Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 17,064]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

It just seems like your hating for hating. 

That whole move to 479.86 was because of the Trump win. 

If anything Tesla just went out and took the lows before the Trump win. 

It was an insane move and you can't go up like that forever before correcting. So a pullback was due, albeit it was a bigger pull back then many thought, but that happens at times. 

Tesla is still a big tech stock part of the mag 7. The technology and innovation that they come is amazing and will continue to lead a long the other mag 7. 

Everything else is just your hate because he is with Trump. 

Completely wrong I am afraid. Your emotional attachment to Trump and Musk appears far greater than my attitude, which is frankly, indifference.

Even if Trump was wonderful, you cant escape the cold hard reality, the shares have nosedived for one reason only. That reason is Musk. 

Musks support for Worldwide racist parties, and autocrats, has alienated his middle class buyers. His metaphorical chainsaw attack of public sector workers has garnered unprecedented product destruction and vandalism, never seen before of a consumer item. 

Whether that damage can ever be repaired, most commentators cite as highly doubtful, unless he is ousted as CEO.

[Fernando 6,515]

10 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Completely wrong I am afraid. Your emotional attachment to Trump and Musk appears far greater than my attitude, which is frankly, indifference.

Even if Trump was wonderful, you cant escape the cold hard reality, the shares have nosedived for one reason only. That reason is Musk. 

Musks support for Worldwide racist parties, and autocrats, has alienated his middle class buyers. His metaphorical chainsaw attack of public sector workers has garnered unprecedented product destruction and vandalism, never seen before of a consumer item. 

Whether that damage can ever be repaired, most commentators cite as highly doubtful, unless he is ousted as CEO.

So if the shares bounce all the way, will it be because of Musk?

Or you will attribute to something else?

As far as hating on a consumer item? I seen it frequently with the liberals and LGBTQ protesting Chick fil A in NYC because they are against the gay community. But then it the end people still did not care because Chick Fil A is really good. 

Same thing will happen, TESLA will continue to be TESLA. 

[Vesper 29,361]

As Trump Dodges Court Orders, Samuel Alito Suggests Obeying Judges Can Be Optional

A justice suggests flouting democratic norms after taking part in a decades-long project to weaken democratic rights.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/samuel-alito-lower-courts/

Justice Samuel Alito wants to know what a state should do if a court orders it to draw a new congressional map under faulty logic. Put more broadly, what should a litigant do if it believes that a court has made an order in error?

The answer, of course, is to obey the court order. Decisions can be appealed, and sometimes confronted through the political process. But if anyone could simply discard a court order they disagreed with, we would not be governed by the rule of law.

Alito’s query in Monday’s oral arguments in a redistricting case from Louisiana laid out a very different approach—one that is particularly troubling at this very moment, as the Trump administration is repeatedly disobeying court orders. The administration has not declared a right to ignore the courts, but its lawyers are toeing the line of malpractice in multiple cases by dodging court orders. Whether it is refusing to turn around planes carrying nearly 300 migrants to a labor camp in El Salvador or to release federal funding that the administration claims it can refuse to spend, the Trump administration is currently trying to blow past the orders of federal judges to enact its anti-democratic agenda.

Monday’s complicated case concerned how Louisiana drew a second majority-Black district as the result of rulings from both a federal district court and the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in another case, Robinson v. Landry. Alito wanted to know if obeying this court order was actually required:

“What if the Robinson decision were plainly wrong?” Alito asked. “Would you still have a good reason to follow it?”

Louisiana’s solicitor general, Benjamin Aguiñaga, agreed that a wildly bad decision might be the rare kind of situation in which a state could not rely on a court order to justify its new map. But Alito pressed on, positing even weaker cases where a court might be ignored:

“What if it weren’t wildly wrong?” the justice asked. “You look at it and it’s wrong. They misapplied something.”

Several other justices likewise questioned the correctness of Robinson before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stepped in to point out how dangerous this entire line of thinking is to the rule of law. “I’m still a little confused as to why it matters whether the court order was right or not,” Jackson said. “You were still being compelled by a court to do what you did in this case. Correct?”

Aguiñaga agreed, and Jackson continued: “Having a likely [Voting Rights Act] violation is all that was necessary for the state to take the steps that it did. So, I just don’t know that we need to even engage in the thought process of ‘What if the court order was wrong?’ It existed, and if it existed, then it seems to me that there is a good reason for Louisiana to have followed it.”

In other words, court orders are not optional. Aguiñaga, a former Alito clerk, agreed. “I’m not going to stand here and say that the Robinson courts were right,” he said at another point, “but I will say that what is set in stone is what they said. That is the law, and we took that as gospel.” That’s how it’s supposed to work.

Monday’s case, Louisiana v. Callais, isn’t about Donald Trump’s second term power grabs. Instead, it’s yet another case presenting the Supreme Court an opportunity to make it harder to enforce the Voting Rights Act’s protections for minority voters—and one that took a convoluted path to the high court. In June 2022, a federal district court ruled that, under the VRA, Louisiana must create a second majority-Black district in a state where Black voters were a third of the population but held a majority in only one of the state’s six congressional districts. That is the Robinson litigation. While the Supreme Court temporarily blocked that ruling for the 2022 election, its 2023 ruling concerning a similar situation in Alabama prompted the Fifth Circuit to reaffirm that Louisiana had likely violated the VRA. The state’s Republican-controlled legislature reluctantly held a special session in January 2024 to create a new majority-Black district that favored Democrats.  

A group of “non-African American” Louisiana voters then challenged that map, calling it “an odious racial gerrymander,” and in April 2024 a federal district court panel, with two Trump-appointed judges writing for the majority, struck it down, arguing that race had unconstitutionally been the predominant factor in drawing the district—even though Louisiana had been specifically ordered by another federal court to create the majority-Black district.

Civil rights groups and the state of Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which allowed the new district to take effect for the 2024 election, leading to the election of Democrat Cleo Fields. The case represented an unusual instance when Black voters and a Republican-controlled Southern state were more or less on the same side—and also a rare example of the Supreme Court delivering a victory for minority representation, given the Court’s well-documented hostility to voting rights. That includes gutting the Voting Rights Act on multiple occasions and holding that partisan gerrymandering can’t be challenged in federal court.

But the uneasy alliance between civil rights groups and Louisiana is fraying. Though Louisiana defended the constitutionality of its congressional map, it also asked the Court to rule that racial gerrymandering claims, like partisan gerrymandering claims, can’t be brought before the Court. That would make it next to impossible for litigants to counter gerrymandered maps that target voters based on partisanship, race, or both. It has also argued, in separate litigation, that the core provision of the Voting Rights Act barring discrimination is unconstitutional.

