Month: July 2024

Following months of back-and-forth as well as contradictory reports of an Israel-Hamas ceasefire, which has proven elusive thus far, the two sides and their mediators could actually be getting closer this weekend.

CIA director Bill Burns is set to embark on yet another trip to Doha this coming week to rejoin negotiations focused on achieving a hostage exchange and broader ceasefire, Axios is reporting.

Axios previews that “Burns is expected to hold a joint meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar, the director of the Israeli Mossad and the head of the Egyptian intelligence service in an effort to push forward the deal that could lead to the release of 120 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza and end nine months of war.”

The below fresh report from The Times of Israel suggests Hamas may have just dropped a major demand which had previously thwarted any progress. From the start of negotiations, Hamas leaders have conditioned peace on an Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) total withdrawal from the Gaza Strip:

Hamas has given initial approval for a US-backed proposal for a phased truce and hostage exchange deal in Gaza, dropping a key demand that Israel give an up-front commitment for a complete end to the war, a Hamas and an Egyptian official said Saturday.

At the same time, a key stumbling block appeared to be Hamas’s desire for “written guarantees” from mediators that Israel will continue to negotiate a permanent ceasefire deal once the first phase of a ceasefire goes into effect.

The Hamas representative told The Associated Press the group’s approval came after it received “verbal commitments and guarantees” from mediators that the war won’t be resumed and that negotiations will continue until a permanent ceasefire is reached.

The report stresses that “Hamas says it dropped demand Israel vow up-front to end war, but wants mediators’ guarantees.” If true this could prove a major opening, given PM Netanyahu had long focused on this specific demand as being a non-starter, making progress in talks impossible.

If a deal is achieved, it could result in the first full ceasefire of the conflict. According to diplomatic sources involved:

The Hamas and Egyptian officials, who spoke on conditions of anonymity to discuss the ongoing negotiations, said Washington’s phased deal will first include a “full and complete” six-week ceasefire that would see the release of a number of hostages, including women, the elderly, and the wounded, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. During these 42 days, Israeli forces would also withdraw from densely populated areas of Gaza and allow the return of displaced people to their homes in northern Gaza, the pair said.

In the US, a deal would lessen intensifying pressure on the Biden White House, given it has been losing support especially among Progressives due precisely to the president’s Gaza policy.

Netanyahu is expected to travel to DC at the end of this month to address Congress, and so far media reports are saying it is ‘likely’ he will meet with President Biden. Any potential ceasefire deal would ease the pressure of such a visit, certainly from Washington’s point of view at least.

An “ongoing electric power issue” suspended train service in the Northeast Corridor between Boston and New York City on Saturday afternoon, Amtrak wrote in a press release. 

“Our crews are working hard to correct the issues,” Amtrak said but did not explain the cause of the service disruption.

Amtrak noted that “this service interruption” will be in place for the “remainder of the day.”  

Service Temporarily Disrupted Between New York and New Haven https://t.co/l7VYykHMHu

— Amtrak Northeast (@AmtrakNECAlerts) July 6, 2024

According to AP News, the disruption was caused by a malfunctioning circuit breaker, which sparked service disruption between Penn Station in New York and Union Station in New Haven, Connecticut. There was no official word if the circuit breaker problem was caused by scorching temperatures across the Northeast.

Besides the ongoing heat wave, this outage comes at the worst possible time when a record 71 million Americans are expected to be traveling this Fourth of July holiday weekend. 

Last month, Amtrak’s service in and out of New York City suffered a “malfunctioning circuit breaker” that sparked travel chaos for hours across the nation’s busiest transit hub.

With frustrations over unreliable train service in the Northeast mounting, it’s time for US Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg to actually stand up and be a leader and do something – just something. Come on ‘Mayor Pete’ – you got this. 

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

There is a stunning number of ironies in the Trump-Biden rematch. At the top of the list is Biden’s belief that he is the only one who could beat Trump.

Wish Granted

At a NATO conference on March 24, 2022 Biden quipped to a reporter “In the next election, I’d be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me.”

Comedian Bill Maher Commented: “The whole rationale for Biden running has always been I’m the only guy who can beat Trump. Now I think it’s inverted. He’s the only guy who can lose to him.”

King of Student Loans

In a press conference briefing in July of 2021, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the Constitutional Facts on Student Loans.

