Saudis Lead Arab Fury After Huckabee Floats 'Greater Israel' Vision

Blowback was swift across the Arab world after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee declared it would be "fine" if Israel took over the entire Middle East, words featured in a Tucker Carlson interview from Jerusalem published days ago.

Governments from Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman issued statements condemning the comments, joined by both the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League - a rare moment of quick unity for these countries.

Tehran Times

In a joint statement they "express[ed] their strong condemnation and profound concern regarding the statements made by the United States Ambassador to Israel, in which he indicated that it would be acceptable for Israel to exercise control over territories belonging to Arab states, including the occupied West Bank."

Most notably close American ally Saudi Arabia was among the first to blast Huckabee's provocative statement and perspective. Saudi Arabia called it "reckless" and "irresponsible".

Jordan too in a rare moment lashed out at Washington:

“The official spokesperson for the ministry, Ambassador Fuad Al-Majali, rejected these absurd and provocative statements, which constitute a violation of diplomatic norms, an assault on the sovereignty of the countries of the region, and a flagrant breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations,” the ministry said in a sharply worded response.

Asked whether a passage from the Book of Genesis could be read as granting Israel the right to claim all the land between Egypt's Nile River and Syria's Euphrates, Huckabee didn't hedge. He bluntly and without apology said it would be "fine" if Israel and its military took over the whole Middle East. 

"It would be fine if they took it all," Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist Minister and previously the governor of Arkansas made clear. This led to a wide ranging conversation and back and forth over whether the modern nation-state of Israel, officially founded as a sovereign government on May 14, 1948, is synonymous with the Israel written about in the Old Testament, stretching back thousands of years.

Here's how that contentious segment of the interview unfolded, according to a transcript and commentary: 

Huckabee was asked in an interview with US conservative commentator Tucker Carlson about his understanding of a biblical verse suggesting that land including parts of Egypt, Syria and Iraq had been divinely promised to the Jewish people.

Carlson said that according to the Old Testament, the boundaries would be “basically the entire Middle East.”

He continued: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“Not sure we’d go that far,” Huckabee said in reply. “It would be a big piece of land.”

Carlson then pressed him: “Does Israel have the right to that land?”

“It would be fine if they took it all,” Huckabee responded, before adding, “I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about here today.”

Carlson asked: “You think it would be fine if the state of Israel took over all of Jordan?”

BREAKING: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson that Israel has the Biblical right to take over all of the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all.” pic.twitter.com/BN4fXh03ga

— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 20, 2026

That's when Amb. Huckabee must have realized he was entering some hot diplomatic water, which would be sure to outrage Washington's Arab allies in the region. And indeed condemnation from Middle East leaders has been swift, but it will probably just stop there - though some could pull their support for anti-Iran operations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/23/2026 - 02:45

Trump Declares War On Euro Censorship

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

As European governments ramp up their assault on online freedom, the Trump administration is striking back hard with Freedom.Gov—a portal designed to equip European and British citizens with tools to shatter digital barriers imposed by overreaching bureaucrats.

The move exposes the hypocrisy of so called “safety” laws that geofence truth, forcing websites to block users or demand ID, all while claiming to protect the public from their own thoughts.

A growing number of websites have chosen to simply block users rather than comply with arduous censorship demands in response to Europe’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act, with many more hidden behind government-mandated age-verification making linking a real-life identity to internet use a prerequisite for access.

Exclusive: The US State Department is developing an online portal to enable people in Europe and elsewhere to see content banned by their governments including alleged hate speech and terrorist propaganda, sources told Reuters https://t.co/IPFDgr54bz

— Reuters (@Reuters) February 18, 2026

The U.S. government is launching a ‘Freedom.Gov’ website that will give British and European visitors the tools to access censorship-free parts of the internet they have been geofenced out of by their own governments in the name of public safety.

The new initiative is the work of the U.S. State Department and led by Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who has been a key figure in bringing President Trump’s message of freedom to Europeans in recent months.

Government insiders say the Freedom.Gov portal may feature a Virtual Private Network (VPN) tool to allow European users to bypass domestic controls and claims its use won’t be tracked.

A State Department spokesman is quoted as saying: “Digital freedom is a priority for the State Department, however, and that includes the proliferation of privacy and censorship-circumvention technologies like VPNs.”

A placeholder website for the planned anti-censorship service is already active. The Freedom.Gov site first became active in January and was blank apart from the text “fly, eagle, fly”. Today, an updated landing page proclaims “Freedom is coming. Information is power. Reclaim your human right to free expression. Get ready.”

Le département d'État américain vient de développer un portail en ligne qui permettra aux citoyens de l'Union Européenne de consulter des contenus censurés par leur gouvernement ! https://t.co/fQR6DcSL2F

Le site sera hébergé sur https://t.co/nS7pRHk4Hx
Ils envisagent… pic.twitter.com/7iXrx4fdt2

— Luc Côté (@lucquebec) February 19, 2026

In a crystal-clear message to the censorious British authorities cracking down on internet freedoms, the page also features an animated logo of Paul Revere on his famous 1775 midnight ride, warning the Minutemen of the approaching British troops.

The decision to launch the service will inevitably bring the U.S. into some sort of conflict with European capitals, given the pro-freedom move would force those governments to either defacto accept that their censorship laws will either be openly bypassed by their own citizens with the assistance of Washington, or to block Freedom.Gov, and clarify their opposition to the free dissemination of information.

This puts Washington in the unfamiliar position of appearing to encourage citizens to flout local laws, without stopping to note this is, of course, not actually unfamiliar at all. The United States through the CIA and other agencies maintained a large network of censorship-busting initiatives through the Cold War using the latest technology of the time.

Among those efforts was Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Liberty, sending unfiltered news and other programming through high-powered broadcasts into the Soviet nations behind the Iron Curtain. 

This effort was something of a game of cat-and-mouse between the free West and the Communist East, with Soviet authorities attempting to block out the broadcasts with radio interference equipment of their own.

In those Soviet countries, when the Western radio broadcasts did get through, those who tuned into them faced arrest “or worse” at the hands of the authorities. 

Today, the British government has already started to react to the use of VPNs to circumvent its new internet controls—imposed, it says, for the sake of public “safety”—and is moving to defacto outlaw them.

Pro-Freedom and anti-surveillance campaign group Big Brother Watch responded to the government’s plan to crack down on VPNs, saying: “The Prime Minister’s announcement that the government intends to restrict access to VPNs for under-16s represents a draconian crackdown on the civil liberties of children and adults alike. The only way such restrictions could be enforced effectively would be for VPN providers to require all users to undergo age-assurance measures.”

How will this be policed? That’s right, by making everyone prove their age to use the internet with a digital ID. How about letting parents decide what their kids have access to? https://t.co/AqnyPnGAxS

— m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) February 16, 2026

The group continues, “Having to provide ID or a biometric face scan to access a VPN utterly defeats the point of a technology designed to enhance privacy online. The ability to receive and share information absent state snooping is a vital part of living in a free democracy.”

“There is a reason authoritarian governments in countries such as China, North Korea, Iran, and Belarus ban or restrict VPNs. Anonymity and enhanced privacy allow journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and dissidents to communicate securely,” they further urge.

This latest escalation builds directly on the Trump administration’s earlier vows to counter British PM Kier Starmer’s censorship frenzy, where Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that America would unleash its full arsenal against threats to X and free speech, treating the UK like Iran if needed. 

Rogers stated: “With respect to a potential ban of X, Keir Starmer has said that nothing is off the table. I would say from America’s perspective, nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech.”

It also extends Trump’s pattern of offering lifelines to UK and European dissidents, including asylum for “thought criminals” prosecuted for silent prayers or online posts challenging mass migration and gender ideology. 

Sources previously confirmed the White House was scouting cases, tying free speech erosion to Britain’s immigration failures.