The Louisiana case should be relatively straightforward, given its similarity to the Alabama case, Allen v. Milligan, decided by the Court less than two years ago. But civil rights opponents are trying to use it as a vehicle to further roll back representation for communities of color and deal another blow to the Voting Rights Act. And the GOP-appointed justices on Monday appeared eager to assist in this project, possibly even at the expense of Allen v. Milligan, a very recent decision.

As the Trump administration slashes agencies, halts spending without Congressional approval, and deports immigrants without due process—to name just a few of the dozens of illegal actions the new administration has carried out—Monday’s case seemed like a quaint concern, far removed from the current authoritarian threat facing the country. And in some ways it is—just another possible loss for voting rights, in a long line of decisions that have chipped away at access to the ballot.

But there is a through line connecting the attack on the voting rights of Black people and the will to flagrantly ignore bedrock democratic principles like following court orders. The GOP, with the assistance of the Roberts Court, has for more than a decade unwound minority voting rights. That lack of commitment to democracy creates a permission slip to take a sledgehammer to the Constitution by, for example, acting outside the law.

The third lawyer to argue Monday was Edward Greim, who represented the non-Black Louisianans trying to toss out the new map on the grounds that it relied too heavily on race. In 2020, Greim was one of the lawyers who tried to halt vote-counting in order to help President Donald Trump win the election. According to the Wisconsin Examiner, Greim later represented a fake elector from Wisconsin who was part of the plot to overturn the election results. Greim is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Federalist Society, where he is on the executive team of its Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group. That resume illustrates the line that links litigation meant to weaken the democracy and the willingness to attack it head on.

There are many Republicans and former Republicans who showed no angst at whittling away the Voting Rights Act but who, when confronted with Trump, refused to be part of his authoritarian project. But for others, the slow withdrawal from democracy was surely part of the journey to deciding to ditch it entirely. The fact that the Roberts Court may now toss even its own recent precedents in order to make it even harder for Black people to vote—and do so while questioning the value of following court orders—at the same time that the Trump administration is bulldozing the separation of powers and other bedrock democratic principles is not a coincidence. It’s part of the same project, the slow part and the fast part together.

[Vesper 29,361]

Ed Martin Is Trampling the Rule of Law. And He Won’t Shut Up About It.

Trump’s loyal prosecutor is weaponizing the DOJ—one typo at a time.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/ed-martin-washingting-dc-us-attorney-january-6-trump/

When Elon Musk ordered a government-wide email blast directing federal employees to list their recent accomplishments, most senior officials paused to consider their options. In the Justice Department, US attorneys around the country discussed the matter over an email list they share, with many deciding to seek more guidance before instructing career prosecutors on how to respond. One questioned whether the email was even real.

But Ed Martin, an acolyte of President Donald Trump named interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, charged ahead. “It’s legit and we’ve already replied,” he told his fellow US attorneys. “Great leadership.”

Just 33 minutes after the Office of Personnel Management directive hit inboxes, Martin urged lawyers under him to comply, though he suggested they respond carefully. “DOGE and Elon are doing great work!” Martin wrote in one of his frequent communiques to hundreds of assistant US attorneys and support staff. “We are happy to be participate.”

For Martin—a right-wing activist and serial political candidate who has enthusiastically defended January 6 rioters—this was just one more typographically challenged missive in a campaign to turn a powerful legal office into a partisan weapon. Since taking on the gig in January, he’s compensated for his lack of prosecutorial experience by loudly proclaiming his desire to help Trump and Musk use the DOJ to punish their foes. Trump quickly returned the favor, nominating him to hold the post indefinitely.

Martin, who did not respond to questions from Mother Jones, has announced investigations into his own staff for their role in January 6 cases and has volunteered to support Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Orwellian “Weaponization Working Group,” which purports to take aim at abuses of the justice system during the Biden administration. Martin has threatened former special counsel Jack Smith and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and has used X to indicate plans to investigate administration critics. He has even tried to leverage a dubious criminal probe to seize climate grant money awarded by the Biden administration.

As he posts his way to prominence, Martin has bombarded his staff with chatty emails recounting his daily activities, then repeatedly berated them after those emails leaked. In a new administration defined by a mixture of malevolence and ineptitude, Martin has emerged as an avatar: a typo-spewing henchman of the moment, eager to help Trump transform the Justice Department into a political tool—and unable to shut up about it.

Eagle Ed

Martin, whom associates call outwardly affable, presents as a guy pleased and a bit surprised by his elevation.

“He has a little bit of buffoonery and a ‘Mr. Smith comes to Washington’ vibe,” said one person who has worked in the DC US attorney’s office.

His emails and other communications tend to read like daily journal entries. “Life is very different for me and my family these days,” Martin wrote in a February 4 Substack post. “I am up earlier and into the office in downtown DC. Home late. Pretty tired by then.” 

“There is so much to tell you,” he added. “One aspect: my new office is large.”

If Martin is pinching himself at his new position, he has reason. While US attorneys are often experienced prosecutors or rising political prospects, Martin, 54, is more of a journeyman. He spent much of the past two decades as a conservative activist in Missouri, running a series of political organizations—a sort of far-right change agent who sometimes leaves behind litigation and enemies.

As chief of staff for Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt in 2007, Martin fired a state attorney, Scott Eckersley, who had warned against deleting emails that state law required be retained. In a lawsuit, Eckersley alleged that Martin and other officials had falsely accused him of “accessing group sex websites on his state computer” and had defamed him to the media. The state attorney general’s office ultimately agreed to pay Eckersley a $500,000 settlement in the matter. 

Martin ran for Congress in 2010; he started and ended Senate and House campaigns in 2012, before committing to the state attorney general race that year. None of his campaigns were successful.

After a stint running Missouri’s GOP and heading several conservative nonprofits, Martin landed in 2015 as president of the Eagle Forum, an organization founded by conservative hero Phyllis Schlafly, then 90 years old. Within a year, Martin had been fired by the group’s board and accused by Schlafly’s daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori, of manipulating the aging icon to commandeer her organizations and legacy. In 2016, Cori and other group members sued Martin for alleged acts that included impersonating Schlafly in Facebook posts and other correspondence. “During Martin’s brief tenure, the Eagle Forum…has experienced unprecedented chaos,” the plaintiffs asserted in their complaint. Martin denied those claims.

In March 2016, with Martin at her side, Schlafly endorsed Trump. She died September 5, 2016. Her name appeared posthumously alongside Martin’s as an author of the book The Conservative Case for Trump, published the next day.