“The president can’t do it,” Pelosi said, at a press briefing. “That’s not even a discussion.”

Pelosi said any student debt forgiveness would have to be carried out by Congress. Other people in her party have said otherwise.

On June 30, 2023, the SCOTUSblog reported Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan Forgiveness Program

But that did not stop the king of student loans. He went ahead with another unconstitutional work around, then bragged about it.

The Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Me

In a White House Briefing on February 4, 2024, Biden bragged “The Supreme Court of the United States blocked me, but they didn’t stop me.“

Immunity for Official Acts

On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled the President has immunity for official acts.

I commented, The Left is Aghast at the Correct Supreme Court Immunity Decision on Trump

In a 6-3 decision, the SC that held the President has immunity for official acts. It was not a complete victory for Trump. In fact, the Court rejected Trump’s base case.

That was my opinion but it was entirely based on the actual  Supreme Court Ruling. Here are a couple of snips from the Court, subtitles mine.

Court Blasts Trump’s Base Case to Outer Space

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government.

Trump claimed to have absolute immunity. The Court blasted that claim to outer space. Again from the ruling …

Distinguishing Official Acts From Unofficial Ones

The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. …

Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.

Distinguishing official acts from unofficial ones requires a prosecutorial hearing or fact finding mission to establish what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act.

Such hearings are standard procedure for official acts. The Court merely extended the standard procedure to the office of president.

Contrary to hyperventilation by the Left, the SC ruling does not protect the President from unofficial acts or unconstitutional acts.

Truman Example

If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills.

On grounds of national defense, Truman tried to seize steel mills. The Court quickly told Truman no, that’s unconstitutional.

Court Synopsis

The court rejected Trump’s base case, properly cited Truman as an unconstitutional example, and specifically applied its ruling to official acts.

Importantly, official acts must be constitutional!

Truman was acting “officially”, but not “constitutionally”.

The King Moans About Kings

Following the SC Ruling, Biden gave a speech “I Dissent“

This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America.  Each — each of us is equal before the law.  No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. 

With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.  For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. 

Given Biden’s forceful flouting of the Supreme Court not only is that dripping with irony, it’s also a blatant, purposeful lie as any careful reading of the actual ruling shows.

But that did not stop major hyperventilation from the Left including this nonsensical headline from the Huffington Post: Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump

Did anyone bother to read the ruling before commenting?