The far left Spanish government has also openly announced its intention to outright ban X in recent weeks

French PM Emmanuel Macron also referred to free speech as “pure bullshit” this week.

Macron: “Free speech is complete bullshit”

The mask has come off. Anyone surprised?

pic.twitter.com/kmF18k0juS

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 18, 2026

These countries are in lockstep with the EU which is waging a censorship war against the free internet, particularly X.

Trump is using other means of fighting EU censorship simultaneously.

The Eurocrats have vowed to push back.

Freedom.Gov revives Cold War tactics against modern tyrants, reminding Starmer and EU elites that globalists can’t firewall the truth.

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 Mon, 02/23/2026 - 02:00

Trump 2.0's Grand Strategy Against China Is Slowly But Surely Coming Together

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Casual observers are convinced that Trump is a madman with no method behind his madness, but the reality is that he and his team – collectively known as Trump 2.0 – are slowly but surely implementing their grand strategy against China.

Every one of their moves abroad should be seen as a means to this end.

They want to comprehensively contain China and then coerce it into a lopsided trade deal that “rebalance[s] China’s economy toward household consumption” per the National Security Strategy.

Trump 2.0 doesn’t want to go to war over this, however, which is why they’re careful to avoid replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent.

Piling too much economic-structural pressure on China at once could spook it into lashing out in desperation before the window of opportunity closes. They therefore decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.

The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure against Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise. The combined effect thus far is already placing immense pressure upon China to cut a deal with the US.

This is the grand strategic context within which Russia’s talks with the US and Ukraine are taking place.

It too is coming under immense pressure after Trump 2.0 unexpectedly (from their view) perpetuated the proxy war in Ukraine, pioneered a breakthrough to Central Asia through last August’s “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” across the South Caucasus, and got India to curtail its oil imports.

Russia must now decide whether to cut its own deal with the US or become more dependent on China.

• The first scenario could include a resource-centric strategic partnership with the US in exchange for compromising on its maximalist goals in Ukraine, which could deprive China of access to the deposits that the US invests in as explained here.

• As for the second scenario, Russia could continue its special operation indefinitely with growing Chinese support in exchange for China receiving unrestricted access to its resources at bargain-basement prices, thus greatly helping China prepare for war with the US.

Framed in this way, reaching a deal with Russia could facilitate China’s strategic surrender to the US without spiking the risk of war, while failing to do so could spike the risk of war if Russia turns itself into China’s raw materials reserve for the aforesaid reason and with the same outcome vis-à-vis the US.

This imbues Putin with leverage vis-à-vis Trump 2.0, but they’re also not desperate to reach a deal with Putin at any cost, ergo why they haven’t coerced Zelensky into his demanded concessions and might never.

If Trump 2.0 can’t cut a deal with Putin, then they’ll prepare for war with China, which their National Defense Strategy envisages given its explicitly declared World War-like military build-up.

Be that as it may, replicating the Imperial Japanese precedent in that case dangerously risks a 21st-century Pearl Harbor, thus imperiling their planned restoration of unipolarity.

It’s therefore better for Trump 2.0 to coerce Zelensky into giving Putin what he wants in order to continue peacefully containing China instead.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 23:35

AWS Engineers Allowed An AI Tool to Act...Then The Cloud Unit Went Down

Amazon’s cloud arm has experienced two recent service disruptions tied to the use of its own AI-powered coding systems, stirring debate inside the company over how quickly such tools should be rolled out, according to FT.

One incident in mid-December led to a 13-hour interruption affecting a tool customers use to analyse AWS spending. Engineers had permitted the Kiro coding assistant to implement changes, and the system determined the fix was to “delete and recreate the environment.” An internal review later characterized the episode as an “outage.”

Staff familiar with the events said it marked the second time in a matter of months that an AI tool played a central role in a production issue. “We’ve already seen at least two production outages [in the past few months],” said one senior AWS employee. “The engineers let the AI [agent] resolve an issue without intervention. The outages were small but entirely foreseeable.”

AWS, which accounts for the majority of Amazon’s operating income, is investing heavily in AI systems that can act independently on human instructions and hopes to market them to customers. The episodes have highlighted the potential downsides of granting such tools significant autonomy.

FT writes that Amazon pushed back on suggestions that the technology was to blame, describing it as a “coincidence that AI tools were involved” and arguing that “the same issue could occur with any developer tool or manual action.” The company added: “In both instances, this was user error, not AI error,” and said it had found no indication that AI increases the likelihood of mistakes.

According to Amazon, the December event was an “extremely limited event” affecting a single service in parts of mainland China, while the other disruption did not touch any “customer facing AWS service.” Both were far smaller than a separate 15-hour AWS outage in October 2025 that disrupted customers including OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Kiro, introduced in July, was promoted as moving beyond “vibe coding” to generate software from structured specifications. After the December incident, Amazon said it added tighter controls, such as required peer reviews and additional training, while maintaining that customer uptake of its AI coding products remains strong.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 23:00

China Is Cracking Down On "Stock Market Influencers" As AI Surge Overheats Market

Chinese regulators are tightening oversight of aggressive influencer promotions for investment products, worried that an AI-driven tech surge — encouraged by state policy — is overheating the market, according to Nikkei.

In late January, media reports said the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) penalized a fund firm, identified as Fund D, for paying unqualified online influencers to market its products. According to a CSRC document cited in reports, the firm "induced investors with incompatible risk tolerance" to buy high-risk offerings and "neglected professional compliance in pursuit of short-term growth." The regulator did not comment.

The move reflects broader unease over market volatility. Nearly 4.91 million new mainland stock accounts were opened in January — the biggest monthly jump since October 2024 — as money poured into smaller tech names linked to AI, chips and aerospace themes.

While the blue-chip CSI 300 is up just 0.7% this year, smaller-stock gauges have surged. The CSI 500 has climbed 11.2%, and Shanghai’s tech-focused STAR board index has gained 10.5%. Some individual shares have skyrocketed: industrial equipment supplier Wuxi Autowell Technology is up over 120% year to date, while Puya Semiconductor and Focuslight Technologies have more than doubled. Supcon Technology has risen 65%.

One international brokerage analyst said the rally reflects limited alternatives — with low bond yields and weak property prices — rather than company fundamentals.

Speculation has also shaken commodity-linked products. Units of a Shenzhen-listed silver futures fund doubled in January, trading well above their underlying value as online guides touted quick arbitrage profits. UBS SDIC Fund Management halted new subscriptions on Jan. 28 "to protect the interests of fund unitholders," and the exchange suspended accounts engaged in "abnormal trading behavior." As silver futures fell, the fund’s units hit their 10% daily down limit for five consecutive sessions.

Beijing has promoted equity markets to advance technological self-reliance, easing listing rules and accelerating approvals for strategic sectors. Chip startup Moore Threads, for example, saw its shares jump fivefold on debut in December.

Nikkei writes that at the same time, officials are trying to contain excess speculation. At a January work conference led by CSRC chairman Wu Qing, regulators pledged to curb "excessive speculation and market manipulation" and "resolutely prevent drastic market fluctuations." Managing retail sentiment is critical, as individual investors account for more than 80% of daily turnover.

Jason Lui of BNP Paribas said stability is key to attracting long-term capital. High volatility, he noted, risks drawing investors in at the wrong moments and reinforcing perceptions of boom-bust cycles.

Earlier, the CSRC fined influencer Jin Yongrong and barred him from the securities market for three years, accusing him of earning over 41 million yuan by promoting stocks to inflate prices before selling. Finance app Snowball Finance banned Jin and more than 20 other accounts.

Exchanges have also raised the margin trading deposit ratio from 80% to 100% to cool leverage. Meanwhile, ETFs associated with state-backed investors saw notable outflows, prompting speculation about official strategy.