A year later, Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice then running for Senate, claimed Schlafly among his endorsers. Moore’s webpage, Roll Call reported, said: “Phyllis Schlafly, Late President, Eagle Forum; inference of Ed Martin.”

Martin by then had launched a new group, Phyllis Schlafly’s American Eagles. And he retained control of another Schlafly-founded nonprofit, the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund. Tax filings by the latter group show Martin’s salary as president, which fluctuated, peaked at just over $204,000 in 2020. He’d received more than $1.4 million in total from the group as of 2023. He still uses the X handle @EagleEdMartin.

Martin netted more than $322,000 from yet another former Schlafly nonprofit, America’s Future, while serving as its president beginning in 2016. In 2021, Martin’s final year leading that group, he received more than $83,000 for the job, which, according to tax filings, took him eight hours per week. That year, the group appointed Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser and a prominent far-right conspiracy theorist, as its board chair. America’s Future also hired Flynn’s brother Joe and sister Mary to top jobs. Within a few years of Martin’s departure, America’s Future was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to members of the Flynn family. Asked about this, Joe Flynn, a sometime-spokesperson for the family, texted: “Fuck off quote me.”

Stop the Steal

Martin moved to Virginia in 2017 and spent much of the first Trump administration as a far-right pundit. He lost a gig as a CNN contributor after complaining about appearing on the network alongside “Black racists.” He ran a feeble 2019 campaign for the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County, Virginia. He also designed a coloring book based on Trump’s 2017 “covfefe” typo tweet. In it, aspiring artists can color in outlined images of Kanye West and Candace Owens under a West tweet boasting that he had a signed MAGA hat, or they can complete a connect-the-dots puzzle of a MAGA hat on a page advertising a free downloadable song sharing a “#CovfefeIsLove” message.

Martin gained focus following the 2020 election, organizing pro-Trump protests alongside Ali Alexander, the “Stop the Steal” activist who claimed he “came up with the idea” to pressure Congress on January 6 to not certify Biden’s victory. 

Martin “was kind of like a mentor,” Alexander said in a December 2021 deposition conducted by the House January 6 committee. According to Alexander, the two men “prayed together every morning.”

In depositions, other January 6 rally organizers expressed various concerns about Alexander, who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars without setting up a nonprofit group or accounting for the funds. But Martin offered his own nonprofit as a place for Alexander to park cash, Alexander told the committee. Martin’s group acted “as a sponsor for collecting Stop the Steal funds” for the rally, Alexander testified. Alexander did not respond to inquiries from Mother Jones.

In late 2020, Martin was in regular contact with Vincent Haley, a White House aide, according to previously unreported text messages released by the January 6 committee. Shortly after the election, Martin urged Haley to “push” a pardon for Michael Flynn, who had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI but was never imprisoned. The Trump DOJ already had dropped the case against Flynn, but Martin suggested that the former general would be more willing to join Stop the Steal rallies once pardoned. “He’d come to dc for the rally/March,” Martin texted Haley on November 10. “We need that guy loosed.”

“I have recommended it,” Haley responded. It is not clear whether Martin’s pressure had any impact, and Haley didn’t respond to Mother Jones’ questions. But Trump pardoned Flynn on November 26, 2020. Flynn then spoke at DC rallies on December 12 and January 5.

Martin also spoke at those rallies. And he was outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as rioters attacked police. But Martin, who was not charged with a crime, saw no evil. “Rowdy crowd but nothing out of hand,” Martin tweeted at 2:53 p.m. that day. “Ignore the #FakeNews.” In a video he posted the next day, Martin repeated false claims that the attack had been orchestrated by left-wing infiltrators. “Now we know that it was antifa,” he said. “It was plants.”

Martin’s efforts drew a subpoena from the January 6 committee. He ignored it, failing to appear for a scheduled deposition. He went on to become a vocal advocate for attackers facing legal charges and represented several people charged with taking part in the riot.

Martin was no ordinary defense attorney. He suggested that the defendants should receive “reparations” and pushed a bizarre and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that “January 6 was staged by Mr. Coffee,” a supposedly unidentified man seen drinking coffee near the gallows display constructed outside the Capitol that day. Martin pursued this theory vigorously, posting “missing person” flyers featuring grainy images of the man around Washington.

On the right-wing podcast circuit, he called for “accountability” for those who had investigated January 6. “One of the reasons I think that we should fear for this election,” he said last summer, “is because there’s hundreds of Democrats and some Republicans—Liz Cheney—that they know they’re going to jail.”

“A Great Failure of Our Office”

Martin began working as US attorney on Inauguration Day, the day Trump granted clemency to 1,600 January 6 defendants. The president’s vaguely worded declaration largely left implementation to the DOJ. Martin took on that task with alacrity.

When a judge barred Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, whose 18-year sentence Trump had commuted, from entering DC, Martin intervened, successfully arguing that the order was improper. Rhodes—who has since shown up on Capitol Hill—later told reporters that the judge “got slapped down by Ed Martin.”

As an interim US attorney, Martin can serve a maximum of 120 days, unless the Senate confirms him to fill the job permanently. He wasted no time in reshaping the office in his image, demoting key attorneys who’d worked on January 6 cases and initiating an internal investigation of prosecutors who charged defendants with violating a particularly harsh obstruction statute—18 USC 1512—that the Supreme Court later ruled did not apply to most of the rioters. 

For Martin, the DOJ’s use of the that provision had long been an obsession. “Who ordered the 1512?” he asked on Charlie Kirk’s podcast in 2023. “If it was [Merrick] Garland, or [former Deputy Attorney General] Lisa Monaco, or Joe Biden, or Hunter…that guy or gal needs to end up in jail.”

In a January 27, 2025, email that began by lamenting the Washington Commanders’ playoff loss the day before, Martin asked DC prosecutors to hand over material relevant to his probe into this matter, which he dubbed the “1512 Project.”

“Obviously, the use [of the statute] was a great failure of our office,” he wrote to his staff, “and we need to get to the bottom of it.” The next day, he reminded employees to cough up information about their own activities. “Please be proactive – if you have nothing, tell the co-chairs,” he wrote. “Failure to do so strikes me as insubordinate.” 

News of this investigation was quickly reported. “Wow, what a disappointment to have my email yesterday to you all was leaked almost immediately,” Martin wrote in another email. “Again, personally insulting and professionally unacceptable. I guess I have learned my lesson.”