A Delusional Defense of Biden’s Health

There is a stunning number of ironies in the Trump-Biden rematch. At the top of the list is Biden’s belief that he is the only one who could beat Trump. Wish Granted At a NATO conference on March 24, 2022 Biden quipped to a reporter “In the next election, I’d be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me.” Comedian Bill Maher Commented: “The whole rationale for Biden running has always been I’m the only guy who can beat Trump. Now I think it’s inverted. He’s the only guy who can lose to him.” King of Student Loans In a press conference briefing in July of 2021, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated the Constitutional Facts on Student Loans. “The president can’t do it,” Pelosi said, at a press briefing. “That’s not even a discussion.” Pelosi said any student debt forgiveness would have to be carried out by Congress. Other people in her party have said otherwise. On June 30, 2023, the SCOTUSblog reported Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Student-Loan Forgiveness Program But that did not stop the king of student loans. He went ahead with another unconstitutional work around, then bragged about it. The Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Me In a White House Briefing on February 4, 2024, Biden bragged “The Supreme Court of the United States blocked me, but they didn’t stop me.“ Immunity for Official Acts On July 1, 2024 the Supreme Court ruled the President has immunity for official acts. I commented, The Left is Aghast at the Correct Supreme Court Immunity Decision on Trump In a 6-3 decision, the SC that held the President has immunity for official acts. It was not a complete victory for Trump. In fact, the Court rejected Trump’s base case. That was my opinion but it was entirely based on the actual Supreme Court Ruling. Here are a couple of snips from the Court, subtitles mine. Court Blasts Trump’s Base Case to Outer Space Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government. Trump claimed to have absolute immunity. The Court blasted that claim to outer space. Again from the ruling … Distinguishing Official Acts From Unofficial Ones The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. … Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Distinguishing official acts from unofficial ones requires a prosecutorial hearing or fact finding mission to establish what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act. Such hearings are standard procedure for official acts. The Court merely extended the standard procedure to the office of president. Contrary to hyperventilation by the Left, the SC ruling does not protect the President from unofficial acts or unconstitutional acts. Truman Example If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. On grounds of national defense, Truman tried to seize steel mills. The Court quickly told Truman no, that’s unconstitutional. Court Synopsis The court rejected Trump’s base case, properly cited Truman as an unconstitutional example, and specifically applied its ruling to official acts. Importantly, official acts must be constitutional! Truman was acting “officially”, but not “constitutionally”. The King Moans About Kings Following the SC Ruling, Biden gave a speech “I Dissent“ This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each — each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. Given Biden’s forceful flouting of the Supreme Court not only is that dripping with irony, it’s also a blatant, purposeful lie as any careful reading of the actual ruling shows. But that did not stop major hyperventilation from the Left including this nonsensical headline from the Huffington Post: Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump Did anyone bother to read the ruling before commenting? A Delusional Defense of Biden’s Health “He’s probably in better health than most of us.” What?! Nate Silver replied, “They can’t tell the truth, that their candidate is well below the threshold of someone who should be president for another 4 years, so they tell obvious lies that nobody but the dumbest partisans will buy.” In another bit of delusional madness … Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’ On May 7, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’ “My son has done nothing wrong,” the President said on MSNBC. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my Presidency by making me feel proud of him.” Not Confidence Inspiring The Guardian comments Joe Biden is taking advice from his son, Hunter. This does not inspire confidence. The Biden clan gathered at Camp David on Sunday and, according to multiple reports, urged him to “keep fighting”. The New York Times stated: “One of the strongest voices imploring Mr Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son, Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice.” Which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence: Hunter has poor judgment and a well-documented history of scandals. (To be clear, I am not sneering at his drug use; addicts deserve empathy. Drugs aside, his questionable business dealings and chaotic personal life make it difficult to look at Hunter and think: “Yeah, that’s a guy I should take advice from.”) Three Hunter Ironies The Hunter irony is threefold. First, the president is taking advice from someone whose motive is clearly suspect. Second, the President goes around calling Trump a convicted felon. The third irony is the New York trial was so flawed conviction is highly likely to be overturned but the Hunter felony will stand. A Travesty of Justice On May 30, Trump was convicted of a felony. Ironically, no one can precisely say what the felony is. I commented Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America A misdemeanor, on which the Statute of Limitations had run out, was used to produced 34 felony counts on committing a Federal offense for which he was not charged. They will say “No one is above the law”. Indeed. But no one should be beneath the law either. Every effort has been made to put Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton above the law. And every effort has been made to put Trump beneath the law, including judicial instructions. I am outraged and I don’t even care for Trump. Everyone should be outraged. The trial was unfair because there should not have been a trial at all. On Getting Their Wish So, here we are. Biden got his wish that nearly all Democrats now regret. The DNC went along, greasing the wheels for a renomination and eliminating debate despite (or was it because of) the President’s increasingly obvious senility. Judging from a recent cornucopia of posts on the New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, etc., Democrats have a new wish, for Biden to step down. Sorry, the wish fairy only grants one political wish. It’s now up to Jill or Hunter to convince Joe to stand down. That does not look promising now. However, there’s a decent chance the President soon will not be able to walk or say anything coherent even in the newly designated prime hours of 9:00AM to 4:00PM. Yet, the longer the delay, the worse it looks. There is not a reasonable person on the planet who believe Biden can last another year, let alone four more years. Effectively, the ne battle cry is “Four More Months!” Democrats got what they deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not what the nation deserves. That’s the final irony in a sorry script fully loaded with ironies.

“He’s probably in better health than most of us.”

What?!

Nate Silver replied, “They can’t tell the truth, that their candidate is well below the threshold of someone who should be president for another 4 years, so they tell obvious lies that nobody but the dumbest partisans will buy.”

In another bit of delusional madness …

Biden Says ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

On May 7, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported ‘My Son Has Done Nothing Wrong’

“My son has done nothing wrong,” the President said on MSNBC. “I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my Presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

Not Confidence Inspiring

The Guardian comments Joe Biden is taking advice from his son, Hunter. This does not inspire confidence.

