just a taste of what’s to come. Some assets will be built up. Others will be burned down.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:00

As Affordability Fears Mount, $100,000 Salary Considered Low-Income In 7 California Counties

A six-figure salary is considered low-income in a handful of California counties, according to the 2026 income limits set by the state’s Department of Housing & Community Development.

These new income limits, which took effect June 23, are used to calculate the cost of affordable housing for certain state housing assistance programs.

Most counties saw an increase in the cutoff for what is considered low-income, and seven counties—Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Orange, and Santa Barbara—had their cutoffs set at six-figure amounts.

As Cynthia Cai details below for The Epoch Times, Santa Cruz County has the highest cutoff, with a limit set at $122,200 for a single-person household. This is a nearly 10 percent increase from the previous year, which set the low-income cutoff at $111,100.

For each additional person added to the household, the income cutoff is adjusted so that “income limits should be higher for larger families and lower for smaller families,” the Department of Housing & Community Development wrote in its memo.

Following Santa Cruz are three more coastal counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin.

These three counties have cutoffs of $117,700 for single-person households, which is also an increase from the previous year’s limit of $109,700.

The low-income limit in Santa Clara is set at $113,700 for single-person households, and in Santa Barbara it is set at $102,000.

Two counties, however, are maintaining their low-income cutoffs from last year. Solano County will continue to use $76,950 as its limit, and Shasta will continue to use $54,500.

These figures come as housing and affordability remain top issues for residents.

“California home prices continue to be much more expensive than the rest of the US,” the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported in its 2026 Housing Affordability Tracker.

A mid-tier home, or the average-value middle-market property, costs around $775,000 in California, according to the LAO. That’s nearly double the national average of $398,771 for a mid-tier house, according to Redfin.

The Golden State saw a rapid home price increase of 14 percent per year during the pandemic from 2020 to 2022, the LAO stated. But home price growth has slowed down since then. The average price of a mid-tier home is currently increasing by approximately 1 percent per year.

“While home prices have stabilized, housing has become less affordable for most Californians in recent years” due to incomes failing to keep pace with the increase in housing costs, the LAO added.

As a result, only about 23 percent of households would qualify for mid-tier home mortgages in 2026, down from roughly 31 percent in 2019.

The state’s low homeownership and higher-than-average rental costs and home values were also noted in a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which said the state “has a housing problem.”

“Homeownership is the second lowest in the nation, and housing has become a dominant reason people leave the state,” the report states.

“Two of every three Californians say the cost of housing is a ‘big problem’ in their part of California.”

Ownership is particularly low among young adults, with about 31 percent of people between 30 and 34 years old reporting owning their own home. The national average for homeownership among that age group is about 49 percent.

Rental costs in California also exceed the national average by about 40 percent, the PPIC reported. The average cost to rent is about $2,159 in California compared with the national average of $1,526.

The PPIC noted that coastal cities face the highest costs, and large numbers of people are relocating inland, where costs are lower but housing supply struggles to keep up with demand.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 05:45

"White Time": Dutch Professor Argues That Time Itself Is Racist

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in the expressions, images, or entire fields. It was, therefore, only a matter of time before time itself was declared racist.

Zakia Essanhaji, a professor of “organizational ethnography” at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is the latest to make the case against “white time.”

Her recent paper titled “Academic time theft: stealing time, producing racialized inclusion in Dutch academia” builds on prior work condemning time as racist.

Rutgers Women’s and Gender Studies/Africana Studies Professor Brittney Cooper has also written about how time is racist. Mainstream media has positively cooed at the suggestion, including an interview with NPR. Cooper claimed that “white people own time” after framing the concept of time in “histories of European and Western thought.”

There is also apparently black time: “Time has a history, and so do black people. But we treat time as though it is timeless, as though it has always been this way, as though it doesn’t have a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.”

Likewise, in “The Chronopolitics of Racial Time,” Jamaican academic Charles W. Mills described the  “Euro-chronometer” as a Western-centric, linear timeline.

These works are often heavily laden with jargonistic narratives. In one study from Brazil, academics argue that “thinking of time outside and against the Euro-chronometer requires decolonial epistemologies that have the potential to disrupt racist chronologies.”

Professor Essanhaji continues this scholarship by “drawing on critical race theory and decolonial scholarship on chronopolitics and white time.” She applies with earlier work “to academic time theft to theorize how universities extract, fragment and defer the time of academics of colour through racialized institutional processes.”

“White time is not simply the time of the privileged, but the power to define temporality and progress itself. It is the colonization of time, known as the system of modernity/coloniality. As Vazquez […] argues, this system is maintained by erasing cyclical or relational understandings of time, ensuring that time is perceived as racing towards unattainable, more modern futures. In that sense, white time is both prescriptive and pre-emptive, foreclosing alternative futures and experiences of the past by delegitimizing other temporalities.”

Academics have long argued that non-white histories and figures are often “erased’ in scholarship. Such arguments have led to a move away from Western works or classics in favor of non-Western sources in higher education. However, the time scholarship suggests that the very construct of time has been shaped and furthers white domination and privilege.