Maybe not. A few days later, Martin was again chastising his staff after Reuters reported that he had put his name on a January 21 DOJ filing requesting that a judge dismiss charges against one of Martin’s personal January 6 clients, whom Trump had just pardoned. Martin, it emerged, had not withdrawn as the man’s attorney, putting him on both sides of the case, an ethical breach that drew a bar complaint. (In a February 5 filing, he told the judge that he had not actually represented that defendant since 2023 and asked to withdraw from the case.)

“I have said repeatedly over the past few days that we must protect our lawyers, staff, and all on our team from doxing, from attacks and from any threats,” he wrote in a February 5 email to his staff complaining about that “leak.” He urged them to join a training “to protect ourselves from unethical behavior.” This admonishment came a few paragraphs after Martin’s description of his visit to Frederick Douglass’ house in DC—“It’s a fascinating site and I encourage you to visit”—and a meeting with DC District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg and other judges: “It was an off the record conversation, but I can say it was an extraordinary one.”

“Noone Is Above the Law”

Martin has also made repeated public offers of DOJ assistance in combating the Trump administration’s enemies. Shortly after Wired reported the names of engineers working for Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—prompting a flurry of social media attention and public complaints from the billionaire—Martin posted an image of a letter to Musk on X. In it, he typed, “Dear Elon,” which he then crossed out and replaced with a handwritten “Elon.”

“I ask that you utilize me and my staff to assist in protecting the DOGE work and DOGE workers,” Martin wrote. “Any threats, confrontations, or other actions in any way that impact their work may break numerous laws.” Five hours later, Martin posted that his office already had found that “certain individuals and/or groups have committed acts that appear to violate the law in targeting DOGE employees.”

Martin released a new letter February 7—which he clarified had been “sent only via X.” He again crossed out a typed “Elon” in favor of a handwritten “Elon.”

“Thank you for the referral of individuals and networks who appear to be stealing government property and/or threatening government employees,” Martin wrote. “If people are discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically, we will investigate them and we will chase them to the end of the Earth to hold them accountable.”

He added, misspelled and in bold: “Noone is above the law.”

Martin has since routinely used his X account to publicly suggest that the Trump DOJ might take action in response to allegations lobbed on social media. “Duly noted,” he wrote in response to a request from the Homeland Security Department X account that he look into an unsubstantiated DOGE claim that a “Biden transition team member” had rigged a contract. “We are on it.”

As large protests against DOGE began last month, Martin retweeted a post by Mike Cernovich, a commentator known for his role in boosting a false conspiracy theory related to Pizzagate back in 2016. Cernovich was now suggesting that Trump fans take advantage of Martin’s presence at the DOJ to “attend far left wing rallies, capture the reaction, and where appropriate, seek criminal prosecution.”

Martin in January personally wrote to Schumer, threatening legal action over a 2020 speech warning Supreme Court justices against curtailing abortion rights. “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at the time. The Democratic senator wasn’t threatening actual violence, but he expressed regret for his statement the day after he made it, saying he meant “there would be political consequences.” And his chief of staff appears to have explained that in a response to Martin’s query.

But Martin, in a February email, asserted that Schumer had ignored him, calling the snub “a personal disappointment and professionally unacceptable.” That’s nearly the same phrase Martin used to berate his staff for email leaks. He urged Schumer to “complete this inquiry before any action is taken. I remind you: no one is above the law.” 

Days later, Martin forced the resignation of Denise Cheung, a 24-year DOJ veteran, after she declined to launch a criminal probe and freeze assets of an environmental group awarded a contract by the Biden administration. Martin then personally submitted a seizure warrant application, an extraordinary move for a US attorney. A magistrate judge rejected the request, finding the application lacked sufficient evidence of a crime, the Washington Post reported.

The same week, Martin helped defend the administration from a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press, which had been barred from some White House events over the news organization’s refusal to adopt “Gulf of America” in its style guide. “As President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President,” he declared in a graphic posted on X by the US attorney’s office while a court hearing in the case was taking place. The AP, he complained, was refusing “to put America first.”

On February 17, Trump officially nominated Martin for the permanent US attorney job. His conduct so far could complicate his Senate confirmation. Even Sen. Josh Hawley, Martin’s fellow Missouri election denier, has declined to commit to backing him. But the same antics that leave some Republican lawmakers wary of Martin appear to make him exactly who the president wants.

Meanwhile, Martin is still firing off communiques. A few days after ousting Cheung, he sent his staff pictures from a meeting with Joe diGenova, a pro-Trump former DC US attorney who once claimed Fox News “is compromised when it comes to” George Soros. “These weeks have been a whirlwind,” Martin commented. “Meeting so many new people.”

In a March 15 Substack post, Martin again groused about his emails leaking. “Personally insulting and professionally unacceptable,” he wrote. “But regularly happening.” He added that he is “actively and carefully (quietly!) investigating. And when I find the leaks, you will find the accountability.”

The same day, Martin renewed his search for “Mr. Coffee,” posting a video he’d previously made suggesting “the real architects of January 6” were connected to the FBI. “Worth a look, no?” the interim US attorney wrote. “Who lied to us?”

Edited Tuesday at 14:26 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 17,064]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

So if the shares bounce all the way, will it be because of Musk?

Or you will attribute to something else?

You mean if they go back to what they were before he was doing nazi salutes, going on live TV coked up to the eyeballs, supporting Tommy Robinson and the AfD ?

To be honest they wont - as many financial experts have said, the brand is tarnished as long as he remains CEO. They would recover a lot if he apologised and was a bit contrite, but his ego is too big for that.

[Vesper 29,361]

SignalGate - A Former NSA Collection Operator Explains Trump's Massive Security Breach

An ex-NSA/Navy cryptologist explains a VERY DIFFERENT way to see the damage Sec Def Pete Hesgeth, VP JD Vance, Tulsi gab bard et al inflicted on America when they used private mobile phones for advanced war plans and had a journalist in the chat without knowing. Our enemies were likely listening to these dopes as well.

 

 

The Legion: How Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drew in thousands of international volunteer fighters

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-putin-fighters-b2286908.html

[Fernando 6,515]

Hundreds join Gaza's largest anti-Hamas protest since war began

Hundreds of people have taken part in the largest anti-Hamas protest in Gaza since the war with Israel began, taking to the streets to demand the group step down from power.

Masked Hamas militants, some armed with guns and others carrying batons, intervened and forcibly dispersed the protesters, assaulting several of them.

Videos shared widely on social media by activists typically critical of Hamas showed young men marching in the streets of Beit Lahia, northern Gaza on Tuesday, chanting "out, out, out, Hamas out".