Local governments continue pledging support for emerging sectors such as commercial aerospace, new materials and the so-called "low-altitude economy," referring to drone services. A new national five-year plan is expected in March.

Regulators may face fresh tests after trading resumes on Feb. 24 following the Lunar New Year break, with robotics demonstrations set for the Spring Festival Gala and reports that DeepSeek and other AI developers plan new model releases during the holiday.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 21:50

Trump Admin Proposal Could Bring Drastic Changes To Asylum Process

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing an “overhaul” of the asylum process, according to a Friday announcement.

The proposed 220-page rule, which is likely to face legal challenges, aims to reduce the number of immigrants filing fraudulent asylum claims for work authorizations in order to better focus on security checks.

It also intends to cut back processing times and the massive backlog of pending claims, according to a statement.

If finalized, the rule would be among the most sweeping changes to the asylum system and work authorization process in decades.

“We are proposing an overhaul of the asylum system to enforce the rules and reduce the backlog we inherited from the prior administration,” a DHS spokesperson said.

“Aliens are not entitled to work while we process their asylum applications.”

Employment authorizations would be paused until processing times for asylum applications reach 180 days or lower, according to the proposal.

DHS said based on current wait times, it could take between 14 and 173 years to reach that 180 day or lower level to resume issuing work permits.

The proposal also would create more restrictive criteria for asylum-based work permits and bar illegal immigrants from receiving new permits or renewing existing ones.

“For too long, a fraudulent asylum claim has been an easy path to working in the United States, overwhelming our immigration system with meritless applications,” a DHS spokesperson said.

More than 17 million individuals applied for asylum in the United States between 2021 and 2024.

According to the proposal, an exception would exist for individuals who entered the United States illegally out of fear of persecution, torture, or another urgent reason but notified American authorities within 48 hours of crossing the border.

Long wait times on asylum applications have resulted in historic highs for employment authorization applications.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reports more than 1.4 million pending asylum claims, which is equal to the population of New Hampshire, the news release said.

DHS’s proposed rule falls in line with President Donald Trump’s executive order, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, signed on his first day back in office a year ago.

“Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States,” his order read.

Several Biden-era executive orders on immigration were revoked by Trump’s directive, becoming the first of his actions of his second term to make good on his 2024 presidential campaign promise of launching the largest deportation operation in American history.

Finalizing DHS’s new proposal on the asylum system could take months or years. Public comment will be accepted on the rule for 60 days after the agency formally publishes it in the Federal Register on Monday.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 21:15

Iran Floats Joint Oil Investment, Sanctions Rollback Wish-List Ahead Of Next US Talks

The Trump administration may have finally blinked, also knowing that yet another US-led war in the Middle East remains deeply unpopular among the American people. No attacks have come this weekend, as some were predicting last week, as President Trump appears to be exercising some level of patience and restraint, for now at least.

"Iran has indicated it is prepared to make concessions on its nuclear program in talks with the U.S. in return for the lifting of sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium, as it seeks to avert a U.S. attack," Reuters is freshly reporting.

Tehran has said from the start of Trump's military pressure campaign that it's willing for serious negotiations centered on its nuclear program, but that it cannot ever abandon or limit its formidable ballistic missile arsenal: 

However, Reuters is reporting for the first time that Iran is offering fresh concessions since their talks ended last week, when the sides appeared far apart and heading closer to military conflict. Analysts say the move suggests Tehran is trying to keep diplomacy alive and stave off a major U.S. strike.

The official said Tehran would seriously consider a combination of sending half of its most highly enriched uranium abroad, diluting the rest and taking part in creating a regional enrichment consortium - an idea periodically raised in years of Iran-linked diplomacy.

Iran would do this in return for U.S. recognition of Iran's right to "peaceful nuclear enrichment" under a deal that would also include lifting economic sanctions, the official said.

Russia has already offered to do just this, and China too could potentially play a role in receiving Iran's enriched uranium.

It looks like a US attack is unlikely even in this coming week as well given that "U.S. and Iranian negotiators are expected to meet in Geneva on Thursday to discuss a detailed Iranian proposal for a nuclear deal. A senior U.S. official told Axios on Sunday morning the Trump administration expects to receive the proposal by Tuesday" - ahead of the next round of planned talks.

Also, Tehran is now floating the prospect of joint US-Iran oil and gas investment as part of the nuclear deal currently under negotiation. Hamid Ghanbari, deputy director for economic diplomacy at Iran’s foreign ministry, said Sunday that shared energy development could anchor a more durable agreement.

Oman Confirms New Talks Between US and Iran

Oman's Foreign Minister, Badr Albusaidi, confirmed that the US and Iran will meet in Geneva on Thursday to continue negotiations to reach an agreement on the tension between them. pic.twitter.com/ROVHBgRTQq

— loolan podcast (@Loolanpodcast) February 22, 2026

“For the sake of an agreement's durability, it is essential that the U.S. also benefits in areas with high and quick economic returns,” Ghanbari said, according to Fars news agency - effectively pitching hydrocarbons as the glue to hold any deal together.

He added that “the country must be prepared for all scenarios,” while “at the same time seriously pursuing the negotiations.” Beyond oil and gas, Ghanbari floated mining, urban development, and even aircraft purchases as potential areas of cooperation - a shopping list that in reality reads like a sanctions rollback wish list. Many Western analysts are calling it totally unrealistic.

Meanwhile, Washington appears to be hedging its bets. Even as talks continue, the Pentagon is reinforcing its posture in the Persian Gulf, with a second aircraft carrier reportedly en route. Iran in turn has warned its "finger is on the trigger" and that US bases in the region would come under retaliatory attack.

Lol even the Jerusalem Post is calling out Witkoff for his absolute bs here https://t.co/h5sdB9Wh5I pic.twitter.com/TDGf5S7Qth

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) February 22, 2026

The message from both sides is clear: prepare for a deal, or prepare for escalation - and Washington is keeping the carriers fueled and nearby just in case.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 20:40

Waste Of The Day: The Story Of Robosquirrel

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Dr. Frankenstein was able to bring his monster back to life using just rusty tools and a cramped workshop. Researchers in California needed taxpayer funding from the National Science Foundation for their own reanimation experiment, with results that were not quite as impressive.

In 2012, San Diego State University and the University of California, Davis used part of a $325,000 grant to create “Robosquirrel,” a taxidermied squirrel with a robotic tail. The money would be worth $459,000 today. 

That’s according to the “Wastebook” reporting published by the late U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn. For years, these reports shined a white-hot spotlight on federal frauds and taxpayer abuses. 

Coburn, the legendary U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, earned the nickname "Dr. No" by stopping thousands of pork-barrel projects using the Senate rules. Projects that he couldn't stop, Coburn included in his oversight reports.   

Coburn's Wastebook 2012 included 100 examples of outrageous spending worth more than $18 billion, including the origin story of Robosquirrel.

Key facts: Robosquirrel was built to study the predator and prey relationship between squirrels and rattlesnakes.

The researchers placed Robosquirrel in a cage with live squirrels so that it would smell like the real thing. Then, they placed the robot in a field with snakes and moved it along a track to make it appear alive.

The snakes were fooled. One even bit the robot’s head. But when researchers heated up Robosquirrel’s mechanical tail or made it wag, the rattlesnakes got scared and slithered away.

The project was still in its early stages in 2012. The researchers promised that more animals — including RoboKangarooRat and Robosquirrel 2.0, which could throw rocks at rattlesnakes — would soon arrive, though it’s unclear if they ever materialized. 

Robosquirrel made national headlines in Forbes, CNN and more after Coburn included it in his Wastebook. San Diego State University told ABC News that only part of the $325,000 grant was spent on taxidermy. The rest went to undergraduate research training.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 20:05

Supreme Court Ruling On Tariffs Won't Change US–China Trade Relations, Analysts

Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that President Donald Trump’s global tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, analysts told The Epoch Times that it won’t affect U.S. trade relations with China, as there are other legal options for the Trump administration to impose levies.

A China Shipping cargo container sits stacked at the Port of Long Beach in Long Beach, Calif., on April 10, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

By a vote of 6–3, the court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, including retaliatory tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs targeting China, Canada, and Mexico.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that “the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.”

“That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case. … Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338),” he wrote.

Trump raised global tariffs to 10 percent, effective on Feb. 24, after the Feb. 20 ruling under a separate trade law, Section 122. The president increased it to 15 percent the next day, effective for 150 days.

Impact on Trade With China

The United States and China reached a one-year trade truce in 2025 to de-escalate trade tensions, in which the United States reduced tariffs on goods related to fentanyl issues from 20 percent to 10 percent while China reduced tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and pledged to increase purchases of U.S. soybeans and energy.

This month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping promised to purchase more American soybeans and agricultural products in a phone call with Trump.

Frank Xie, ​​a professor at the Aiken School of Business at the University of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not overturn all of Trump’s tariffs, but rather prevented Trump from invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs.

“There are other legal tools that allow Trump to continue raising tariffs, so the tariff war will continue, along with tariff penalties against China. Negotiations with China will also continue, and China will likely continue to purchase U.S. soybeans,” he said.

“Actually, the ruling doesn’t change much for either the CCP or the U.S. government. Judging from Trump adding additional ... global tariffs immediately afterwards, the tariff war is accelerating,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 20, 2026. The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump's tariffs were unlawful in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Heather Diehl/Getty Images

U.S.-based independent economist Davy J. Wong told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling may prompt China to reduce or postpone purchases, but it is unlikely to publicly renege on its commitments.

“This is because China’s purchases of U.S. agricultural products have long been driven by both economic and political motives. Now, Beijing can use the instability of the rules as a pretext to adjust the pace of imports and diversify sources, particularly shifting towards supplies from Brazil and South America,” he said.

“However, China’s feed system has a rigid demand for protein raw materials, and the United States remains an important supplementary source.”

U.S.-based China affairs commentator Wang He noted that Trump agreed to visit China in April per Xi’s invitation during their phone call, and “it has special significance for Xi Jinping to maintain relations with the United States and with Trump,” given the current domestic political tension Xi’s facing due to his purge of top military generals.

Wang said it means that the trade truce between China and the United States will continue, and China won’t dare to renege on its commitments to continue purchasing American agricultural products.

However, Wang noted that the CCP will continue to promote diversification of foreign trade.

“Because the United States and China are currently decoupling, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, this fundamental trend of decoupling is unchangeable. This trend is unaffected by tariff rulings. The CCP will simply use this to its advantage, to pressure Trump in negotiations. The CCP will try to rally more countries to counter the United States,” he said.

Wong said the Chinese economy remains highly dependent on external demand and manufacturing exports, especially from the United States.

So, the CCP will exert pressure in specific areas, such as rare-earth and key-materials export controls, while avoiding a complete trade rupture with the United States, he added.

Wong concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change the structural reality of Sino-U.S. trade competition.

“China’s purchases from the U.S. will be more strategic, and U.S. economic constraints on China will become more institutionalized. Both sides prefer competition within a controllable scope rather than a complete decoupling.”

Luo Ya and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 18:55

Tesla Avoids California Suspension By Dropping 'Self-Driving' Claims

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Tesla Motors avoided a 30-day suspension of its dealer and manufacturer licenses from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) by removing the term “autopilot” from its vehicle marketing efforts in California.

The Tesla booth at the AI+Expo Special Competitive Studies Project in Washington on June 2, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

According to a statement issued by the California DMV on Feb. 17, Tesla had marketed its full self-driving feature as essentially an autonomous driving feature. Although full self-driving is a hands-free feature, Tesla owners still need to actively supervise the operation of their vehicles.

The DMV said Tesla had been marketing its advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as a full driver-free autopilot feature since 2021 by including terms such as “autopilot” and “full self-driving capability” in marketing collateral and on its website.

“The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat,” Tesla’s website formerly said. The California DMV stated that drivers should be present and supervise the self-driving feature.

“Vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles,” the DMV wrote.

According to the California DMV, Tesla removed that language from its website and marketing efforts in December 2025. The DMV had initiated accusations of false advertisement against Tesla’s dealer and manufacturer licenses in November 2023.

The California Office of Administrative Hearings heard the case last July and made a proposed decision on Nov. 20, 2025. Tesla was given 60 days to address and remedy the issue of the suspension of its licenses in the state for 30 days. Tesla subsequently rebranded the feature as “full self-driving (supervised)” to clarify that drivers still need to oversee the driving process.

“The DMV is committed to safety throughout all California’s roadways and communities,” DMV Director Steve Gordon said. “The department is pleased that Tesla took the required action to remain in compliance with the State of California’s consumer protections.”

“California has zero tolerance for misleading advertising that puts safety at risk,” the DMV added. “When companies make false claims about vehicle capabilities, they endanger lives, and the state will hold them accountable.”

Days earlier, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a post on X on Feb. 13 that Tesla would no longer offer full self-driving on vehicles sold after Feb. 14. In order to get the feature, Tesla owners now need to pay a $99 monthly subscription.

Tesla had included basic autopilot for close to seven years on its vehicles that included two features, traffic-aware cruise control (TACC) to match the speed of traffic, and autosteer, which centers vehicles inside a travel lane.

New vehicles now come standard with just TACC, and Tesla owners will have to pay a monthly fee for the full self-driving feature. Previously, Tesla owners could opt for a one-time payment to have the full self-driving included on their vehicles at the time of purchase.

Reaching 10 million paid full self-driving subscriptions is one of many performance milestones required in Musk’s $1 trillion compensation package.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 17:45

Trump Warns Netflix About Democrat Ties During Bid To Buy Warner Bros

It's no secret that Netflix is a devout propaganda platform for the political left.  Some critics would argue that the sudden and disturbing surge in woke ideology injected into streaming entertainment started with Netflix and shows like Orange Is The New Black, "Dear White People" and Jessica Jones.  No one remembers such content anymore because it's forgettable tripe, but Netflix was definitely at the helm of the of far-left programming trend just as the Obama Administration was coming to a close.

In fact, multiple prominent Democrats from the Obama regime ended up working closely with Netflix, either as lobbyists or as members of the corporate board.  Barack and Michelle even signed an ongoing production deal with the company in 2018. 

Ferial Govashiri, former Personal Secretary to President Obama in the White House, joined Netflix in a senior role as Chief of Staff to the Chief Content Officer.

Perry Apelbaum, a longtime Democratic lawyer/staffer from the House Judiciary Committee is now a lobbyist for Netflix.

A high percentage of Netflix's lobbyists (around 70%) have prior government experience and most are Democratic-leaning.  Leadership figures like co-CEO Ted Sarandos and executive chairman Reed Hastings have hosted fundraisers or donated heavily to Democrat candidates (Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc). 

Finally, there's Obama-era national security adviser Susan Rice, who is still closely tied to the Obamas and is currently a member of the Netflix board.  

Donald Trump has warned Netflix to remove Susan Rice from its board or “face the consequences”, while the streaming platform is locked in a corporate battle to take control of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).  In comments posted on his Truth Social platform, the US president described Rice – who served as national security adviser to Barack Obama, UN ambassador and White House adviser under Joe Biden – as a “political hack."  

He said in an interview with NBC News that the justice department would handle the takeover of WBD, having insisted previously he would be involved in reviewing the deal. Any takeover of WBD will have to be approved by federal regulators.

The underlying concern, of course, is that the Netflix acquisition of WBD would result in a far-left super-conglomerate with substantial resources that could be used to saturate entertainment media with the DNC agenda.  To be clear, there is no such thing as a conservative counter-programming corporation in the media space.  Warner Bros. was essentially collapsing under the weight of it's own woke failures when a bidding war between Paramount and Netflix was launched. 