The Biden clan gathered at Camp David on Sunday and, according to multiple reports, urged him to “keep fighting”. The New York Times stated: “One of the strongest voices imploring Mr Biden to resist pressure to drop out was his son, Hunter Biden, whom the president has long leaned on for advice.” Which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence: Hunter has poor judgment and a well-documented history of scandals. (To be clear, I am not sneering at his drug use; addicts deserve empathy. Drugs aside, his questionable business dealings and chaotic personal life make it difficult to look at Hunter and think: “Yeah, that’s a guy I should take advice from.”)

Three Hunter Ironies

The Hunter irony is threefold. First, the president is taking advice from someone whose motive is clearly suspect.

Second, the President goes around calling Trump a convicted felon.

The third irony is the New York trial was so flawed conviction is highly likely to be overturned but the Hunter felony will stand.

A Travesty of Justice

On May 30, Trump was convicted of a felony. Ironically, no one can precisely say what the felony is.

I commented Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America

A misdemeanor, on which the Statute of Limitations had run out, was used to produced 34 felony counts on committing a Federal offense for which he was not charged.

They will say “No one is above the law”. Indeed. But no one should be beneath the law either.

Every effort has been made to put Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton above the law. And every effort has been made to put Trump beneath the law, including judicial instructions.

I am outraged and I don’t even care for Trump. Everyone should be outraged. The trial was unfair because there should not have been a trial at all.

On Getting Their Wish

So, here we are. Biden got his wish that nearly all Democrats now regret.

The DNC went along, greasing the wheels for a renomination and eliminating debate despite (or was it because of) the President’s increasingly obvious senility.

Judging from a recent cornucopia of posts on the New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, etc., Democrats have a new wish, for Biden to step down.

Sorry, the wish fairy only grants one political wish.

It’s now up to Jill or Hunter to convince Joe to stand down. That does not look promising now. However, there’s a decent chance the President soon will not be able to walk or say anything coherent even in the newly designated prime hours of 9:00AM to 4:00PM.

Yet, the longer the delay, the worse it looks. There is not a reasonable person on the planet who believe Biden can last another year, let alone four more years.

Effectively, the ne battle cry is “Four More Months!”

Democrats got what they deserve. Unfortunately, it’s not what the nation deserves.

That’s the final irony in a sorry script fully loaded with ironies.

The United States is hosting this year’s major annual NATO Summit in Washington DC on July 9,10, and 11. Heads of state, foreign ministers, and diplomats from across Europe will be in attendance, as will of course President Joe Biden. 

A big question that remains is how far the alliance will go in encouraging Ukraine’s ambitions to join. Currently the US is pushing the ambiguous language of offering Kiev a “bridge” to NATO while demanding reforms especially in the area of corruption. Zelensky is not happy, given that not even a timeline for membership appears to be on the table.

Still, there are enough hawks among Western leaders to present the possibility of launching Ukraine on an ‘irreversible’ path to membership, which many observers fear will only eventually trigger WW3 with Russia. 

Days ago, and just around the corner from the summit’s start, dozens of foreign policy experts have issued a letter which sounds the alarm on the question of advancing Ukrainian membership. The group is warning that should Kiev ever be admitted, it would trigger NATO’s Article 5, and require Western states to enter a nuclear-armed conflict with Russia.

“The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war,” the letter, signed by over 60 analysts, reads. “The challenges Russia poses can be managed without bringing Ukraine into NATO.”

The letter argues that encouraging NATO membership only plays into Putin’s narrative, and in the end ensures “turning Ukraine into the site of a prolonged showdown between the world’s two leading nuclear powers.”

At one point the group says that advancing Ukraine’s membership presents the risk of the “unraveling of NATO itself”. According to a section from the letter [emphasis ZH]:

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking. Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war.

If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance. The result could be a direct NATO-Russia war or the unraveling of NATO itself.

Below is the letter in full, followed by the list of signatories, which was first reported and posted online by Politico…

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last night, President Joe Biden refused to take a cognitive or neurological test despite widespread concerns over his physical and mental decline. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed the President on his low polling and efforts of Democrats to get him to drop out of the race. He specifically mentioned the effort of Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) to organize members to pressure him to end his campaign. Biden took a not-so-subtle dig at Warner. However, it was nothing compared to a curious posting by author and Democratic activist Don Winslow, who appeared to threaten Warner on X (formerly Twitter).

When the story broke in the Washington Post, Winslow posted a curious and ominous response:

Dear @MarkWarner

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

You definitely know what I’m talking about.

Think about it very carefully.