In Professor Essanhaji’s work, this scholarship is used to challenge the demands placed on minority academics in publishing and other measures of academic achievement. Again, the work is heavily layered with jargonistic language. Here are her findings:

“The analysis identifies three mechanisms of academic time theft. First, prolonged uncertainty operates through racialized precariousness that keeps academics of colour in a condition of academic probation through insecure contracts and housing precarity. Second, ongoing disruption emerges through everyday racism that fragments attention, diverts emotional and intellectual labour, and interrupts academic continuity. Third, recursive evaluation operates through the continual resetting of inclusion and promotion criteria, producing perpetual states of “not yet” recognition and deferred academic futures. Together, these mechanisms sustain racialized temporal regimes in which academics of colour are positioned as perpetually “almost there” while white institutional time remains uninterrupted.”

These authors largely cite each other with little attention to countervailing viewpoints. It becomes a closed, self-perpetuating system as academics invite one another to speak at their universities and feed off one another. Few academics are willing to challenge such scholarship. Indeed, as we have discussed, departments have largely purged their ranks of conservative or contrarian voices.

As shown in this latest scholarship, the work in this area jettisons such “colonial” or “white” forms of analysis in favor of storytelling:

“I depart from a critical race perspective, employing counter-storytelling to construct (counter)narratives grounded in the lived experiences of people of colour. This method recognizes the connections between the historical impacts of colonialism and contemporary exclusions within organizations. By highlighting the experiences of people of colour navigating the university’s racism, I seek to provide rich accounts that reflect on how time is racialized and experienced in Dutch universities.”

There is a faux statistical framing based on “data” that is largely the subjective descriptions of minority academics:

“Initial open coding focused on participants’ descriptions of inequality across social, material and affective dimensions, including social, material and affective inequalities. While time was not predefined as an analytical category, it emerged inductively through participants’ recurring temporal framings of inequality.”

When one tries to drill down on the “data,” it appears entirely anecdotal and subjective, often turning on one or a handful of “narratives.” These stories are used to claim that academic measurements of success, driven by “white time,” are unfair to minority faculty: “these mechanisms position academics of colour perpetually as ‘almost there’ while their academic futures remain deferred.”

The thrust is that minority faculty should not be subject to traditional or accepted pathways for tenure or promotion:

“Academic time theft is not an incidental by-product of exclusion but a structural mechanism through which universities sustain white institutional time. It works by continuously delaying, interrupting and recalibrating what counts as academic legitimacy, ensuring that the labour of academics of colour remains productive for the institution while their progression is indefinitely postponed.

…To ensure that people of colour have academic futures, researchers and policymakers must break with the white temporality of academic work within which progress for some is enabled and for others is ongoingly deferred.”

Academia has already embraced narrative-driven scholarship in many departments as an alternative to traditional academic analysis. The Critical Legal Studies movement, for example, has challenged conventional scholarship as too restrictive and exclusionary. Few academics today dare to challenge such scholarship on the merits. To do so is to risk being labeled as reactionary or, even worse, racist.

This latest scholarship further challenges the time and structure for advancement for minority faculty as inherently racist. The question is whether the appointments and promotion process is at risk of losing objective and consistent measurements of scholarship.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 05:00

Which Continents Have The Most Drug Users?

North America leads the world in the use of cannabis, opioids and amphetamines. 

According to numbers published today in the UN's World Drug Report, North Americans between the ages of 15 and 64 were 75 percent to 90 percent more likely to have consumed these drugs in 2024 than residents of second-ranked Oceania. The odds of dying of an accidental opioid overdose in the United States was still higher the same year as the risk of losing one's life due to a car crash or suicide. Despite this, overdose deaths in the U.S. have in the last couple of years come down from their peaks.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, according to the report, broader marijuana legalization in the U.S. drove consumption. Oceania had the highest prevalence of cocaine and ecstasy use, mainly in Australia and New Zealand. South America saw a relatively high use of cocaine and amphetamines, while opioids were more widespread in Asia than in South America or Europe.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In total, 331 million people worldwide consumed drugs in 2024, equivalent to 6.2 percent of the global population.

While marijuana remains the most common drug by far, the UN observed a change in the second-placed market for opioids.

Here, synthetic opioids have been taking on an increasingly larger role in response to the crackdown on opium poppy production in Afghanistan.

Strong synthetic opioids like fentanyl have been a major driver in the American overdose epidemic and as of 2025 were still detected in more than half of all U.S. drug deaths.

Amphetamines – at a global annual use prevalence of 0.6 percent the world's third biggest drug – have meanwhile seen their market globalize.

Myanmar has emerged as a major producer country for amphetamines consumed globally and has also picked up opiate production as Afghanistan's output decreased.

The UN also said it was seeing drug manufacturers using innovation as a tool to "skirt regulations and avoid detection", leading to the type of drugs found in seizures continuously evolving and increasing in variety.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 04:15

'Muslim Theme Park Experience' Sparks Fierce Backlash In 'Two-Tier' UK

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A theme park in Britain has received intense backlash for marketing exclusive access, halal vendors and Islamic stalls, effectively sidelining non-Muslims.

Gulliver's Land in Milton Keynes is handing its rides and grounds to a day promoted as reserved exclusively for the Muslim community. Organisers described it as a "Muslim Theme Park experience" with unlimited rides, halal food vendors, Islamic stalls, kids' activities and limited tickets sold primarily to that group.

Promotional material from Mubarak Moments, the group behind the event, highlights "a theme park reserved exclusively for the Muslim community" and "exclusive access... for one evening only," effectively confirming the event is a faith-targeted buyout of a family theme park.

Another day in 2026 Britain: Gulliver's Land hosting a 'Muslim Theme Park Experience' with halal only vibes and Islamic stalls.