Hamas said it condemned those who it accused of pushing "suspicious political agendas" and shifting the blame from Israel.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g71lk09npo

[Vesper 29,361]

[Vesper 29,361]

“Too Stupid for Words”: Trump pulls back 20 semi trucks of food from Cleveland’s food bank

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/03/too-stupid-for-words-trump-pulls-back-20-semi-trucks-of-food-from-clevelands-food-bank.html

The Greater Cleveland Food Bank faces a crisis that could leave thousands of Northeast Ohioans hungry as early as this week, bringing harsh criticism of the Donald Trump administration from “Today in Ohio” podcast hosts Chris Quinn and Lisa Garvin.

“The food bank is facing cancellation of 20 semi trucks full of food, and that could happen as early as this week,” explained Garvin. “This food is coming from the Federal Emergency Food Assistance Program. Each truck holds 100,000 pounds of food. So that’s $2 million worth of food.”

Garvin noted the truckloads represent about “a week’s worth of food for Northeast Ohio.” The cancellations appear to be part of broader federal spending cuts, but the hosts questioned whether this decision was deliberate policy or simply incompetence.

“I’ve got to think that Trump himself doesn’t know about this because this is too stupid for words,” Quinn said bluntly. “Nothing drives you more than hunger.”

The podcast highlighted how the cancellations would impact not just recipients but also local farmers. The food bank expects to lose “a million pounds of food from local... Food for Purchase Assistance,” which provides fresh food from area farmers to food banks. Garvin explained that “losing this program means that they can’t meet the demand for fresh food or protein, which is really expensive to replace and really hard to get donated to the food bank.”

The food bank is uncertain about when or if the issue will be resolved. According to Garvin, Food Bank CEO Kristin Warzocha is “worried that these trucks, this food is going to sit and spoil while things are getting worked out. And that would be the loss of 2 million, 3 million pounds of food.”

Quinn expressed particular frustration about the political shortsightedness of the move. “If you want to rally people to vote in the midterms, make them hungry, leave them without enough food. See how many show up to make their feelings known,” he said.

The podcasters noted that the federal cuts come as Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s budget proposal calls for “a $7.5 million decrease in food bank funding in Ohio,” creating a perfect storm for hunger relief organizations.

The hosts emphasized that this isn’t just about feeding hungry people—it’s also about supporting local agriculture. “It isn’t just about them. It’s about the small and medium sized farmers in Ohio that are supplying this fresh fruit and produce. It’s become a business for them. It’s a big client for a lot of these people. So they’re affected too,” Garvin noted.

As of the podcast recording, there had been no explanation from the Department of Agriculture about the cancellations, leaving the food bank and its clients in limbo.

The “Today in Ohio” team promised to follow up with the food bank to determine exactly how many people could be affected by these cuts if they go forward.

[Vesper 29,361]

[Vesper 29,361]

Trump’s faith adviser selling seven Easter blessings for $1,000 gift

https://baptistnews.com/article/trumps-faith-adviser-selling-seven-easter-blessings-for-1000-gift/

President Donald Trump’s chief faith adviser is selling seven “supernatural blessings” for Easter season gifts of $1,000 or more.

On her website and social media, televangelist Paula White has a special offer for what she calls the “Passover season” when “your obedience to align yourself with the desires of God” can “release seven specific supernatural blessings for your body, your family, your finances and your future.”

White leads the White House Faith Office and recently assembled a group of 17 evangelical pastors to pray over Trump in the Oval Office.

She bases her promise of seven blessings (for the gift of $1,000) on Exodus 23, which ironically begins with these words: “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness. You shall not follow a majority in wrongdoing; when you bear witness in a lawsuit, you shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice.”

Televangelist and personal pastor to Donald Trump, Paula White, speaks during a Trump campaign event courting devout conservatives by combining praise, prayer and patriotism, Thursday, July 23, 2020, in Alpharetta, Ga. (AP Photo/John Amis)

And then states this in verse 9: “You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

White and her team of spiritual advisers have endorsed and blessed Trump as he lies and seeks to have judges impeached if they cross him, and as he rounds up legal immigrants for deportation and imprisonment.

With a portion of Exodus 23, she takes God’s promise to the Children of Israel and applies it today to those who give her $1,000 or more.

“As we read in Exodus 23, when you honor God during this Passover,” she claims, God will “assign an angel to you,” “be an enemy to your enemies,” “give you prosperity,” “take sickness away from you,” “give you a long life, “bring increase and inheritance” and “give a special year of blessing.”

All this can be yours, she says, if you bring a “Passover offering to the house of the Lord.”

Then she relates this testimony from one of her followers named Alfred: “I sowed a seed as a result of the teaching of giving during the Passover season. As a result, my unemployment benefits were restored and increased this past week. My family and I are being provided for, and spiritual blessings are evident. I believe the 7 Blessings are being manifested in me, and believe full restoration will take place in my life, career, child, and service to the Lord.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is seeking to cut benefits for the poorest Americans such as Alfred.

But wait, there’s more!

With your gift of $1,000 or more, White will send you a 10-inch-high Waterford cross, plus some devotionals and an “olive wood communion set from the Holy Land.”

That special set “contains unleavened bread and grape juice from the Holy Land, two beautiful olive wood communion cups” and a booklet, her advertisement says. With these items in hand, “you can join Paula in taking communion during our special Good Friday online GLOBAL communion service at noon eastern on April 18.”

[Vesper 29,361]

The SAVE Act Would Disenfranchise Millions of Citizens

The SAVE Act would require all Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation unavailable to millions and upend the way every American citizen registers to vote.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/

This article contains an update.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act has been reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would require all Americans to prove their citizenship status by presenting documentation—in person—when registering to vote or updating their voter registration information. Specifically, the legislation would require the vast majority of Americans to rely on a passport or birth certificate to prove their citizenship. While this may sound easy for many Americans, the reality is that more than 140 million American citizens do not possess a passport and as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name.

Because documentation would need to be presented in person, the legislation would, in practice, prevent Americans from being able to register to vote by mail; end voter registration drives nationwide; and eliminate online voter registration overnight—a service 42 states rely on. Americans would need to appear in person, with original documentation, to even simply update their voter registration information for a change of address or change in party affiliation. These impacts alone would set voter registration sophistication and technology back by decades and would be unworkable for millions of Americans, including more than 60 million people who live in rural areas. Additionally, driver’s licenses—including REAL IDs—as well military or tribal IDs would not be sufficient forms of documentation to prove citizenship under the legislation.*

In short, the SAVE Act is disastrous legislation that would drastically alter the way every American citizen registers to vote. The legislation completely disregards the resources available to most Americans as well as the reality of American women’s lives. Despite these overwhelming facts and the real possibility that millions of Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and independents—could be disenfranchised, leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has declared that passing the legislation is one of their top priorities for the 119th Congress.