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 6, 2024

It is not clear what Winslow meant by Warner knowing what he was talking about when asking if he was “sure you want to go down this road?”

The message has caused a bit of a stir on the Hill. For the denizens of the Beltway, it sounds extortive and threatening. The suggestion is that Winslow has something on Warner.

While some have asked whether this could be viewed as a threat criminally, it is clearly not sufficient for a charge. Warner is a public figure and this comment could just be a reference to political backlash or the lack of an alternative.

His asking Warner “Are you sure you want to go down this road?” could be a reference to the political implications of the resulting chaos, including making Kamala Harris the presidential candidate. Harris is even less popular than Biden according to some polls. While some polls show her doing slightly better than Biden against Trump, other polling shows that she would do considerably worse.

However, it is the follow up of “Think about it very carefully” that has got tongues wagging in D.C.

Whatever the intended meaning, the posting shows the depth of the division on the issue. Those divisions are only likely to deepen further after the refusal to take a test to put these concerns to rest.

Notably, Biden has insisted that the public can simply observe him. However, that position stands in contradiction to the frivolous privilege claims made by the Administration to withhold the audiotape from the interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. That was an interview that the President was prepared for in advance and held in ideal conditions with staff. It is an opportunity for the public to hear him under questioning to reach the very conclusions that Biden suggested in the interview.

As for Winslow’s posting, it may just be an incautious, poorly worded message rather than extortion or blackmail. We have all made postings that we regretted.

The real issue for Democrats is how to address this looming issue without tearing the party apart. I have tried to drill down on the legal implications of swapping out the top of the ticket or the entire ticket. It is uncharted territory when it comes to the federal election laws on the use of past contributions as well as some states with restrictive rules on ballot changes.

With a military budget bigger than most countries’ GDPs, the U.S. military manages to station troops in nearly 170 territories, on every continent in the world.

But which countries host the most troops? In the chart below, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao maps the territories where active duty American military personnel are stationed, according to March 2024 figures from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC).

ℹ️ Reserve troops and civilian personnel are also stationed overseas for support activities. They are not included on this map.

Ranked: Top 10 Territories Hosting U.S. Troops

There are nearly 170,000 active duty American troops stationed overseas.

More than half of that number are in Japan (55,000) and Germany (35,000), a holdover from World War II after the Axis powers surrendered.

Germany is now also home to the US European Command (EUCOM) headquarters in Stuttgart. It’s a key regional outpost, to help “keep the peace in Europe, parts of the Middle East, and Eurasia,” as stated by the government.

*Guam is a U.S. territory.

Meanwhile, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty revised in 1960 allowed America to establish military bases in the country, in exchange for defending Japan in the event of an attack.

South Korea also has a significant garrison, nearly 25,000 active duty personnel. This is also a legacy from the Korean War.

Tellingly, however, six of the top 10 countries hosting U.S. troops are in Europe. For the decades since the Cold War, the American military had been reducing its European footprint. However after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the buildup restarted.

Finally, in the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion and the Israel-Hamas war, the U.S. military has increased the number of troops both in Europe and the Middle East.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Dagestan and Karachay-Cherkessia temporarily banned the niqab on security-related pretexts in the aftermath of last month’s terrorist attacks in Dagestan. The temporary nature of this restriction is meant to avoid violating federal law after a government document from the Cabinet seen by Kommersant in late May described a full ban as unconstitutional. That came in response to the head of the Human Rights Council calling for this shortly after late March’s Crocus terrorist attack.

It’s ironic that Russia’s majority-Orthodox Cabinet considers a full ban to be an unconstitutional violation of its citizens’ freedom of religion while at least two of its majority-Muslim regions thus far consider a temporary one to be a prudent security-related measure. This disconnect is likely due to the first’s fear of offending Russia’s growing Muslim minority, which the Grand Mufti predicted in 2019 will constitute around one-third of the population in the next 15 years, and the second’s on-the-ground reality.

The Cabinet might be acting nobly, and there’s no doubt that there’s a sizeable segment of this minority that would object to banning the niqab, but those Muslims on the front line of Russia’s domestic War on Terror in the North Caucasus understand the pragmatism behind temporary measures. At the very least, the niqab can be worn by male terrorists to disguise themselves in order to move freely among society while smuggling explosives and/or weapons, thus making this garment a security risk.