Faith, fun & family... for some. Where's the English family day?

Imagine the outrage if they had an English only day. pic.twitter.com/27zDtZJsb7

— British Bastard ?? (@BritishBastardX) June 29, 2026

A Milton Keynes local community hub post on Facebook stated "This event has been independently organised by a Muslim community group, so naturally its primary focus is on bringing the Muslim community together, just as any community group would when organising an event for its members."

The post continued, "That said, there is nothing to suggest that people of other faiths or backgrounds are unable to attend and enjoy the event. Everyone is welcome to attend in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding."

It added, "As with any community-led event, it is expected that those attending will be supportive of the organisers, respectful of the event's purpose, and considerate of everyone present."

Some suggested the event was fake, manufactured as rage bait, but the organiser's original post is here:

Note how the image on that post features a Muslim family, where as in the other image that element has been removed.

Responses poured in immediately. One user summed up the widespread frustration: "Two-tier Britain in full effect. While English culture gets sidelined and mocked, we're funding and celebrating parallel societies on our own soil. Gulliver's Land should be for British families, not imported theocracies."

Exactly.

Two-tier Britain in full effect.

While English culture gets sidelined and mocked, we're funding and celebrating parallel societies on our own soil.

Gulliver's Land should be for British families, not imported theocracies.

This nonsense ends when we take back...

— Harry Lines??????? (@HarryLines7) June 29, 2026

Others asked the obvious follow-up questions that never receive answers from officials or venue managers: when is the Christian family day, the English-only evening, or the Jewish community slot? Calls for boycott spread quickly. Several noted the hypocrisy directly: if the same marketing had read "reserved exclusively for the English community," every equality body, media outlet and politician would have descended within hours.

How does this support multiculturism – this is deeply divisive.
When will people be told to sit at the back of the bus for segregation! Wake up to Racism in all its guises!

— MPsFailPeople (@MPsFailPeople) June 29, 2026

When is the Christian, Jewish, Sikh Theme park experience day?

— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) June 29, 2026

not very inclusive

— The Celtic Patriot (@Celticpatriot_) June 29, 2026

While Americans reading this might think it's another example of how far teh UK has fallen, this is also going on over there, in Texas of all places.

Earlier this year a taxpayer-funded indoor waterpark in Grand Prairie, Texas - the $88 million Epic Waters facility built with public sales tax money - advertised its 3rd Annual DFW Epic Eid celebration as a "Muslims only" event. Flyers specified modest dress rules including burkinis for women, halal-slaughtered meat, a private prayer room, and Islamic etiquette such as lowered gaze around the opposite sex.

Backlash forced organisers to edit the language to "modest dress only" and "all are welcome," yet the underlying restrictions remained visible in FAQs. Critics pointed out the obvious double standard: a publicly funded venue effectively closed to regular visitors for a faith-specific gathering.

The outrage was immediate and effective. Texas Governor Greg Abbott threatened to withhold $530,000 in state grants from the city if the discriminatory event proceeded. Grand Prairie officials canceled it.

Perhaps an even more disturbing development in Texas is the East Plano Islamic Community project, rebranded as The Meadow. This planned development of 1,000 homes, a mosque and schools has drawn concerns over potential Sharia enforcement inside what amounts to a parallel community.

NEW: 'Muslim City' in Texas gets legal win after a judge ordered that the state must comply with developers.

The East Plano Islamic Community (EPIC), which has now been rebranded to The Meadow, will feature 1,000 homes, a mosque, schools, and more.

Texas leaders are worried... pic.twitter.com/HoSvNeV307

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 30, 2026

Governor Abbott has been clear that Sharia law, Sharia cities and no-go zones have no place in Texas. Developers still secured a legal win ordering state compliance.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, multiple landlords have advertised rental properties exclusively for Muslims in breach of the Equality Act 2010. Ads on Facebook, Gumtree and Telegram specified "Muslim only," "only for Muslims," or "for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls." Some targeted Muslim students only. These are not fringe cases. Investigations found dozens of such listings operating in plain sight while authorities focus enforcement resources elsewhere.

Any native British landlord attempting the reverse - advertising "English only" or "Christian only" - would face immediate investigation, fines and media pile-ons. The asymmetry is the definition of two-tier treatment.

Britain's own institutions have tilted the field further. All members of the government's "anti-Muslim hostility" advisory group have documented links to Islamist organisations. The state effectively handed rule-writing power over "hostility" definitions to the very networks that benefit from reduced scrutiny.

Schools received official guidance urging staff and pupils to report perceived "anti-Muslim hostility," creating an Orwellian atmosphere where questioning Islamic practices or parallel societies risks being treated as thoughtcrime.

The same authorities that move swiftly against native dissent have shown remarkable tolerance for actual criminal networks. Sadiq Khan once claimed there were no grooming gangs in London. Police are currently investigating around 4,000 cases.

None of this is about preventing people from celebrating their faith. It is about whether public venues, taxpayer assets and the legal system treat every community by the same rules. When theme parks, waterparks and housing markets begin carving out faith-exclusive zones while the host population is told any reciprocal preference is bigotry, the social contract fractures.

Texas demonstrated that elected leaders can still draw a line against explicit religious discrimination in public facilities and win. Britain's trajectory has been the opposite: accommodation of separatism, institutional capture by one-sided "hostility" definitions, and native families left wondering why their own cultural continuity receives less protection than imported alternatives.