Existing election integrity measures

Federal law already clearly states that it is illegal for non-U.S. citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot in federal elections. It’s an existing crime that is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Election officials also already use state and federal data—including citizenship data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration—to verify an individual’s eligibility to cast a ballot. What the SAVE Act would do is invert the responsibility to verify a person’s eligibility and citizenship status from election officials and the government onto American citizens.

It’s also critical to note that there are already documentation requirements to be able to register to vote. As required by federal law, Americans must provide either the last four digits of their Social Security number or their driver’s license number on a voter registration application in order to provide election officials with the necessary information to verify their identity and voting eligibility. The SAVE Act seeks to upend this process and turn a relatively well-oiled system—where officials are tasked with the work of verification—and, instead, make every single American citizen put in the work, time, and resources to exercise their constitutional right to vote and convince the government that they’re eligible.

Half of American citizens do not have a valid passport

In addition to setting voter registration back to the preinternet era, the SAVE Act threatens the constitutional rights of American citizens, as tens of millions of citizens do not possess the documentation required under the bill.

According to statements and data released by the U.S. Department of State, approximately only half of American citizens possess a passport. This means that half of all American citizens would not be able to provide one of the primary acceptable forms of documentation that would be required to register to vote under the SAVE Act.

Nationwide, approximately 146 million American citizens do not possess a passport. To put that number into perspective, 153 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential general election.

Methodology

Source: U.S. Department of State, "Passport Issuance by State or Territory by Fiscal Year (2020-2024)" (last accessed January 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2022,” Press release, April 2023; U.S. Department of State, “Return to Pre-Pandemic Passport Processing Times,” December 18, 2023; KFF, "Population Distribution by Citizenship Status, 2023" (last accessed January 2025).Map: Center for American Progress

 

In seven states, less than one-third of citizens have a valid passport: West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. And only in four states do more than two-thirds of the citizens have a valid passport: New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey. In West Virginia, the state with the lowest rate of citizen passport possession, only about 1 in 5 citizens—or 20.7 percent—possess this documentation. Conversely, New Jersey has the highest rate of citizen passport possession, with 4 in 5 citizens—or 80 percent—possessing a valid passport.

Overall, data shows that high rates of passport ownership are predominantly concentrated in blue states, while low rates of passport ownership are overwhelmingly concentrated in red states. This means that, under the SAVE Act, it would be disproportionately more difficult for American citizens in red states to present one of the primary forms of documentation required to register to vote—and they would be disproportionately disenfranchised if the bill became law.

Additionally, Americans who have completed less education as well as Americans with lower incomes are far less likely to have a passport than Americans with higher levels of education or higher income levels. Among Americans whose highest level of education is a high school degree or less, approximately 1 in 4 have a valid passport. Among Americans with a household income below $50,000, only 1 in 5 have a valid passport. The policies in the SAVE Act are a serious socioeconomic issue that would disproportionately impact the voting rights of working-class and lower-income Americans.

The vast majority of married women cannot present a valid birth certificate

While the vast majority of Americans have a birth certificate, tens of millions of married women could not present their birth certificate as proof of citizenship under the SAVE Act, as it does not display their current legal name.

A survey from the Pew Research Center found that 79 percent of American women married to men have taken their spouse’s name. When women who have hyphenated their surname are also accounted for, 84 percent of American women have changed their surname.

Nationwide, approximately 69 million women could not use their birth certificate to prove their identity or citizenship status under the SAVE Act. Additionally, 5 percent of married men have also changed their surname, accounting for approximately 4 million men nationwide who could also not present an acceptable birth certificate under the SAVE Act. The legislation does not mention the potential option for these Americans to present change-of-name documentation or a marriage certificate in combination with a birth certificate to prove their citizenship. This shows yet another area in which the legislation makes no attempts to ensure that citizens’ voting rights are protected. Seemingly, the SAVE Act would rather err on the side of disenfranchisement.

Methodology

Source: Luona Lin, "About 8 in 10 women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband’s last name," Pew Research Center, September 7, 2023; U.S. Census Bureau, "S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, 2023: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables" (last accessed January 2025); U.S. Census Bureau, "Number of Same-Sex Couple Households Exceeded 1 Million in 2021," November 22, 2022; Unchained At Last, "United States' Child Marriage Problem," April 2021.

 

The same Pew survey found that the two groups of women most likely to take their spouse’s name were conservative Republican women and Republican/Republican-leaning women, while the two least-likely groups were liberal Democratic women and Democratic/Democratic-leaning women. In fact, Democratic and Democratic-leaning women are twice as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning women to have kept their maiden name, with only 7 percent of conservative Republican women reporting that they kept their last name. So while the legislation would unfairly disenfranchise women as a whole, the requirement to present a birth certificate would disproportionately disenfranchise conservative and Republican women.

While the SAVE Act does not directly aim to deny millions of American women the right to vote, it certainly does not treat their right vote as sacred and remains ignorant to the fact that requirements of the legislation threaten to infringe on the voting rights of millions of Republican, Democratic, and independent women across the country. As with numerous pieces of federal legislation and policy, the impacts on women are an afterthought and their rights are viewed as inconsequential.

Read the accompanying fact sheet

The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts

The SAVE Act: Overview and Facts

 

Conclusion

Congress has a pivotal constitutional responsibility in ensuring that all citizens can exercise their right to vote in a secure and accessible manner. Many Americans have continued to voice concerns regarding election integrity, and elected representatives should be responsive to these concerns in a manner that ensures the ballot box remains accessible for the citizens they represent. As written, the SAVE Act is irresponsible and dangerous legislation that threatens to disenfranchise millions of American citizens—Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.

The only Americans who stand to benefit from the SAVE Act are out-of-touch politicians willing to trample on the rights of millions of citizens, including their own constituents, in order to score a few political points with the media and the administration.

For detailed tables including the data depicted above, please see here.

*Update, February 3, 2025: The legislation states that “a form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the Real ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States” can be used to prove citizenship. However, the Real ID Act of 2005 does not include a federal requirement for Real IDs to indicate citizenship status, and no state’s Real ID indicates citizenship status on the card. Legally residing noncitizens can also get a Real ID. As it stands, this is an unworkable provision of the legislation, unless the standard for Real IDs is federally changed. Similarly, as tribal and military IDs do not indicate citizenship status, they need to be shown in conjunction with other documentation that does, meaning that alone, they do not satisfy the bill’s requirements. 