There’s also the fact that the Central Asian Republics from which the vast majority of Russia’s migrant population originates have banned the niqab to varying degrees for similar security-related reasons as well as concerns that this foreign (Arab) tradition contributes to radicalizing members of society. By letting their citizens wear it during their stay in Russia, the federal government is inadvertently undermining their policies, which in turn risks destabilizing those countries once those citizens return.

“Putin & The Patriarch Reminded Russians That Ethno-Religious Hate Speech Is Unacceptable” as part of their national unity efforts after the Crocus terrorist attack, but publicly discussing the socio-security benefits of banning the niqab doesn’t constitute such. It’s only controversial if someone associates terrorism with Islam like the Head of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin recently did while lobbying for this policy and accidentally upset Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov as a result.

The latter’s region already informally banned the niqab long ago, with this being the case beyond any doubt after a group of women were scolded on local TV in late 2020 for wearing this garment in public and then forced to remove it. Chechnya, much more than any other region in Russia, understands the socio-security risks of applying a laissez-faire approach towards foreign religious traditions even if this is for well-intentioned reasons related to upholding citizens’ human rights and whatnot.

While the federal government might remain fearful of reversing its position on the alleged unconstitutionality of officially banning the niqab, Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Karachay-Cherkessia are paving the way through their informal and temporary bans. More regions could foreseeably follow their lead and couldn’t be accused of ethno-religious hate speech since it’s Russian Muslims themselves that are pioneering this pragmatic solution to such a sensitive issue.  

Considering that Joe Biden, who is already the oldest sitting president ever in the United States, will turn 82 in November and his designated challenger Donald Trump just turned 78, age was always going to be an issue in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.

After last week’s debate, however, during which President Biden looked every bit his age, the discussion over Biden’s fitness to run a successful re-election campaign, let alone serve another four-year term has taken on a new dynamic.

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, even among rank-and-file democrats, anxiety over Biden’s health and his re-election prospects is growing, even though the party’s leadership is trying to present a united front in support of the president.

A new poll by The New York Times and Siena College reveals how big the concerns about Biden’s age really are, showing that 74 percent of registered voters believe that he is “just too old to be an effective president”, compared to 43 percent who think the same about Donald Trump.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Even more strikingly, 62 percent of those who voted for Biden in 2020 believe he is now too old, along with 59 percent of those who identified as supporters of the Democratic Party.

That doesn’t necessarily mean people won’t vote for him though, as even 58 percent of those who would vote for Biden in 2024 tend to agree that he is too old to be an effective president, as they have similar (and other) concerns about Trump.

As Statista’s chart shows, registered voters are significantly more concerned about Biden’s age than they are about Trump’s with more than 50 percent of all respondents strongly agreeing that Biden is too old to be an effective president and another 21 percent somewhat agreeing.

When it comes to Trump’s age, just 22 percent of registered voters strongly agree that he’s too old to be a good president with another 21 percent somewhat agreeing.

Authored by Amaka Nwaokocha via CoinTelegraph.com,

Spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced a surge in inflows on July 6, following the recent U.S. Independence Day, during which Bitcoin’s price dropped below $54,000.

According to Farside monitoring, this is their largest net inflow in a month, with a remarkable $143.1 million flowing into these financial products.

Strong inflows

The Fidelity Bitcoin ETF (FBTC) led the inflows with an impressive $117 million, highlighting strong investor confidence in the fund. Following FBTC, the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB) recorded a net inflow of $30.2 million, while the ARKB and HODL ETFs saw inflows of $11.3 million and $12.8 million, respectively.

Conversely, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) experienced a net outflow of $28.6 million, starkly contrasting the positive trend across other spot Bitcoin ETFs.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs bounced back strongly.    Source: Farside Investors

Despite the recent market turbulence, the substantial inflows into these ETFs suggest that institutional investors and large-scale buyers are taking advantage of the dip to accumulate Bitcoin at lower prices.

Prime opportunity to buy Bitcoin

Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise Asset Management, highlighted in a post on X social platform his team’s efficiency in acquiring Bitcoin, managing to do so at a cost of less than half a basis point.

Horsley also emphasized the strong outlook for Bitcoin, suggesting that the current market conditions present a valuable buying opportunity for both new and existing investors.

“The outlook for Bitcoin has never been stronger. For many who don’t yet have exposure, this week is a chance to buy the dip,” he stated.