That said, a merger could very well result in yet another Disney; a monstrosity of a company controlling a huge catalog of IPs with agents of the Democrat Party basically steering the ship (Disney is loaded with DNC elites from the Clinton Admin, Obama Admin and Biden Admin). 

The deal requires DOJ approval under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (Anti-Trust scrutiny). The DOJ opened a probe in early 2026, examining Netflix's business practices for potential "monopolistic" effects on content creation, distribution, and theaters. 

Reports indicate the DOJ may soon announce intent to block it, citing anticompetitive leverage over filmmakers under the Sherman Act.  As President, Trump can direct or influence DOJ leadership (e.g., via appointees) to sue and halt the merger, meaning he does have the power to disrupt the deal should Netflix refuse to remove Susan Rice.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 17:10

Here's All The Key Figures Who Have Resigned Over The Epstein Files...So Far

We are starting to finally see the beginning of a series of high-profile resignations following the Justice Department’s latest release of millions of pages tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The documents—emails, financial records, and photographs—name figures from politics, finance, diplomacy, academia, and the arts. Although inclusion in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, the renewed scrutiny has prompted several prominent leaders to step down, as was documented by Time yesterday. 

As we've covered individually, those who have resigned include Thomas Pritzker, Kathy Ruemmler, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Brad Karp, Mona Juul, Peter Mandelson, Miroslav Lajcak, Jack Lang, and David A. Ross. In many instances, the records describe years of contact with Epstein, sometimes extending beyond his 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor, intensifying public and political pressure.

Thomas Pritzker resigned as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after emails showed he remained in contact with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell beyond Epstein’s conviction.

Some messages referenced plans to meet, including for dinners. Pritzker said he exercised “terrible judgment” in maintaining the relationships and expressed deep regret, while authorities have not accused him of misconduct.

Kathy Ruemmler stepped down as chief legal officer of Goldman Sachs after emails suggested a friendly relationship with Epstein years after his plea deal, including correspondence referencing gifts.

Ruemmler, who previously served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, has said she never represented Epstein and was unaware of his crimes. She later described him as a “monster” and said she regretted ever knowing him.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem resigned as chairman and CEO of DP World after correspondence indicated a lengthy friendship with Epstein that continued for years.

Some emails released by the Justice Department included personal exchanges that drew scrutiny. Authorities have not accused him of wrongdoing, and the company did not cite Epstein in announcing his departure.

Brad Karp left his post as chairman of Paul, Weiss after emails revealed an extended relationship with Epstein, including exchanges in which he praised a draft legal motion related to Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement.

Karp said the controversy had become a distraction to the firm, where he had served for decades, and denied any misconduct. The firm has said it never represented Epstein.

Several diplomats and cultural figures also stepped down. Mona Juul resigned from her role as a Norwegian ambassador after reports highlighted her past contact with Epstein and scrutiny over a will that allegedly left money to her children.

Norway’s foreign ministry said the situation raised concerns about judgment, though Juul has denied wrongdoing.

Peter Mandelson stepped down from the U.K. Labour Party after bank records and emails in the files showed financial transfers and correspondence with Epstein dating back to the early 2000s.

He had previously lost a diplomatic post after earlier disclosures about the relationship. Mandelson has said he did nothing criminal.

Miroslav Lajcak resigned as Slovakia’s national security adviser after text messages and emails showed exchanges with Epstein on a range of topics.

Lajcak said he stepped aside to spare the government political fallout and has denied any improper conduct.

In France, Jack Lang resigned as head of the Arab World Institute amid an investigation into alleged financial links between his family and entities associated with Epstein.

Lang, a former culture minister, has denied the allegations and said he was stepping down in the institution’s interest.

In New York, David A. Ross stepped down as a department chair at the School of Visual Arts after emails revealed continued communication with Epstein following his conviction, including exchanges about provocative artistic ideas.

Ross said he regretted being “taken in” by Epstein and expressed concern for the victims, while denying wrongdoing.

The latest release has reignited global attention on Epstein’s network, underscoring how associations—whether social, financial, or professional—continue to carry reputational and professional consequences years after his death in 2019.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 16:00

"Devastating" Discovery: New Docs Confirm JPMorgan De-Banked Trump Shortly After Jan 6th Capitol Chaos

New court documents released Friday show JPMorgan Chase told President Donald Trump a month after the January 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol that the bank was closing his accounts.

The disclosure was made amid a $5 billion lawsuit Trump filed against JPMorgan and its CEO Jamie Dimon.

JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, said for the first time late Friday that it cut off more than 50 Trump accounts in February 2021, shortly after Mr. Trump’s first term ended.

The accounts included those for Trump hotels, housing developments and retail shops in Illinois, Florida and New York, as well as Mr. Trump’s personal private banking relationship that handled his inheritance from his father, according to letters filed to the court.

JPMorgan did not specify in those letters a specific reason for the mass account closings.

In one unsigned note to Mr. Trump, dated Feb. 19, 2021, the bank wrote that he would need to “find a more suitable institution with which to conduct business.”

The letter closed with, “Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter” - a phrase that President Trump often uses.

As NYTimes reports, the President has maintained for years that his bank account closures were politically motivated, and a spokesperson for his legal team said the newest court documents are “a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim.”

“[JPMorgan] admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and ​his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the spokesperson said.

“President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.” the attorneys added. 

Mr. Trump’s lawsuit, which named Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, as a defendant, contended that the bank put Mr. Trump on a blacklist because it “needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.”

That echoed earlier complaints from Mr. Trump that Capital One similarly closed his accounts and that Bank of America refused to accept billions of dollars in deposits after the Jan. 6 riots.

The bank told The Epoch Times over email it will seek to dismiss the claims.

“Plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations do not allege sufficient facts to plead a claim,” the institution said.

JPMorgan told The Epoch Times last month that the case “has no merit.”

“[JPMorgan Chase] does not close accounts for political or religious reasons,” JPMorgan previously said.

“We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company.”

“We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so.”

These comments were made last month, days after Trump announced on social media his intention to sue the bank.

Since then, Trump’s lawyers have alleged in court documents that JPMorgan closed the president’s accounts because of its “‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.”

“In essence, [JPMorgan Chase] debanked Plaintiffs’ Accounts because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so,” the lawsuit states.

JPMorgan added it supports the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector. 

There is still much legal wrangling to come. JPMorgan this past week asked that the case be moved from Florida state court, where Mr. Trump has had some success in litigation, to a federal court in New York.

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 12:30

CNN Slams Keir Starmer's "Atrocious" Ratings, 'Makes Trump Look Like Abraham Lincoln'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Keir Starmer’s approval ratings have plunged to historic lows, with even CNN calling them “absolutely ATROCIOUS” and noting that President Trump appears “downright like Abraham Lincoln” by comparison. This brutal takedown highlights how Starmer’s globalist policies are alienating Brits across the board.

As the Labour leader clings to power, his war on free speech and commitment to protecting illegal immigration is fueling a backlash that could spell the end for his regime. With polls showing just 20% approval, Starmer’s grip on Number 10 looks increasingly tenuous.

The Overton News clip, which has gone viral on X, captures CNN’s scathing assessment of Starmer’s popularity nosedive.

CNN just DOG WALKED British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over his “ATROCIOUS” approval numbers.

They even admitted that President Trump looks like Abraham Lincoln in comparison.

CNN: “These numbers are absolutely ATROCIOUS!”

“I mean, you never see numbers like this in the… pic.twitter.com/dS5I9FmeCm

— Overton (@overton_news) February 19, 2026

In the segment, analyst Harry Enten declares, “These numbers are absolutely ATROCIOUS! I mean, you never see numbers like this in the United States of America.”

Focusing on the dire stats, Enten points out, “Britons who like Keir Starmer, look at this — overall it’s just 1 in 5! It’s just 1 in 5, 20%!”