The Gulliver's Land episode is simply the latest visible symptom. It will not be the last unless the underlying policy of mass low-assimilation immigration and selective multiculturalism is reversed. Equal rights mean equal rules. Anything less is not tolerance - it is managed decline.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 03:30

Latvia Unveils Joint Drone Plant With Ukraine, PM Touts Site's Closeness To Russian Border

Latvia has announced confirmation its government has inked a new deal for Ukraine to assist in a Ukrainian drone manufacturing plant on Latvian soil, right near the border with Russia, as well as close to the Belarusian border.

Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said following an emergency cabinet meeting held in Latgale that his country will "accelerate plans to establish a joint drone manufacturing facility with Ukraine and aims to locate it near the country’s eastern border region," regional media reports.

Shahed-136 drone. Creative Commons

The small Baltic country has been a member of NATO since 2004, and along with other allies like Estonia and Lithuania (both of which also joined NATO during the mid-2000s expansion wave).

These Baltic states have remained outspoken in their anti-Moscow hawkishness, and this latest announced plan of Latvia to produce drones with Ukraine once again reveals that there's no heed being given to Russia's red lines.

The Kremlin has for years warned European states that constant NATO and military infrastructure expansion right up to Russia's borders could trigger major war. Of course, in Ukraine it has, but fears remain that some kind of major provocation could result in direct Russia-NATO conflict.

Regional media is really emphasizing the closeness of the planned facility to Russia:

Kulbergs said the agreement on cooperation in the field of unmanned systems, signed at the beginning of June, includes plans for joint production. In particular, a manufacturing facility is to be built rapidly near Latvia's border with Russia.

The prime minister said the government would do everything necessary to ensure the facility is located close to the border. He added that the region needs economic activity, investment and jobs.

So now these Baltic leaders are just openly prodding and provoking Russia, it seems.

The Latvian leader after saying all of this is still promoting the 'defensive' nature of such a joint drone program: "Kulbergs also said that new counter-drone systems are expected to become operational along Latvia's borders with Belarus and Russia in July and August, allowing the country to respond to aerial threats without deploying aircraft on every occasion."

"If there is a drone threat, we will not have to scramble aircraft every time. It is a very expensive and effective solution, but it is neither the best nor the most efficient one," he said further.

There's been a heightened spillover threat of UAVs from the context of the Russia-Ukraine theater, however, in some cases these have been reported to be errant Ukrainian drones, and not just Russian ones.

Russian media has really seized on this trend...

Latvia and Ukraine to build interceptor drones together — to defend Latvian airspace from drone incursions

Every drone that has breached Latvian airspace has been UKRAINIAN

Kiev now manufacturing drones in Latvia to shoot down drones from Kiev? pic.twitter.com/JJjU9jaaoU

— RT (@RT_com) June 29, 2026

Kulbergs is also saying he hopes to reach Ukraine's level of drone defense by the end of the year. The Zelensky government has over the past year been aggressively marketing its expertise to allied nations, and even in the Middle East in the context of the Iran war.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 02:45

Philippines Becomes World's Top Solar Panel Buyer

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

People in the Philippines are flocking to install solar power ​on rooftops and escape the burden of soaring electricity prices, making it the world's biggest spender on solar panels since ‌the war in Iran started. 

Top Philippines power distributor Meralco has raised prices by 10% since the Middle East conflict began in late February. Now, a median household spends around 12% of monthly income on electricity, assuming it consumes 200 kilowatt-hours, approximately the monthly average for three people. 

Amid record-beating electricity prices and a supply crunch in fossil fuels, many Filipinos have opted to install rooftop solar panels over the past three months.

The spending on solar panels in the Southeast Asian country, which has been one of the worst-hit Asian economies in the energy supply crisis triggered by the Middle East conflict, topped $407 million between March 1 and May 31, per China customs data compiled by Reuters.

The Netherlands was the biggest spender with $1.1 billion on solar panels but it is a major transshipment hub for solar equipment imports and re-exports, so it’s not really part of the analysis of which country has spent the most.

After the Philippines comes Pakistan, another Asian economy severely hit by the halt of LNG supply from the Middle East. Pakistan has managed to negotiate with Iran some LNG cargoes form Qatar to exit the Persian Gulf in recent weeks. But the energy crisis in Pakistan has also prompted a rush to solar power installations.

Pakistan’s solar boom was already evident before the Middle East crisis.

Distributed solar drove a 21% increase in Pakistan’s national electricity demand in two years, clean energy think tank Ember said in a report last week.

A total of 27 gigawatts (GW) of distributed solar was deployed in just two years, the same as all the operating coal, gas, and oil plants built in Pakistan ever, Ember said.

In the Philippines, rooftop solar has nearly doubled over the past 12 months, according to a separate Ember analysis from the end of May.

Philergy German Solar, a Manila-based ​installer, received more than 2-1/2 times the number of customer enquiries in the first five months of this year compared to last year. At one point it ‌fielded 3,000 ⁠inquiries a day, according to managing partner Jochen Staudter. Customers are deciding to buy "much faster than before," Staudter said. "Demand will continue to be driven by high electricity prices."

In two years, distributed solar capacity could nearly triple to 3,500 megawatts (MW), matching the current size of the Philippines' utility-scale solar fleet, as loan payback times shrink to 3.1 years from 4 years, said Alnie Demoral, analyst at energy think tank Ember. Solar accounts for under 4% of national ​power consumption, government data shows.

The Philippines is China’s second-largest solar panel export market in 2026, only behind the transshipment hub the Netherlands, suggesting significant rooftop pick-up in the Southeast Asian country. China exported over 3,000 MW of solar panels to the Philippines in March and April alone, according to Ember’s data.

Still, the solar boom in the Philippines faces challenges, including high upfront costs for Filipino households and supply chain issues.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 20:55

John Fetterman Warns Mamdani About Defying SCOTUS Immigration Order

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a pair of clean immigration wins last week, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani responded by announcing he would ignore them. Now Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is sounding the alarm.

The Court ruled 6-3 Thursday in Mullin v. Doe to allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants. This ruling set off predictable outrage from the progressive wing of the party. Mamdani was first out of the gate. In a video statement, he declared the decision "cruel" and invoked the specter of the Haitian Revolution to frame deportation enforcement as a betrayal of universal freedom.

"To have people who frankly taught the world about freedom have their own freedom put into jeopardy by the actions of a Supreme Court and federal administration - it is not only cruel, it's not something we will ever accept," Mamdani said. "The Supreme Court just sparked one of the largest attacks on immigrants in modern American history. In one fell swoop, thousands of Haitians and Syrians now risk losing the right to live and work in the country they call home."

He went on to reassure migrants that New York City would not comply with the ruling.

"To the tens of thousands of New Yorkers with TPS who are watching the news, frightened about what comes next, hear me clearly: New York City is your home. You belong here. We will not turn our backs on you," Mamdani said. "You will not face this cruelty alone. This administration will stand alongside immigrant New Yorkers today, tomorrow, and every day that follows."

These are not ambiguous rulings with room for creative local interpretation. The Supreme Court made its ruling, and Mamdani's position is that he can ignore it just because he doesn't like it.

On Fox News's Saturday in America on June 28, Sen. Fetterman sat down with host Kayleigh McEnany and walked through a glaring inconsistency, one his own party seems unwilling to acknowledge. He has spent years pushing back on Democrats who insisted Donald Trump was dragging the country toward a constitutional crisis. His response at the time was straightforward: the Trump administration had not defied a court order. The standard, as Fetterman understood it, was simple. You follow the courts, or you create a crisis.

Now the mayor of New York City is publicly refusing to follow the courts' rulings, and the party that ran years of constitutional-crisis programming has gone quiet.

"I haven't seen the freak-out now that the mayor of New York is now saying I'm going to defy the Supreme Court ruling," Fetterman told McEnany.

He then called out his fellow Democrats, who are either silent or actively defending Mamdani.

"Many of the members in my party are not calling him out... [or they are] defend[ing] him, or just say[ing] we really actually have to follow the court rulings because... that's a constitutional crisis, when you have the leader of the country's largest city [saying] we're not going to follow or honor what the Supreme Court says," Fetterman said.

Democrat Senator John Fetterman says he has not seen Donald Trump cause a Constitution crisis, but Fetterman says that when he heard Zohran Mamdani say he would defy the Supreme Court on the temporary protected status of Haitians, “That’s a Constitutional crisis”

“That's a… pic.twitter.com/Zq8nfW9SW9

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 29, 2026

Fetterman has become a consistent, if lonely, Democratic voice against his party's leftward slide. He has cited progressive figures like Maine Senate candidate Graham Planter, Los Angeles mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, Washington, D.C., mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George, and a wave of progressive candidates running across New York City as evidence that the party has lost touch with most Americans.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 20:30

Alaska Judge Overrules Election Officials, Lets 'Fake' Dan Sullivan Stay On Ballot

A retired elementary school teacher from Petersburg just punched his ticket back onto Alaska's Republican U.S. Senate primary ballot after he was accused of being a deliberate spoiler and struck from the ballot.

Dan Sullivan of Petersburg announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on May 29 to challenge incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Photo courtesy of Dan Sullivan)

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled late Friday that the Alaska Division of Elections had no legal right to disqualify Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. The Division had yanked him on June 15, calling his filing a sham designed to confuse voters and tilt the race toward Democrat Mary Peltola in November. Matthews said the state basically invented a "good faith" test that doesn't exist in the U.S. Constitution, Alaska statutes, or the Division's own rules - and that's a problem when you're talking about a federal office.

In the Friday night ruling, the judge determined Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is an eligible candidate for U.S. Senate and that the division shall include his name on the August 18 primary ballot. 

The division’s decision to disqualify Sullivan because it determined his candidacy was not filed in “good faith” was unconstitutional, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled. “The director’s assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence,” he wrote. -Alaska Beacon

The U.S. Constitution sets only three qualifications for senator: age, citizenship length, and state residency. States can't tack on extra hurdles, especially subjective ones about someone's motives. The judge noted the Division accepted Republican complaints at face value while brushing aside Sullivan's explanations, and he pointed out that practical fixes like printing middle initials (Dan J. versus Dan S.) exist if name similarity is the real worry.

What set this off

Sullivan, a former U.S. Forest Service employee who taught fifth grade in Petersburg, filed May 29 as a Republican. He shares the incumbent senator's first and last name - a coincidence he's called a "matter of fate." Election officials and GOP groups zeroed in on several red flags: he'd recently switched his registration to Republican, having spent decades with the now-defunct Alaskan Independence Party until it dissolved late last year; his campaign materials and website looked similar to the incumbent's; and he'd worked with a political consultant, Amber Lee, whom Republicans flagged as a longtime supporter of Democratic candidates. Officials also seized on the fact that he first emailed the Division asking to appear on the ballot as "Dan S. Sullivan" - the senator's exact name, down to the middle initial - before switching the request to "Dan J." They argued the whole package was meant to siphon votes in a primary that could decide whether Sen. Dan Sullivan faces a tougher general election.

The opposition came from the top: Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom opened an investigation, the Alaska Republican Party filed formal complaints, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee referred Sullivan to the Federal Election Commission, claiming his candidacy broke federal law.

Sullivan's response was straightforward: he's unhappy with the incumbent's record after 12 years and wants to give voters another choice. He says he followed every rule, paid the fees, and met the qualifications - and he flatly rejects the idea that he's a Democratic plant. Asked by the Associated Press whether he'd had any contact with Peltola's campaign, he said "zero, none, zilch." Peltola's camp and state Democrats have denied the spoiler accusation too, and when the Division actually pulled him, it didn't point to any proof of coordination - it rested the call on his supposed lack of "good faith." His small Southeast Alaska hometown has largely rallied behind him.

Matthews didn't buy the Division's claim that it had broad power to police "ballot fairness" by removing candidates it disliked. He ordered Sullivan's name on the August 18 primary ballot. The state immediately moved to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, which has until Tuesday to settle the matter - right up against the deadline for printing ballots.

For now, the "other" Dan Sullivan stays in. Alaskan voters might have to do a little extra homework to tell the two apart, but the judge made clear that's not grounds to disqualify someone who otherwise qualifies.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, NOT the retired teacher, at the Alaska State Capitol in February. Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 19:40

Builders Vs. Gatekeepers

Authored by Monty Donohew via American Thinker,

A viral X post by @r0ck3t23 featuring Marc Andreessen hopes to ignite fresh debate in tech and political circles. In the clip, Andreessen articulates a blunt frustration familiar to anyone who has tried to build anything substantial in modern America: "Right now, in many cases in many places, no you can't." The target is regulatory gridlock preventing factories, data centers, and, specifically the colocated nuclear microreactors many believe are needed to power the AI boom.

The post's thesis is provocative. The old left-right divide is "obsolete." The real conflict pits "builders" and "accelerators," those engineering abundance through atoms and computing power, against "gatekeepers" who would freeze progress. The gatekeepers are comprised of environmentalists on one side, armed with environmental regulation that has strangled nuclear power for decades. On the other are the populist skeptics of rapid AI rollout exemplified by Bernie Sanders and Tucker Carlson. They meet, the argument goes, in a horseshoe of fear opposing the physical infrastructure the future demands.

This framing deserves consideration. America's permitting regime is a national liability. Decades of NEPA reviews, endless environmental litigation, and bureaucratic risk aversion have delayed or killed projects that should be straightforward. Nuclear power offers a stark case study. France derives most of its electricity from nuclear, with a far cleaner grid and lower costs in key metrics. America, despite superior resources and early ambition (recall Nixon-era Project Independence targeting a thousand reactors), effectively built zero new plants for forty years after creating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Recent executive actions under President Trump aim to reform NRC licensing with deadlines and streamlined processes, reform that is both welcome and overdue.

Andreessen is right that colocated microreactors could elegantly solve the power demands of AI data centers, bypassing strained grids and delivering reliable, high-density energy. Tech leaders' interest in advanced nuclear aligns with broader national security goals: reducing dependence on adversarial supply chains, bolstering baseload power, and maintaining a technological edge against China. Regulatory gridlock has real costs in lost opportunity, higher energy prices, and strategic vulnerability.

Yet the post's sweeping narrative, that skeptics of unchecked acceleration are primarily "fighting physics" or the future, itself invites scrutiny. It risks collapsing into a Solvency Trap: a dynamic where solvable governance challenges are recast as permanent existential blockades, sustaining urgency and aligned interests while sidelining trade-offs, evidence of costs, and pragmatic safeguards. Real problems with hyperscale AI data centers exist beyond knee-jerk Luddism. They include grid reliability, massive water consumption (billions of gallons annually), localized electricity price spikes for residents and small businesses, community impacts, and job displacement in traditional sectors. These are not imaginary.

Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act proposes abandoning reason, planning, and problem-solving in favor of a potentially perpetual and unyielding pause on all new construction until broader safeguards address worker effects, privacy, civil rights, and environmental strain. One can reject the hysterical blanket moratorium as overreach while acknowledging that underlying concerns nonetheless merit consideration and debate. Sanders' equity-focused critique of Big Tech concentration, nonetheless, differs in motivation from Carlson's populist emphasis on taxpayer subsidies, rural community burdens, and skepticism of elite-driven disruption benefiting hyperscalers at ordinary Americans' expense. Their convergence on caution is emergent, not a secret "alliance." Presenting it as such adds conspiratorial flair but flattens distinct worldviews. It also unnecessarily sows division and invites dismissal of valid concerns by improperly linking them to those with invalid or meritless ideological axes to grind.

Populist wariness of taxpayer-backed incentives for private data centers, projects that can span tens of thousands of acres and consume city-scale power while delivering limited direct local jobs, echoes longstanding conservative skepticism of corporate welfare. Carlson's clashes with advocates like Kevin O'Leary highlight legitimate questions: Why should working families subsidize infrastructure primarily enriching coastal tech giants? Accelerationists rightly decry regulatory capture by legacy environmental interests. But dismissing all distributional and prudential concerns as mere "fear" risks its own form of capture by venture incentives and hype cycles.

Civilization is indeed atoms arranged by those who show up. But prudent stewardship demands more than velocity. The history of nuclear energy proves regulation can become abolition in disguise, yet safety, waste management, proliferation risks, and public confidence cannot simply be waved away with rhetoric about "deleting limits." Successful deployment requires reformed but serious oversight that is evidence-based, time-bound, and focused on outcomes rather than process theater. Trump's return to regulatory realism is the right step. The same applies to AI governance: rapid progress toward abundance is desirable, but experiments with alignment, security, and societal integration benefit from evidence- based and targeted guardrails rather than pure velocity.

The builders' energy is vital. America must reclaim its capacity to execute at scale, permitting reform, nuclear revival, and domestic manufacturing resurgence. Trump administration moves on NRC and energy dominance point the way. Yet the path forward is not a binary purge of gatekeepers but disciplined solvency: measurable progress on energy abundance, worker transitions, community buy-in, and risk mitigation that delivers broad-based flourishing, not concentrated gains amid diffuse costs.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 18:25

Rate On China's New Overnight Liquidity Tool Comes Below Estimates, Hints At Imminent Easing

Last week we showed four China-linked charts which made it very clear that, laughable flatlined 5% GDP notwithstanding, China's economy appears to be on the verge of yet another collapse (explaining the unprecedented drop in both Chinese oil imports and refining output): between autos, real estate, banks and overall consumption, the economy - as seen by the market - was in freefall.

China is fine pic.twitter.com/PFJzVCz9Ba

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 26, 2026

With sentiment collapsing, and amid growing speculation that Beijing will have no choice but to unleash another firehose of fiscal and monetary stimulus, it came as little surprise overnight when China’s central bank set the interest rate on its new overnight liquidity tool at a level that was below expectations, in what some economists see as a de facto rate cut that could push down market borrowing costs.

As Bloomberg reports, the People’s Bank of China said it conducted 300 billion yuan ($44 billion) of overnight reverse repo agreements in open market operations on Monday, according to a statement that didn’t disclose the rate of interest it charged on its new instrument. To avoid confusion, readers should always remember that a reverse repo in China is a repo in the US. And vice versa. The central bank uses the operation to funnel short-term funds to the market to influence borrowing costs, and it accepts eligible bonds as collateral.

The official rate of the facility - the first such overnight facility unlike the bank's traditional 7-day operations - came in at 1.25%, Reuters reported. Unlike other liquidity instruments, the PBOC did not announce the borrowing cost for the overnight reverse repos. That compared with the median forecast of 1.35% in a Bloomberg survey. 

The PBOC’s benchmark remained at 1.4%, 15bps higher than the facility rate, as it provided 157.5 billion yuan of seven-day reverse repo. 

The decision, which intentionally came in below well telegraphed estimates, now sets the stage for looser monetary policy including a possible cut in loan prime rates — China’s lending benchmarks — as early as next month, according to Citigroup and Standard Chartered.

"Today’s move is not an outright easing, in our view — but it likely opens the door to one,” Citigroup economists led by Xiangrong Yu said in a note. “The asymmetric move likely signals an easing bias, without a formal cut.”

That will come next.

The operation marked the first time that the PBOC deployed the tool to manage liquidity, and many traders said the move is a first step in a gradual shift toward a benchmark overnight rate. Such a transition is likely to bring China closer to the practice of its global peers such as the Federal Reserve, which relies heavily on its overnight target rate to manage the US economy.

“The People’s Bank of China appeared to signal that it wants borrowing costs to fall by setting the rate on its new overnight reverse repo 10 basis points lower than markets had expected. This backs our view that the PBOC will trim its policy rate to reduce financial burdens on businesses and households and support demand”, said Bloomberg's David Qu.

The new facility is expected to give the PBOC better control over short-end borrowing costs and allow it to smooth out any big swings in market liquidity. The cost of overnight borrowing in the interbank market has become more volatile since May, as the central bank sought to ease a glut of money in the financial system, with demand for cash typically rising at the end of each quarter.

The yield on China’s 10-year government bonds slipped one basis point to 1.71% after the announcement, extending its drop into a third session. Both the overnight and seven-day repo rates eased.

Still, despite the strong hint of easing policy, some analysts still believe the PBOC will be looking to maintain the policy status quo, for now, by keeping the seven-day benchmark steady while publicly omitting details about the new overnight rate.

“The overnight reverse repo is primarily a liquidity tool aimed at smoothing seasonal funding stress, rather than a tool to signal a particular policy stance,” said Frances Cheung, head of foreign exchange and rates strategy at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. “The timing of the operations today and tomorrow ahead of the half-year end — and the amount bigger than the seven-day reverse repo — both support this notion.”

Talk of a rate cut in China gained substantial traction as the Chinese economy slowed dramatically in the second quarter, with retail sales and investment falling at a pace unseen since the pandemic.

Still, most economists expect the PBOC to keep its policy rate unchanged throughout 2026, although Huang Yiping, an adviser to the central bank, said a rate cut still remains a possibility.

“The next step is to lower de facto lending rates, including a possible reduction of LPR rates” across both one- and five-year durations “to support a stabilization of credit growth,” said Becky Liu, head of Greater China macro strategy at Standard Chartered.

“We had long argued that China is firmly staying on an easing path, and will likely to take advantage of the interest rate framework reform to lower de facto rates,” she said.

Lynn Song, China economist at ING, said it’s possible the new rate may have been kept undisclosed to avoid “diluting” the significance of the seven-day benchmark.

“Given the overnight rate is still the most liquid and important rate for trading activity, it makes sense this will eventually be the level that policymakers seek to control,” Song said. “However, it probably will take some time. We probably need some track record and maturity for the overnight repo facility and how it affects market overnight rates before this shift is made.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 18:00

The Party Of 'Our Democracy' Has Nothing Left But Chaos

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“. . . there is no saving the Left. Whatever happens to them, it will have to happen without people like you or me trying to get them to return to any place of sanity.”

- Sasha Stone on Substack

A punishing heat-dome creeps over the eastern half of the country just in time for the gala Fourth of July week.

The days are brutal, but anything and everything crawls out of the woodwork when that blazing sun goes down and the moon comes out.

Everyone’s on edge, but the edge of what?

I will tell you.

First, could there be a richer (or more obvious) target for bloody mischief than this year’s national holiday, the 250th birthday of a nation that millions lucky enough to live here have been trained-up to hate on?

Even the sons and daughters (including pretend “daughters”) of millionaires have gone mad-dog on America, the poster-boy being Marxist-jihadi New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the Left’s new avatar-general.

Since no one is more hated than the, ahem, Celebrator-in-Chief, you might want to steer clear of conspicuous public celebrations this week. Antifa and even worse gangs are out there right now, making plans and laying traps. Maybe not so much in places like Texas, where eight Antifas were just sentenced collectively to 450 years in the slammer for shooting up the Prairieland ICE Detention Center in Alvarado. . . but here in the Empire State and other Blue-ish jurisdictions, all bets are off. Be careful ‘out there’ among the smokin’ ribs, the fireworks shows, and big music venues.

You can see how this summer, and the nauseating slide down to the midterm elections, are shaping up. The party of “Our Democracy” is desperate to an extreme now, all disfigured by a communist leprosy eating away at its public face (and a cancer of fraud metastasizing through its innards). It has become such an obvious monster, raging with its hair lit-up, that anyone with half a functioning brain is shying away, stealing off into the gloaming. The party has nothing left but chaos and, in the weeks ahead, anything that might be disrupted probably will be.

The objective is to create so much havoc and distress throughout the country - especially the big cities - that Mr. Trump will have to invoke the Insurrection Act, and by doing so, the Lefty-left hope to create conditions so adverse that an orderly Election Day cannot happen.

The Insurrection Act would be the Left’s cue to declare Mr. Trump the very “king” whose coronation they have busily rehearsed all year, and then, voila, you get a new French-style American Revolution 2.0, complete with guillotine and transgender Jacobins turning the country upside-down.

You might consider the theory that the nation actually needs to suffer a genuine nightmare to wake up from.

The Revolution 1.0 we celebrate this week was, after all, a nightmarish struggle rife with hardship and loss. Nine signers of the Declaration of Independence died from war-related tribulations. Five were imprisoned and tortured. Twelve had homes ransacked and burned. And then, of course, the military action itself, including travails such as the winter at Valley Forge, the disastrous New York Campaign, and the never-ending logistics crisis, no food, no clothing, no munitions.

In the present summer of travail we face, you can expect at least some major wake-up calls issued by the bloc in the country that has not gone insane — which happens to include many in Mr. Trump’s executive branch. I’m serenely confident that real evidence of 2020 election fraud will finally emerge, coincidental with indictments. Do you think that the Fulton County, GA, election records were seized last winter for no reason? Say goodbye to that old “baseless” talking point.

There are, of course, a whole lot of other seditious and treasonous Beltway villains nervously awaiting administration of the law. You know their names. It appears that the new supervising US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, Joseph DiGenova, is reorganizing the so-called “grand conspiracy” case against this large cadre of coupsters into a folio of discrete cases — RussiaGate, Fake Impeachment #1, the Mar-a-Lago raid, etc. — to make them more manageable and move them more speedily forward. Don’t be surprised if one or more of these cases happens to drop before the midterms. (Democratic Party true-blue loyalists could be surprised, even shocked to their socks, since these indictments will refute everything that has become essential to their identities as the good and righteous people of this land.)

Just one more item for now in the wake-up folder, coming a little out of left-field: things are looking eerie in the region of the San Andreas fault that runs through California, and perhaps the Seattle fault as well.

The earth’s geology even seems to be manifesting a degree of chaos.

It’s been shaky along the Pacific Rim “Ring of Fire” for many months.

Significant earthquakes have struck Japan (7.4 offshore Honshu/Miyako area), Indonesia (7.4 near Bitung), the Philippines, Tonga, Vanuatu, Chile, Papua New Guinea.

The Venezuela “doublet” (June 24, Mag 7.2) occurred in a separate tectonic zone, but all zones are essentially connected by the movements of magma deep in the earth, solar activity (flares, etc), gravitational tidal forces, and so on.

On June 24, a Mag 5.6 shook Redwood Valley, in Mendocino California, a Mag 5.8 near Pistol River, Oregon, and a Mag 5.1 struck 40 miles west of Petrolia in Humboldt County, CA.

The east side of the Pacific rim (America’s West Coast) has been unusually quiet for some years now. Be alert. Things seem to be livening-up. Just sayin’.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/29/2026 - 17:40