During the first week of July, BITB registered inflows exceeding $66 million, increasing its total Bitcoin holdings to over 38,000. Despite short-term volatility, this growth shows continued confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term potential.

Renowned Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff also offered his perspective on the resilience of Bitcoin ETF investors. Despite recent market fluctuations, Schiff observed that these investors remain committed to holding their assets, showing no signs of panic.

“So far, there’s no sign of panic. It will likely take a much larger drop in Bitcoin before they finally capitulate,” Schiff commented.

He further predicted that a significant sell-off could occur soon, potentially leading to a capitulation among Bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin fell to $55,200 on Coinbase after the collapsed Japanese crypto exchange Mt. Gox transferred 47,229 Bitcoin – worth $2.71 billion at current prices – to a new wallet address in its first major transaction since May.

The reformist and ‘moderate’ Masoud Pezeshkian has been elected as Iran’s new president, defeating his hardline conservative rival Saeed Jalili, after gaining 53.3% of the 30+ million votes counted.

While Jalili was seen as the status quo candidate, by and large expected to continue his predecessor’s policies, Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon and member of the Iranian parliament, has vowed to seek an end to the Islamic Republic’s global isolation.

As part of this push, the 71-year old has called for “constructive negotiations” with the West on Iran’s nuclear program, in hopes getting US-led sanctions removed or at least softened. Iran has on a monthly basis been expanding its Uranium enrichment and purity, bringing it closer to the ability to produce a nuclear weapon if it decides to do so. Israel has meanwhile threatened preemptive attack if this happens.

After years of intermittent anti-government protests, including the months-long ‘hijab protests’ which were triggered by a young woman’s death at the hands of the morality police, Dr. Pezeshkian is promising “unity and cohesion” between the government and population.

He has personally long been critical of the morality police, which boosted his popularity among younger and professional young family circles. Already young people have been seen celebrating in the streets of major cities, in hopes of a new era for Iran.

Pezeshkian’s victory is the result of a run-off after the June 28 first round election failed to result in a clear majority for either candidate. June 28 saw a historically low voter turnout of just 40% – and was a little over a month after the late President Ebrahim Raisi’s helicopter crashed in northern Iran near the border with Azerbaijan. Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian were killed, along with other top officials.

According to the numbers from the run-off which secured Pezeshkian’s victory:

With all ballots counted, Pezeshkian secured 16.4 million votes, while Jalili received 13.5 million votes, Press TV reports. Turnout was 30.5 million, or 49.8% of the 61 million eligible voters, according to a final update at 6:45 am local time (3:15 GMT).

Iran’s Foreign Minister announced Saturday, “The great nation of Iran once again stood proud in the test of loyalty to the holy system of the Islamic Republic and protection of our beloved Iran. Now is the season of empathy, unity and national cohesion for progress and ever-increasing authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Very quickly on the news, the leaders of China, India and Russia were among the first to congratulate Pezeshkian on his victory.

Upon the first round of voting, it became increasingly apparent that regions were choosing their candidate largely along ethnic lines…

Another voting pattern map created by @bbcpersian indicates that ultra conservative Saeed Jalili has won in Persian majority provinces. With few exceptions, non Persian voters in border provinces have overwhelmingly voted for reformist and ethnic Azerbaijani Masoud Pezeshkian. pic.twitter.com/hIn482Mkf6

— Ahmad Hashemi (@MrAhmadHashemi) July 1, 2024

Below is a brief partial backgrounder on the newly elected Iranian president via Anadolu Agency…

* * *

A relatively low-profile political figure, Pezeshkian served as health minister in the government of Mohammad Khatami (2001-2005) and has represented the northwestern city of Tabriz in the Iranian parliament since 2008. A cardiologist by practice, Pezeshkian previously headed the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, one of the leading medical institutions in northern Iran.

His two previous unsuccessful bids for the presidency came in 2013 and 2021, respectively. In 2013, he withdrew from the presidential race in the later stages in favor of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani; in 2021, his candidacy was rejected by the Guardian Council, the country’s top vetting body.

As the only reformist candidate in the race this time around, backed by the country’s leading reformist coalition, Pezeshkian engaged in hectic campaigning in recent weeks. His campaign was bolstered by the presence of former reformist politicians and ministers, including Javad Zarif, who served as foreign minister for two terms under former President Hassan Rouhani.