Even within his own ranks, support is crumbling:

“His OWN party, Labour, he’s just at 52% there.”

The commentary escalates, revealing, “I’ve even seen numbers with satisfaction in the TEENS — and this is actually HIGHER than the lowest.”

The most striking line compares Starmer unfavorably to Trump:

“You know, we always talk about Donald Trump being unpopular in this country — but Donald Trump looks downright like Abraham Lincoln compared to Keir Starmer’s numbers at this point!”

The latest YouGov survey from February 2026 shows Starmer’s net favourability at -47, with only 22% viewing him positively against 69% unfavorably. That’s an improvement from January’s -57, but still abysmal for a sitting PM.

Other trackers paint an even grimmer picture. Ipsos reported satisfaction in the teens late last year, aligning with CNN’s observations. Opinium’s February poll pegs his net approval at -44, with over half the public calling for his resignation.

Starmer’s woes stem from policies that prioritize globalist agendas over British interests. Mass immigration continues unchecked, straining public services while borders remain porous. Economic missteps, like burdensome regulations on businesses, echo the failures of socialist experiments.

Recall our earlier coverage where a former aide to Starmer revealed how a “stakeholder state” – an unelected network of insiders, NGOs, and civil servants – effectively controls the UK government.

Paul Ovenden described this “political perma-class” as diverting power from voters to elite priorities, wasting resources on fringe issues while ignoring secure borders and sovereignty.

This shadowy influence explains Starmer’s disconnect from the public, leading to approval ratings that rival the worst in postwar history. Historical comparisons show that every UK PM with similar low ratings either lost big or resigned before the next election.

Adding fuel to the fire is Starmer’s aggressive stance against free expression. Threats to ban platforms like X over AI-generated content have drawn international condemnation.

As we reported previously, the US under Trump vowed to deploy its “full arsenal of tools” against such censorship, equating the UK to regimes like Iran. Under-Secretary Sarah B. Rogers warned that nothing is off the table to defend free speech, including facilitating uncensored access via Starlink.

This transatlantic tension underscores how Starmer’s surveillance-state ambitions, like cradle-to-grave digital IDs, threaten core freedoms. Brits are waking up to the hypocrisy: cracking down on online speech while turning a blind eye to real threats like grooming gangs.

Bloomberg notes Starmer’s ratings bounced slightly after a leadership scare but remain deeply negative compared to rivals like Kemi Badenoch (-23) and Nigel Farage (-37). Reform UK, with its America First-style populism, has surged ahead, capitalizing on Labour’s failures.

Even among Labour members, Starmer ranks near the bottom in internal favorability, with a net +5. A gender divide shows women more supportive, but overall, the party is fracturing.

Starmer’s trajectory mirrors the downfall of other left-wing leaders who embraced globalism over national sovereignty. As approval lingers in the doldrums, calls for his ouster grow louder.

The message is clear: Brits demand leaders who put their country first, not puppets of unelected elites. If Starmer doesn’t suddenly reverse course on open borders, economic strangulation, and speech suppression, his tenure could end much sooner than expected.

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 Sun, 02/22/2026 - 11:55

The post Instead of Greenland, Governor Landry Might Want to Send the Hospital Boat to Louisiana appeared first on CEPR.

Could The War In Ukraine Go Nuclear?

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Too many influential voices are contemplating how to ‘win’ a nuclear war...

With all eyes on the U.S. military buildup around Iran right now, the Russia-Ukraine War has been temporarily upstaged.  It will not play second fiddle for long.  The recent trilateral talks in Geneva involving the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States have been unable to resolve a principal issue of disagreement: Ukraine’s martial-law-president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s refusal to cede any land and Russia’s insistence that the Donbas region — specifically the four eastern territories that have already held a referendum in support of becoming part of the Russian Federation — be acknowledged as sovereign Russian territory.

As the war heads into its fifth year, dangers mount for Europe.  While President Trump wants to end the bloodshed before the violent conflict transforms into something even more catastrophic, too many parties seem committed to ratcheting up the butcher’s bill a while longer.  Unfortunately, there are numerous reasons for prolonging the war that have nothing to do with protecting civilian lives or securing Ukrainian territory.

There is the political reality that a growing embezzlement scandal is taking down high-ranking Ukrainian officials with close relationships to Zelenskyy and the prospect that general peace would mean not only an end to the hold-over-president’s power but also an end to his legal immunity.  There is the dogged determination of the European Commission and certain European nations — particularly the United Kingdom and its Ukraine-obsessed MI6 — to drag the fighting out as long as possible as part of a larger effort to weaken President Vladimir Putin’s control over the Russian Federation.  There is the long-term European Union goal of absorbing Ukraine into the continental federation and eventually welcoming it into NATO — or at least to use the present war as an excuse for positioning European troops close enough to Ukraine’s current battle lines to trigger a U.S. military response once the lives of NATO-allied soldiers are threatened.  There is the dire financial need for the European Central Bank and discrete national Treasuries to use the war as a publicly digestible excuse for fabricating new war bonds, cutting welfare programs, further integrating Europe’s separate national economies, subsidizing Europe’s defense industries, and printing enormous sums of money.  There is the relentless goal of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (selected by the elite members of the European Council and elected not by the European people but rather the European Parliament) to use the War in Ukraine as a justification for expanded powers for her office and the formation of a European-wide military under her putative authority.

For many reasons that have nothing to do with saving lives or resisting invasion, Europe seems committed to prolonging war and forestalling peace.

At the same time, there is a growing sentiment among Russians that a larger war in Europe has become inevitable.  While European political leaders have spent more than a decade publicly framing (1) Russia’s annexation of Crimea, (2) its military assistance to Russian separatist groups in the Donbas region, and (3) its “special military operation” in Ukraine as completely unprovoked instances of “Russian aggression,” most Russian citizens view them as legitimate responses to (1) the U.S.- and E.U.-led coup d’état of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 (an event that the West euphemistically calls the “Maidan Revolution” or “Revolution of Dignity”), (2) the Ukrainian military’s attacks on ethnic Russians, and (3) NATO’s decades-long advance right up to the Russian Federation’s borders.

If European and American leaders intended to weaken President Putin’s domestic support so severely that he would be removed, betrayed, or killed, those efforts have failed.  Instead, a rally-around-the-flag patriotism for “Mother Russia” has swept across the world’s largest nation state.  As European sports leagues banned Russian athletes from competing under their own flag, anger in Russia grew.  As Russians living abroad found their bank accounts frozen for the actions of their government, anger in Russia grew.  As Western news corporations increasingly dismissed politically inconvenient stories as “Russian disinformation,” anger in Russia grew.  Whereas once the prospect of Russian integration with continental Europe seemed likely, Russia now looks East and toward a future with other Asian powers.

A prospect even more unsettling than the current War in Ukraine now takes shape: the quickening drumbeat toward nuclear confrontation.  What U.S. and former Soviet Union leaders spent half a century working to avoid is now discussed too openly for comfort.  American senators, such as Lindsey Graham, have occasionally suggested that effective nuclear deterrence requires U.S. willingness to use the nuclear weapons in its arsenal.  France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor Fiedrich Merz have held not-so-secret talks on creating a European-managed “continental nuclear shield.”  Turkish President Recep Erdogan wants nuclear weapons of his own.  Polish President Karol Nawrocki says that his country needs nukes in order to defend against the “Russian threat.”  Meanwhile, one of the most influential intellectuals in the Russian Federation believes that President Putin must be willing to utilize “limited but decisive nuclear strikes using operational-strategic weapons” should European Union powers refuse to retreat.

Russian political scientist Sergey Karaganov says that the E.U. is playing with nuclear fire and must be taught a lesson.  Karaganov is no ordinary academic.  He holds a reputation in Russia similar to Henry Kissinger’s in the United States.  Karaganov is a founding member of Moscow’s prestigious Valdai Discussion Club, the honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics, and a personal confidant of both Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Putin.  When Professor Karaganov suggests that the time is approaching when his country must contemplate using nuclear weapons against strategically important areas of Europe, people should listen.

In a lengthy and polemical essay for the foreign-policy journal Russia in Global Affairs, Karaganov argues that Europe’s political “elites” are pushing the continent toward a nuclear confrontation.  He says the War in Ukraine has “dragged on longer than necessary” because of a “lack of determination to employ active nuclear deterrence.”  He argues that nuclear weapons represent the “only mechanism capable of resolving” the “European problem,” a problem that he describes as, “an existential threat to our country.”  Furthermore, “Targets should include places where elites gather, including in nuclear states.  Governments must feel personal risk.”

Professor Karaganov then takes the Russian people through a sympathetic history lesson.  He claims to have had a conversation with a group of European leaders back in 2013 during which he warned that “dragging Ukraine into the E.U. and NATO would lead to war and mass casualties.”  He says they “looked down at their shoes” and mumbled about “democracy,” “human rights,” and “containing Russia.”  Karaganov argues that years of Russian “appeasement” has come at the “terrible cost” of tens of thousands of “brave soldiers” who “lost their lives” in Ukraine.  Describing Russia’s fallen warriors as heroes whose sacrifice cannot be forgotten, he insists that Russia not make the same mistakes of the last two decades.

Striking Ukrainian targets, Karaganov argues, is not a “strategic solution” because “E.U. elites” represent the real threat.  “The conflict will continue until its true source is addressed: Western Europe’s degenerated ruling classes, intellectually, morally, and materially exhausted, who cling to power by fueling war.”  He insists that Russia must “break” Europe’s “will” to keep fighting.  He argues that effective nuclear deterrence is the only way to prevent a larger U.S.-Russia war.  Furthermore, he believes that France and the United Kingdom must be deprived of nuclear weapons because “they have forfeited the moral right to possess them.  Any Western European move toward nuclear proliferation must be treated as grounds for preemptive action.”

Too many influential voices are contemplating how to “win” a nuclear war.  Say a prayer for peace.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 10:45

Non-Woke Game Of Thrones Spinoff Explodes In Popularity

It is true that woke content in entertainment media has been in steady decline.  Some production studios continue to fight against reality in a vain effort to force their insane ideology on the public, but compared to five or ten years ago, far left-activism in film and TV is crumbling.

The number of film productions are plummeting.  New movies and shows are becoming thinner in budget and frequency.  Hollywood is gasping for oxygen.  Many people consider this a good thing, and it is.  Hollywood deserves to die.  That said, there's almost nothing available to replace it, and this is becoming a problem. 

Storytelling is integral to the human condition; it's how we pass on ideas, principles and history.  Hollywood has devolved to the point that they no longer know how to do this.  Wokeness is all they understand and without it they are lost.

Only a few years ago it would have been a miracle to find a streaming series with a nearly all white cast set in a European-style environment featuring a straight white male hero with a heart of gold and a dream of serving as a protector of the innocent.  It would have been even more of a miracle to find a show in which good people with pure intentions are exemplified as the ideal.  And, for that show to also be a Game of Thrones spinoff would require divine intervention.

Today, it would seem that miracles are now possible.

The recent release of HBO's "A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms" set in the world of Game Of Thrones has caused a stir - The good kind of stir.  Audiences initially approached the series with extreme caution, given the incredible woke failure the original GOT series turned out to be, not to mention the insipid gayness of House Of The Dragon.  However, the complete absence of woke propaganda in the series has come as a pleasant shock to audiences and the show is exploding in popularity.

The first season is not officially ended and there is, of course, always the chance that writers will attempt to ambush the audience after luring them into a false comfort.  But this does not seem to be the case with KSK.

Our main character, Duncan the Tall (played by Irish actor and rugby player Peter Claffey) is an endearing hero in a way that we have not seen in film or TV for a very long time.  His sidekick "Egg", played by 11-year-old Dexter Sol Ansell, is one of the best child actors to grace a series since the first season of Stranger Things (another show that fell part under the low IQ weight of woke ideology).  The duo is incredible to watch and their friendship feels real. 

The underlying theme, though, is the real draw. 

Chivalry and honor codes are center stage here.  No hint of feminism.  No hint of progressive moral relativism.  No moronic preaching about racism.  It's hard to believe, but the focus of this series is the necessity and value of good men.

Fans have taken to social media to rave about the production, citing the refreshing depiction of western culture in fantasy.  It's a genre that was supported by white nerds well before it was considered "cool", and it's nice that they're being welcomed back here.   

A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms is now bring in around 13 million viewers within the first three days of the premier of each new episode.  Compare this to the majority of woke series, which receive an average of 2 million to 5 million viewers per episode, usually in a pattern of steep decline.  Streaming services like Disney or Paramount tend to refuse to release full official data on such content because it performs so badly.    

It should not be surprising that entertainment media draws a much larger crowd when it avoids political preaching, especially when the content is set in a fantastical world where modern politics would not exist.  The inability of Hollywood to accept defeat and move on with more relatable content is leading to their complete destruction.  Maybe with the success of A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms they might finally learn something.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 09:55

"Potentially Worst Blizzard In Decade" Set To Hammer Mid-Atlantic And Northeast

A potentially historic winter storm is set to slam the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast beginning Sunday, bringing heavy snow, damaging winds, and coastal flooding.

As of Sunday morning, 35 million people are under Blizzard Warning alerts from the Mid-Atlantic through New England, according to a post on X from the National Weather Service Prediction Center.

Meteorologists are already labeling the nor'easter as potentially historic and warn it could be the most intense blizzard to hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast in a decade.

"IT" HAS THAT LOOK!!!!
Simulation satellite shows the PERFECT phase of this storm later today. A total occluded eye structure vertically stacked will support one HELL of a snow band ripping snow at 4-5" per hour for hours. If this band is fully into NYC we are going to 18+ inches… pic.twitter.com/k20obmsxAJ

— Mike Masco (@MikeMasco) February 22, 2026

⚠️We are continuing to track what is looking to be a historic winter storm for the Northeastern US. Heavy Rates, high gusts, and better consensus within models. This is not a storm to underestimate for SUN PM - MON!

We will be doing a client live for the area at 7PM-ET! If you… pic.twitter.com/81AWSqqoAO

— BAM Weather (@bam_weather) February 21, 2026

Potentially the worst blizzard in a decade is forecast to strike the northeast on Sunday into Monday. A historic snowstorm is forecast to bury Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston with potentially up to two feet of snow. Powerful 60-70 MPH wind gusts could cause widespread… pic.twitter.com/wlfWDKJ7mF

— Dylan Federico (@DylanFedericoWX) February 21, 2026

The 21z RAP is just a few inches short of producing the biggest snowfall of ALL TIME in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Area.

The record is 27.2" in March 2017#wxtwitter #wxX #NEPA #BlizzardOf2026 pic.twitter.com/DzqIa9MFTq

— Mark Margavage (@MeteoMark) February 21, 2026

Snowfall forecasts are already pointing to a high-impact setup along large stretches of the I-95 corridor, from the Washington, D.C., area to Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston, where significant accumulations are possible.

In the Tri-State region, some forecasts suggest localized totals could reach upwards of 2 feet, likely sparking major travel disruptions from the I-95 corridor to air travel.

"DHS suspends TSA PreCheck & Global Entry over shutdown. Millions who paid for faster security now stuck in regular lines—while a historic blizzard cancels 7,000+ flights in the Northeast," Fox News reporter Lucas Tomlinson wrote on X.