Methodology

The U.S. State Department has published state-by-state data on passport issuance for fiscal years (FY) since 2020 and the overall number of passports issued nationwide for FYs since 1996. For FYs 2020-2024, the authors found how many passports were issued in sum for every state over that five-year period. Utilizing the same data, the authors found the average percentage of passports issued nationwide for each state over that same five-year period. For example, from FYs 2020-2024, West Virginia issued a total of 175,000 passports compared to the total 79,830,000 passports issued across all 50 states over that five-year period. This means that, on average, West Virginia issued 0.22 percent of passports nationwide over five years. Using the calculation of average share of total passports issued, the authors estimated the number of passports each state issued between FYs 2015–2019, years for which data was not reported on a state-by-state basis by the State Department. This was necessary in order to estimate the total number of valid passports in circulation, given that an adult citizen’s passport is valid for 10 years. This methodology is based on the assumption that, while volumes of passport issuance vary due to various factors (such as the decline in passport issuances during coronavirus pandemic, which still needs to be accounted for in the number of valid passports in circulation), each states’ individual shares of nationwide passport issuances should remain relatively consistent across a five-year period.

In order to estimate the number of passports issued in FYs 2015–2019, the authors applied the average nationwide share for each state to the total nationwide number of passports issued as reported by the State Department for those years. For example, in FY 2019, the State Department reported that 17,794,977 passports were issued nationwide. The authors calculated that if West Virginia issued 0.22 percent of those, it would have issued 39,023 passports that FY. Data for FYs 2015–2019 was calculated using this methodology for each state in each FY.

Once the total number of passports issued in each state over the last decade was calculated, the total was divided by the total reported citizen population of each state to estimate the percentage of that state’s citizen population that have a valid passport. Data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) was used to calculate each state’s total citizenship population based on the number of U.S. born citizens and the number of naturalized citizens reported for each state.

As children who are citizens can get passports but there is no data publicly available to filter out the number passports issued by states to those under 18, passports issued to children are included in the data and the number of citizens also includes minors. Therefore, it is accurate based on this data to say for example, that “only 20.7 percent of West Virginia citizens possess a valid passport.” Additionally, passports issued for those under 16 years of age are valid for five years. This means that a 13-year-old with a passport could use that to register to vote for the first time at 18. Likewise, 14-, 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds issued a passport could also use that document to register to vote upon turning 18. Therefore, it is important to consider children in this passport possession data for voting purposes under the SAVE Act to some extent.

To estimate the number of female citizens in each state that do not possess a birth certificate that displays their current legal name due to a marital name change, the authors needed to determine how many female citizens are currently married or have been married at some point in each state. It was important to not only account for currently married women but also separated, divorced, and widowed female citizens, as many in the later three groups do not change back their surname to their maiden name as would be displayed on their birth certificate. The authors were not able to find reliable data for how many female citizens change their surname back to their maiden name following separation, divorce, or death of their spouse.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate table on the Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations” breaks down the rate of each marital categorization (never married, now married, divorced or separated, widowed) for all citizens 15 years and older by citizenship status (native-born citizens and naturalized citizens) for each state. Based on the survey, the authors calculated (1) how many currently married, divorced or separated, and widowed native-born citizens there are in each state, and (2) how many currently married, divorced or separated, and widowed naturalized citizens there are in each state. The total number of currently and previously married citizens in a state was determined by multiplying the combined percentages of married, separated, divorced and widowed populations by the total citizen population for native and for naturalized citizens separately. These were then added up.

For example, in Alabama, the ACS survey reported 3,943,617 native-born citizens over the age of 15. It reported that 46.8 percent of them are married, 14.2 percent are divorced or separated, and 7 percent are widowed. This means that there are a total of 2,681,660 native-born Alabama citizens 15 years and older who are married, divorced or separated, or widowed. Similarly, the process was repeated for the 77,953 Alabama naturalized citizens using the reported percentages for each marital status category for that population. In total, this means that there are currently 2,747,062 married, divorced or separated, and widowed 15 years and older citizens in Alabama.

That total figure for each state was divided by two to account for the likely number of women in that population accounting for them as one half of all marital status couples since the vast majority of U.S marriages are opposite-sex marriages. According to the Census Bureau, there were only approximately 710,000 same-sex marriages nationwide as of 2021 compared to approximately 62 million married couples nation-wide, meaning that same-sex married couples account for only 1.1 percent of married couples nationwide. For the accuracy of these estimations, therefore, all couples were assumed to be opposite-sex marriages. For the ultimate purposes of calculating the number of women who have changed their surname upon marriage, it is also accurate to account for some same-sex couples as many of them also change or hyphenate their surname.

The authors then relied on findings by the Pew Research Center that found that 84 percent of women in opposite-sex marriages changed their surname after getting married (79 percent took their husband’s name and 5 percent hyphenated). The authors applied this rate to the estimated number of female citizens who are or have been married at one point in each state. For example, if there are 2,747,062 citizens 15 years and older in Alabama and half of those are female and 84 percent of those women changed their surname upon marriage, it means that there are 1,153,766 female citizens in Alabama 15 years and older who have changed their surname.

This also means that there are 1,153,766 female citizens in Alabama 15 years and older who do not possess a birth certificate that displays their current legal name and could therefore not use that documentation to prove their citizenship status under the SAVE Act. While only Americans 18 years or older are able to cast a ballot, since marriages under the age of 18 make up such a small number of marriages nationwide they should be deemed statistically insignificant. As of 2021, there were approximately 300,000 married minors in the U.S. accounting for approximately just 150,000 or (0.18 percent) of the 81,772,763 married female citizens 15 years and older.

Therefore, this population is a good representation of the voting-age citizen population that would not be able to use a birth certificate for voter registration purposes under the SAVE Act. Similarly, the Pew survey found that 5 percent of men took their spouse’s last name.

Using the total number of estimated currently or previously married male citizens above, the authors calculated that 5 percent of that total estimated population would be approximately 4 million men.

[Vesper 29,361]

this is NOT a good sign

Massive U.S. bomber buildup continues at Diego Garcia

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/massive-u-s-bomber-buildup-continues-at-diego-garcia/

The United States has now moved at least seven B-2A Spirit stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, significantly expanding its military presence at the remote British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean.

This marks a further escalation in the ongoing preparations for large-scale military action, potentially targeting Houthi forces in Yemen and, as some analysts suggest, Iranian military infrastructure.

This continued buildup follows last week’s airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen—described as the largest U.S. military operation in the Middle East since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. The Houthis claim at least 53 people were killed in the latest round of strikes, while the U.S. has reiterated its intent to continue operations until Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea cease.