Related:

• Jim Snow 2.0: Mamdani Requires Snow-Shovel Volunteers Show Two Forms Of ID, Social Security Card

The storm's setup is similar to the 2016 blizzard that blanketed Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and New York City with up to 2 feet of snow in some areas.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 08:10

Preparation For Martial Law? Europe To Recruit Migrants For "National Defense"

Europe's lack of military readiness has become painfully obvious in recent years, due largely to the war in Ukraine as well as the Trump Administration's efforts to force NATO members to fulfill their basic obligations. 

Specifically, Russia's successful use of attrition tactics against NATO supported forces in Ukraine has exposed a significant weakness in western military doctrine.

New and cheap technologies (including drone technologies) are making large scale maneuver warfare obsolete.  The era of super-weapons dominating the battlefield with minimal manpower is over.  As was the case in WWI and WWII, troop strength and boots on the ground are once again the key to victory.  

A Washington DC-based defense think-tank, Center For A New American Century (CNAS), has come to the same realization and suggests a novel (as well as predictable) solution:  Exploit mass immigration from Ukraine and third world countries to the west as a resource to fill the persistent void in military recruitment numbers.  

Writing for Foreign Policy, the CNAS notes:

"Closing manpower gaps may prove harder than writing bigger checks. The continent’s demographic crisis compounds the problem: Births in the European Union fell below 4 million in 2022 for the first time since 1960, shrinking the pool of potential recruits as geopolitical threats—chief among them, Russian aggression—demand larger, more capable forces..."

The argument, of course, presupposes that Russia has any intention of invading greater Europe.  There is no evidence that this is Vladimir Putin's goal.  However, the Russian bogeyman does make for a useful excuse to justify the development of a unified EU military force.  

The threat of war can also be exploited by European officials as a way to justify open borders and mass immigration from the third world.  Immigration from Ukraine makes some sense - It is a legitimate war torn country and Ukrainians are close to the rest of Europeans in terms of cultural attitude.  But, EU elites need a rationale for flooding the region with third worlders and war with Russia seems to be their ticket.  The CNAS uses the "demographic collapse" claim as a catalyst.

"Ukraine’s grinding war of attrition has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Emerging capabilities in the form of high-tech weaponry cannot substitute for boots on the ground. Soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and airmen are the backbone of national defense. Yet the European Commission estimates a 43 million reduction in the bloc’s working-age population by 2070..."

"...Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with significant migration flows from Africa, the Middle East, and other regions. These arrivals, often young, male, and seeking better opportunities, represent exactly the demographic cohort European militaries desperately need. Many migrants arrive with valuable skills: language abilities, cultural knowledge of strategic regions, technical expertise, and, most importantly, motivation to prove themselves and build new lives."

It should be noted that these kind of articles from think-tanks are not so much "suggestions" for future policy initiatives.  Rather, they are propaganda pieces designed to promote policies that governments already intend to implement in the near future.

A number of European countries have already begun the groundwork for recruiting migrants for national defense. 

Ireland just recently announced that their are reviewing a possible program to give fast-track citizenship to immigrants who volunteer to join the military.  Irish leaders assert that this is necessary to boost defense capabilities, but they also argue that it is need to increase Ireland's "diversity."    

Several other European governments are looking at similar programs, including Germany, France and Spain. 

The real question is, would third world migrants actually fight on the front lines for Europe?  Furthermore, is this really the true agenda behind mass immigration?  To boost western demographics to defend against invasion, or to support the economy?

It is clear that third worlders are a net negative on the economic health of the countries they migrate to.  The majority represent a drain on social welfare systems.  Europe is on a downward spiral in terms of economic health and crime over the past decade.  In fact, the more European leaders embrace mass immigration, the more the economy declines and the worse their native demographic crisis becomes.  

It makes more sense if one considers the possibility that mass immigration and military recruitment are designed to keep European citizens in line, not Russia or Putin.  As we mentioned in our recent article on Canada's new program to recruit military trained foreign nationals for their own armed forces, left-wing governments are not really worried about invasion from Russia or China, they are worried about opposition from their own conservative and nationalist populations. 

It is much easier to control native Europeans using immigrant mercenaries with no loyalty to the culture.  The CNAS specifically mentions the use of military service as a way to sooth the concerns of "xenophobic" conservatives.

"The political center regarding migration has collapsed in the face of far-right xenophobic approaches to the migration file, such that few policy initiatives other than hardening land and maritime borders and cutting deals to send migrants away see the light of day..."

"The promise of citizenship provides powerful motivation, and military service demonstrates commitment to the nation in the most tangible way possible. The United States demonstrates that national identity is forged through shared sacrifice, not shared ancestry..."

In other words, sell Europeans on the idea that they have no shared ancestry and that migrants going to war for them is proof enough that they are loyal and should be citizens.  Of course, it's unlikely that migrants will be convinced to risk their lives for Europeans.  They might, however, be easily convinced to help oppress Europeans in exchange for citizenship and the spoils of subjugation.  

It's a threat western citizens need to seriously consider before supporting any government policy for the recruitment of foreign nationals.  They might just be supporting the very recruits that will eventually be used to enslave them.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:35

Ukraine's Fast-Tracked EU Membership Would De Facto Advance EU Federalist Goals

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The approval of “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and other candidate states would institutionalize a three-tiered Europe between the “E6”, Central Europe, and the new partial members from Eastern Europe and the Balkans for facilitating Germany’s divide-and-rule federalist plans.

Politico reported on the EU’s plan to grant Ukraine partial membership by next year at the earliest as part of a comprehensive solution to that country’s conflict. An unnamed official described this as “reverse enlargement” and explained that “It would be a sort of recalibration of the process — you join and then you get phased in rights and obligations.”

This modus operandi would enable all the other candidates to join too and thus complete the bloc’s expansion in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

If Orban isn’t ‘democratically deposed’ during next month’s parliamentary elections, then the EU plans to appeal to Trump to pressure him into agreeing to this, absent which they’ll remove Hungary’s voting rights.

Left unsaid is the assessment from early November when this general idea was first reported about how “Poland Might Impede The EU’s Push To Speedily Grant Ukraine Membership” if this compels it to open its agricultural market to another deluge of low-cost and low-quality Ukrainian exports.

Per the preceding hyperlinked analysis, “neither half of its ruling duopoly wants to be blamed for the domestic consequences of Ukraine joining the EU, especially not ahead of fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ruling liberal-globalist coalition is already facing an uphill battle and would torpedo any hope of keeping control if they supported this, while President Karol Nawrocki from the conservative-nationalist opposition would betray his base if he went along with them.”

It’s therefore possible that the EU’s “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine doesn’t include unlimited tariff-free access of its agricultural products either to the bloc as a whole or only to Poland in order to secure Warsaw’s approval. In any case, Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU membership would de facto advance EU federalist goals by institutionalizing Germany’s “two-speed Europe” proposal, thus leading to three tiers of membership actually between the “E6”, other full members, and the new partial members.

The “E6” refers to the bloc’s six largest economies – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland – who’d collectively sit atop this institutionalized hierarchy that would unofficially be led by the German-Franco duopoly (or divided into factions by them if their rivalry becomes unmanageable).

Regardless of Poland’s participation or lack thereof within the “E6”, which the abovementioned hyperlinked analysis argues can’t be taken for granted, the EU would thus be formally divided.

The “E6” would push through reforms for facilitating federalization even if that end goal isn’t openly declared to avoid spooking some countries and their societies. The new partial members would then be pressured to conform with these new policies to obtain full membership, while the remaining full members from the second tier would be pressured by the first and third one into following suit. There’s a distinct geopolitical division between these tiers that deserves mention before concluding the analysis.

The “E6” represents Western Europe (with the exception of Poland), the new partial members would represent Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while the rest represent Central Europe. The EU federalists therefore want to pit the first three against the Central European members who oppose federalism in order to then impose that system upon them as a fait accompli. This observation further contextualizes the perceived urgency over approving “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and the other candidates.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:00