The activity was first reported by open-source intelligence (OSINT) specialist “IntelFrog” on X (formerly Twitter), who has been using publicly available aircraft tracking data to monitor movements of military assets. IntelFrog initially reported that 18 U.S. Air Force KC-135 tankers were staged at key locations across the Pacific—including Travis AFB in California, Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii, and Andersen AFB in Guam.

These tankers, operating under sequential RCH0## call signs, were followed by flights to Diego Garcia, where multiple C-17A Globemaster III aircraft have also been tracked arriving in recent days. The arrival of these cargo planes indicates a substantial logistics effort—likely involving the delivery of personnel, munitions, and support equipment required for long-range bomber operations.

IntelFrog’s verified flight data now shows at least seven B-2 stealth bombers on or en route to the island, a highly unusual concentration of the platform in one location. These aircraft, which are capable of penetrating sophisticated air defences, are typically reserved for high-value strategic missions and are rarely deployed in such numbers.

The increased military presence comes amid warnings from U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has made clear that airstrikes will continue for as long as Houthi aggression disrupts global shipping lanes. A U.S. official speaking to Reuters stated the operation may continue “for weeks,” suggesting the buildup is part of a sustained campaign rather than a short-term show of force.

Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea have caused serious disruption to global trade, prompting multiple shipping companies to divert vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. The U.S. sees freedom of navigation in the Red Sea as a strategic imperative, and recent movements suggest an effort to neutralise Houthi launch capabilities and, potentially, to deter Iranian interference in the wider region.

The arrival of the seventh B-2A bomber raises the stakes considerably.

Diego Garcia has long played a crucial role in U.S. strategic bomber operations, having hosted B-52 and B-1 missions during the Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Its remote location and long runway make it a key forward operating base for long-range operations, especially when regional basing options are constrained by diplomatic or security concerns.

The deployment of at least seven B-2s, combined with a logistics tail of tankers and transports, represents a highly flexible and potent strike capability. It also signals a return to Diego Garcia’s historic role as a launchpad for power projection across the Middle East and South Asia.

As of now, the U.S. Department of Defense has not formally confirmed the purpose of the deployment. However, the scale, timing, and composition of forces all suggest a significant new phase in the campaign against the Houthis, and possibly beyond.

[Vesper 29,361]

MAGA Still Wants To Ban Chemtrails

Not only does MAGA not believe in science, but they also think they can change the laws of science with a law.

 

https://crooksandliars.com/2025/03/maga-still-wants-ban-chemtrails

 

 

I don't want to say that the MAGA/MAHA gang is stupid as hell, but that's only because it's so self-evident.

The old but still favorite conspiracy theory about chemtrails is on the rise again, and this time they mean business:

In reality, he explained, people are seeing jet contrails, which is just "water vapor condensing around that airline exhaust in certain clouds, cloudless, very cold days. And you see that from some planes and not others, depending on the conditions."

Nonetheless, he said, the conspiracy theory persists — and it's driving real-world policy now, including legislation introduced in Alabama and Florida, who are "talking about language to ban any kind of chemical spraying overhead, either for geoengineering or any other purposes."

"This is really amplified by RFK Jr., the Health and Human Services Secretary, who put out on X that 'These efforts to ban geoengineering our climate by dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins. This is a movement every MAGA — Make America Healthy Again — person needs to support. HHS will do its part.' This doesn't exist. There is no spraying of any chemicals to control the weather in any way."

To be honest, I kind of hope this plays out a little bit, just to see how they propose to enforce a chemtrail ban. Are they going to send cops up in helicopters to cuff the chemtrails? Will ICE grab them and deport them back to wherever they came from? At least the ridiculousness of this should provide a few laughs to distract from the rest of the shitshow going on around us.

[KEVINAA 110]

KING CHARLES WILL BE ANNOUNCED SOON AS PASSED AWAY.

PRINCE WILLIAM IS SOON TO THE KING.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 22:10 by KEVINAA

[Vesper 29,361]

18 hours ago, KEVINAA said:

KING CHARLES WILL BE ANNOUNCED SOON AS PASSED AWAY.

PRINCE WILLIAM IS SOON TO THE KING.

 

 

 

King seen for first time after short hospital visit

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyeyezj8nwo

King Charles has been seen in public for the first time since he went to hospital after experiencing temporary side effects from his cancer treatment.

He cancelled a trip to Birmingham on Friday on medical advice after spending a short period of time in hospital on Thursday, Buckingham Palace said.

The monarch, 76, left his London residence Clarence House on Friday morning to spend the weekend privately at his Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire.

His diagnosis was announced in February last year but it has not been said what type of cancer he has. The Palace has not provided details on what the recent side effects were.

• King feeling better but will be frustrated at visit having to be cancelled

"Tomorrow, he was due to undertake four public engagements in Birmingham and is greatly disappointed to be missing them on this occasion," the Palace said in a statement on Thursday.

"He very much hopes that they can be rescheduled in due course and offers his deepest apologies to all those who had worked so hard to make the planned visit possible."

Meetings with three ambassadors were also affected, it added.

A Palace source described the most recent health development as a "most minor bump in a road that is very much heading in the right direction".

The King was taken to the London Clinic hospital in central London by car and was not joined by Queen Camilla during the brief hospital stay.

He was said to have been "feeling good" on Thursday evening, carried out some work and shared dinner with the Queen at Clarence House.

Leaving the London residence on Friday morning, he waved at crowds that had gathered nearby as he drove away in a black car.

The Palace said the King's schedule of public duties - which restarted last April after a period of treatment and recuperation following his diagnosis - is expected to resume next week.

Although his cancer treatment is ongoing, the King has continued to make regular appearances in public, including overseas.

In recent weeks, he assumed a visible role in global diplomacy. He invited US President Donald Trump for a second state visit to the UK and met Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky at his Norfolk residence, Sandringham.

He also welcomed Mark Carney, Canada's new prime minister, to Buckingham Palace.

Lat week, the King visited Northern Ireland and he also recently attended the Commonwealth Day service, which he missed last year after his diagnosis.

Earlier this month, he launched a playlist of his favourite music.

He is set to take part in a state visit to Italy in April. A previously planned meeting with Pope Francis has been cancelled due to the pontiff's ill-health.

Details of the King's cancer and the type of treatment he is receiving remain private.

The diagnosis was made after a separate issue of concern was noted during treatment for benign prostate enlargement, a Palace statement said when his illness was made public last year.

The King chose to share the news to prevent speculation and "assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer".