White House Ready To Offer Iran “Token” Nuclear Enrichment Instead Of All-Out War

White House Ready To Offer Iran “Token” Nuclear Enrichment Instead Of All-Out War

When it comes to the potential of achieving a lasting US-Iran deal centered on the country’s nuclear program, headlines have been changing rapidly, on a daily basis – as the specter of another US-led regime change war in the Middle East looms.

Axios is reporting that the latest big diplomatic option the Trump White House is mulling is a proposal that allows Iran “token” nuclear enrichment – but with no path to a bomb, according to unnamed US officials.

via Iranian state media

But alongside this are the typical ‘military options’ which have been reported for weeks, with Trump currently said to be considering ‘limited’ strikes, or even decapitation attacks to take out the Ayatollah and top leadership – though concerns are this would unleash uncontrollable full war, given Tehran’s retaliation would likely be all-out.

Axios says of negotiations and the “token” enrichment option – that “This suggests there could be an opening, if only a small one, between the red lines set by the U.S. and Iran for a deal to constrain Iran’s nuclear capabilities and prevent war.”

The unspoken irony and contradiction in all of this – which the Iranians are fully aware of – is that this is precisely what the original Iran JCPOA nuclear deal under Obama aimed for. Trump, of course, during his first term pulled the US out of the deal, in April 2018, finding it insufficient.

“President Trump will be ready to accept a deal that would be substantive and that he can sell politically at home. If the Iranians want to prevent an attack they should give us an offer we can’t refuse. The Iranians keep missing the window. If they play games there won’t be a lot of patience,” a senior American official told Axios.

All of this has led to premature reports that Washington has already ‘accepted’ a scheme whereby Iran could keep its nuclear program, for domestic energy purposes. Yet the two sides in reality appear nowhere near the goal line or final agreement.

The same outlet agrees, concluding: “U.S. officials say the bar for Iran’s forthcoming nuclear proposal is very high because the plan would have to persuade the many skeptics inside the Trump administration and in the region.”

The US is still escalating the immense military pressure by the day, as this past week it became very clear that we are witnessing the biggest American military build-up in the region since the 2003 Iraq war.

An ‘alternate’ plan is to take out Ayatollah Khamenei and his son, the latest reporting says…

A sticking point for the US remains the limitation or elimination of Iran’s formidable ballistic missile program. But Tehran naturally sees this as impossible, as it would in essence be disarming itself, assuring its own demise if ever attacked by an enemy like Israel.

Israeli has meanwhile made no secret that it wants to see the collapse of the Islamic Republic, seeing in it a forever enemy of the Jewish people. But Iranians say they are the ones repeatedly attacked in an unprovoked fashion.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/21/2026 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/mnvOgot Tyler Durden

Syria Asks Germany Not To Deport Its Citizens Back Home, Fearing It Would Make Country ‘Unsafe’

Syria Asks Germany Not To Deport Its Citizens Back Home, Fearing It Would Make Country ‘Unsafe’

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Syria has formally asked Germany for patience over the deportation of Syrian nationals, warning that the return of thousands could lead to insecurity in the country and worsen the country’s fragile humanitarian situation.

As reported by Welt, Mohammed Yaqub al-Omar, director of the consular department at the Syrian Foreign Ministry, urged Germany “to understand the Syrian refugees and give us more time for reconstruction.”

He warned that “the return of thousands of Syrians to Syria at this time could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and mean that many people will have to live in refugee camps.”

According to al-Omar, 1.5 million people are currently living in tent camps in northern Syria alone due to destroyed homes, schools, roads, and a lack of electricity. Large-scale deportations from Germany, he suggested, would place further strain on already overstretched infrastructure.

Politicians from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), argue that legal protection grounds no longer apply, but members of the co-governing left-wing Social Democrats (SPD) were more amenable to Damascus’ request.

“Residence rights are not determined by the wishes of the countries of origin, but by whether a claim to protection exists. This claim, however, ceased to exist after the fall of the Assad regime,” Alexander Throm, domestic policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, told Focus magazine. He added that returns to safe areas of Syria are possible, asking, “Who, if not Syrians, should rebuild the country after the civil war?”

Marion Gentges, Justice and Migration Minister in Baden-Württemberg from the CDU, warned against delaying deportations because of the current debate. “We have an interest in ensuring that serious criminals and dangerous individuals leave our country. Therefore, such deportations, including those to Syria, must be carried out consistently,” she said.

The topic of Syrian deportations could lead to friction within the federal coalition, however, with SPD lawmakers suggesting that Damascus’ request for more time was reasonable.

“Syria still needs time to create structures that allow for returns,” said Serdar Yüksel, SPD chairman of the German-Turkish Parliamentary Group. In many areas, he reported, there are “no schools, no hospitals, no running water, no sewage system.”

In some places, there is “virtually no reconstruction” taking place, he added, without responding to the suggestion that perhaps Syrians themselves should be leading the reconstruction.

The issue is already partially addressed in the coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD, which provides for the resumption of deportations to Syria, beginning with criminals and individuals considered threats to public safety.

However, a broader deportation policy back to the country has not been agreed upon.

Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), slammed the request by the Syrian government, and suggested that a remigration policy for Syrians would already be in full force were her party in office.

She wrote on X, “Syria is demanding that Germany not send back criminal Syrians – and the German government is complying. With the AfD in government, the deportation offensive would begin immediately – and the safety of its own citizens would be prioritized!”

Her party added in a separate post, “Syria refuses to take back Syrians – so the country doesn’t become ‘unsafe.’ Criminal Syrians are supposed to stay in Germany – and the German government is complying. Instead: launch a deportation offensive, send Syrians back to Syria!”

Voluntary deportation programs were launched in some German states last year, but resulted in extremely poor conversion rates. Despite financial incentives being offered at German taxpayers’ expense, just a fraction of those offered assistance to return home took up the offer.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/21/2026 – 15:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1387dxG Tyler Durden

These Are The Most Dangerous Fields Of Work

These Are The Most Dangerous Fields Of Work

Fatal workplace injuries remain a pressing issue in the United States, with stark disparities across occupational fields.

Statista’s Tristan Gaudiaut reports that, according to data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2026, farming, fishing and forestry are still by far the most dangerous fields of work, recording around 22 fatal injuries per 100,000 workers in 2024.

Infographic: The Most Dangerous Fields of Work | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

A little further behind are transportation and material moving (12.8) and construction and extraction (12.6), followed by protective services (8.2) and building/ground cleaning and maintenance (6.9).

These figures underscore the persistent risks faced by workers in physically demanding and high-hazard industries, despite ongoing safety regulations and enforcement efforts.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/21/2026 – 14:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/z5xJQfy Tyler Durden

A Puzzle about Learning Resources v. Trump

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision rejecting President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is styled Learning Resources v. Trump. But why?

The tariff case was actually two cases. Learning Resources, which had been filed in a federal district court, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, which was filed in the Court of International Trade and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One question before the Court was which of these litigation pathways was the right one.

Here is what the Court said on that point in a footnote:

We agree with the Federal Circuit that the V.O.S. Selections case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIT. The plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of ” modifications to the HTSUS. 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). Where, as here, such modifications are made under an “Act[] affecting import treatment,” 19 U. S. C. §2483, they are “considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes,” §3004(c)(1)(C). Thus, the plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of [a] law of the United States providing for . . . tariffs.” 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). For the same reasons, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction in the Learning Resources case.

Based upon this, it seems to me the decision should be captioned Trump v. V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, not Learning Resources. After all, if the district court lacked jurisdiction in Learning Resources, that case should have been dismissed and the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to review that case on the merits. It did, however, have jurisdiction to reach the merits in V.O.S. Selections, so that is the case on which the Court actually ruled. But that is not what the Court did.

The post A Puzzle about Learning Resources v. Trump appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/1BEjlgx
via IFTTT

Trump on the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision

After the Supreme Court ruled (correctly) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the imposition of tariffs, President Trump issued remarks on the decision. It was quite something.

Here are some excerpts form the transcript:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.

I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices. . . .

The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. . . .

Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it’s happened so often with this court — what a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and, not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement. I won by millions of votes, we won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, we still won in a landslide. Too big to rig.

But these people are obnoxious, ignorant and loud. They’re very loud. And I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it. . . .

I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. . . .

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even one dollar. I can’t charge one dollar, can’t charge a dollar. I would have used one penny, but we don’t make the pennies anymore. We save money.

Can’t charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA, not one dollar, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting. That’s what they’re supposed to be protecting. . . .

Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was a dead country one-and-a-half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.

But I read the language. I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100 per cent. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.

As Justice Kavanaugh — whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I’m so proud of him — wrote in his dissent, “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” So think of that, “the decision might not substantially constrain.” And it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start. . . .

And from the Q&A at the press conference:

Question:  Mr. President. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?

Trump: Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side and I don’t like them.

I think they’re real slimeballs. And, uh, got to do what’s right for the country. You got to do what’s right for the Constitution. That’s why I respect so much, Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. When you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you’ll read a dissent and it’s like, well, you don’t know.

It could go either way. There’s no other way. The good news is it’s like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don’t have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.

They allowed our country to be eaten alive. We lost 50 percent of our car business. We used to make cars. We made all cars. And then Mexico came, Canada came, Japan, and Germany, but they’re all coming back now. They’re all coming back at record levels. . . .

And on his appointments to the Court:

Question: Mr. President, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, are you surprised in particular by their decision today?

Trump: I am.

Question: And do you regret nominating them?

Trump: I don’t want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yeah. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them. Yeah.

The post Trump on the Supreme Court's Tariff Decision appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/7hLNVIw
via IFTTT

An MQD Receipt Justice Gorsuch Overlooked

Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in Learning Resources v. Trump is something of a Godfather-esque settling of family business. He challenges and critiques all of his colleagues (save for the Chief) and brings receipts. As one would expect, his opinion draws tart responses from other justices (which could explain why it took so long for the Court to release the opinion).

Whatever one concludes about Justice Gorsuch’s exchange with Justice Kagan, and whether the progressive justices implicitly adopted arguments embracing the major questions doctrine in this case, he is correct that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have signed on to MQD-reasoning in the past, he just forgot to include one of the most salient receipts.

In 2015, both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor signed on to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court in King v. Burwell. Of note, that opinion relied upon MQD reasoning in concluding that Congress had not delegated authority to the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether tax credits would be available in federal exchanges. Here’s the relevant passage:

When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837 . Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000) . “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid.

This is one of those cases. The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Whether those credits are available on Federal Exchanges is thus a question of deep “economic and political significance” that is central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 19) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 160). It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243 –267 (2006). This is not a case for the IRS.

Chief Justice Roberts cites King in his opinion. For some reason, Gorsuch overlooked it (and it’s not as if he cut anything to save time or space).

Wait, some readers may wish to interject, is it fair to cite King if the issue was whether to defer to the agency under Chevron? Most definitely. The question of whether to defer to an agency’s interpretation under Chevron was a delegation question (Did Congress delegate the authority to resolve this question to the agency?). Indeed, in many cases the Chevron question would implicate a broader and more expansive assertion of authority than the would the existence of the underlying power. As the Chief noted in King, granting the IRS the obligation to issue tax credits was a lesser delegation of authority than granting to the IRS the authority to decide whether or not to issue tax credits. (This is a point I make at greater length in my HJLPP article, “The Delegation Doctrine.”)

So, whether or not the Court’s conclusion that IEEPA does not grant the power to impose tariffs required resort to the MQD–and whether or not one thinks the progressive justices implicitly accepted the MQD by joining the opinion for the Court–it is unquestionable that at least two of those justices have signed on to an opinion that relied upon MQD reasoning in the past.

While we are on the subject I enjoyed Justice Kagan’s opinion concurring-in-part and concurring-in-the-judgment, and found much of it compelling. I particularly liked the bit about IEEPA’s 99 delegations (which brings back memories of this classic).

That said, I find Kagan’s insistence that she simply follows the statutory text when determining whether Congress delegated authority to an agency in any given case to be hard to swallow given some of the decisions she has joined in the past, most notably Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.

For those who do not recall the details of UARG, Justice Kagan signed on to Justice Breyer’s dissent which maintained that the EPA had the authority to rewrite numerical emission thresholds that Congress had written into the Clean Air Act, despite the lack of any language anywhere in the statute that could be interpreted as granting such authority. Moreover, for this delegation to be effective, it had to be supplemented by an unstated dispensing power, because the EPA’s revision of the emission thresholds could only be effective if it precluded citizen suits to enforce the statutory limits. If a justice is willing to countenance this sort of claim , it is hard to understand why construing “regulate . . . imports” to include the power to impose tariffs is much of a reach. But if Justice Kagan is now an adherent of “straight-up statutory construction” to determine whether a given power has been delegated, and is willing to invalidate future assertions of authority that lack statutory warrant without fear or favor, I welcome her to the fold.

The post An MQD Receipt Justice Gorsuch Overlooked appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/L1rNp9X
via IFTTT

A Puzzle about Learning Resources v. Trump

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision rejecting President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is styled Learning Resources v. Trump. But why?

The tariff case was actually two cases. Learning Resources, which had been filed in a federal district court, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, which was filed in the Court of International Trade and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. One question before the Court was which of these litigation pathways was the right one.

Here is what the Court said on that point in a footnote:

We agree with the Federal Circuit that the V.O.S. Selections case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CIT. The plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of ” modifications to the HTSUS. 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). Where, as here, such modifications are made under an “Act[] affecting import treatment,” 19 U. S. C. §2483, they are “considered to be statutory provisions of law for all purposes,” §3004(c)(1)(C). Thus, the plaintiffs’ challenges “arise[] out of [a] law of the United States providing for . . . tariffs.” 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1). For the same reasons, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction in the Learning Resources case.

Based upon this, it seems to me the decision should be captioned Trump v. V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, not Learning Resources. After all, if the district court lacked jurisdiction in Learning Resources, that case should have been dismissed and the Supreme Court would not have had jurisdiction to review that case on the merits. It did, however, have jurisdiction to reach the merits in V.O.S. Selections, so that is the case on which the Court actually ruled. But that is not what the Court did.

The post A Puzzle about Learning Resources v. Trump appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/1BEjlgx
via IFTTT

Trump on the Supreme Court’s Tariff Decision

After the Supreme Court ruled (correctly) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the imposition of tariffs, President Trump issued remarks on the decision. It was quite something.

Here are some excerpts form the transcript:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.

I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices. . . .

The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They’re an automatic no, just like in Congress, they’re an automatic no. They’re against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. . . .

Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it’s happened so often with this court — what a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and, not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It’s a small movement. I won by millions of votes, we won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, we still won in a landslide. Too big to rig.

But these people are obnoxious, ignorant and loud. They’re very loud. And I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it. . . .

I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. . . .

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even one dollar. I can’t charge one dollar, can’t charge a dollar. I would have used one penny, but we don’t make the pennies anymore. We save money.

Can’t charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA, not one dollar, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting. That’s what they’re supposed to be protecting. . . .

Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was a dead country one-and-a-half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.

But I read the language. I’m very good at reading language, and it read our way 100 per cent. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.

As Justice Kavanaugh — whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I’m so proud of him — wrote in his dissent, “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” So think of that, “the decision might not substantially constrain.” And it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start. . . .

And from the Q&A at the press conference:

Question:  Mr. President. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?

Trump: Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side and I don’t like them.

I think they’re real slimeballs. And, uh, got to do what’s right for the country. You got to do what’s right for the Constitution. That’s why I respect so much, Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. When you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you’ll read a dissent and it’s like, well, you don’t know.

It could go either way. There’s no other way. The good news is it’s like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don’t have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.

They allowed our country to be eaten alive. We lost 50 percent of our car business. We used to make cars. We made all cars. And then Mexico came, Canada came, Japan, and Germany, but they’re all coming back now. They’re all coming back at record levels. . . .

And on his appointments to the Court:

Question: Mr. President, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, are you surprised in particular by their decision today?

Trump: I am.

Question: And do you regret nominating them?

Trump: I don’t want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yeah. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them. Yeah.

The post Trump on the Supreme Court's Tariff Decision appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/7hLNVIw
via IFTTT

Welcome To The Lowest-Common-Denominator Society

Welcome To The Lowest-Common-Denominator Society

Authored by James Hickman via SchiffSovereign.com,

For decades, Germany operated its rail system on an honor model. There were no turnstiles, no barriers. Passengers bought tickets, boarded trains, and conductors performed random spot checks to make sure everyone had paid.

It was a system built on trust— and for a long time, it worked, because Germany was a fundamentally law-abiding society.

That system has been fraying over the last several years as Germany aggressively imported millions of migrants who don’t respect the law.

The most egregious example took place earlier this month, when a train conductor asked a passenger— a 26-year old migrant— for his ticket.

Not only did the passenger not have a ticket, but he beat the conductor so severely that the man died of his injuries the next morning.

The government’s response is extraordinary.

Rather than establish law and order and rain holy hell upon the criminals, Deutsche Bahn— which is owned by the German government— has told conductors to NOT approach passengers who present a “high risk of escalation.”

In short, the new policy is— if someone looks dangerous, don’t bother checking their ticket.

Meanwhile, ordinary passengers— the ones who actually follow the rules— will continue to be checked (and punished) if they’re caught without valid fare.

The same logic already governs retail theft across much of Germany.

Shoplifting hit record levels in 2024— roughly €3 billion in losses— and according to industry data, 98% of retail theft goes unreported to police. Retailers have largely given up because prosecutors rarely pursue the cases.

Moreover, employees who do try to intervene face increasingly aggressive and violent offenders… which is why retail stores have instructed staff to not intervene.

We’ve seen the same type of policy in the US.

Last August in Charlotte, North Carolina, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee named Iryna Zarutska was sitting on a light rail train when a man behind her pulled out a knife and stabbed her to death.

The killer— DeCarlos Brown Jr.— had 14 prior arrests including armed robbery and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. His own mother had tried to have him involuntarily committed. Seven months earlier, a magistrate “judge” named Teresa Stokes released him without bond— on nothing more than a written promise to appear.

I put “judge” in quotes because Ms. Stokes had never graduated from law school, nor passed the bar in any state. She wasn’t qualified to adjudicate a traffic ticket, let alone violent crime.

At least there was outrage in America over Zarutska’s violent slaying.

But in Germany, the response to a train conductor being beaten to death was to tell other train conductors to stop doing their jobs.

And this isn’t some isolated lapse in judgment. It’s a pattern that runs through practically every layer of German governance.

Start with free speech.

The Alternative for Germany party (the AfD) won 20.8% of the vote in last year’s federal election, and current polls put them at 25-27%— neck and neck with the governing party.

The AfD’s surge in popularity is literally BECAUSE of the lawlessness and criminality that’s rampaging across the  country.

But rather than admit their policies have been catastrophic failures… and reverse course… the German establishment’s response was to classify the entire AfD as a “confirmed right-wing extremist endeavor”. They even authorized the domestic intelligence agency to wiretap and spy on AfD members.

Politicians have also filed hundreds of criminal complaints against citizens who criticized them online. Robert Habeck, the former deputy chancellor from the Green Party, personally filed 805 complaints. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock filed 513.

The government frequently conducts early-morning raids on citizens’ homes over social media posts— they literally call them “Action Days Against Hate.” Ironically, one man received a suspended prison sentence for posting a meme that said a politician “hates freedom of speech.” You can’t make this stuff up.

A 2024 study by The Future of Free Speech found that 99.7% of content deleted on Facebook under Germany’s censorship law was perfectly legal speech.

Rather than asking why millions of Germans are angry— the economy in its longest downturn since reunification, 120,000 manufacturing jobs lost in a single year, rising violent crime— the government’s answer is to label them extremists, censor their speech, and try to ban the party they vote for.

Then there’s German energy policy.

Remember, this is the same government that lectured the entire world on climate change while shutting down all 17 of its nuclear power plants— the last three in April 2023, during an energy crisis.

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Germany imported 55-65% of its natural gas from Russia.

When Russia cut the gas in 2022, Germany frantically restarted more than 20 coal-fired power plants and imported 42 million tonnes of coal, including a 278% surge from southern Africa.

They bulldozed an entire village called Lutzerath (in South Africa) to expand a coal mine, dragging 6,000 protesters away.

The country that wagged its finger at the West over carbon emissions ended up with a dirtier power grid than China’s.

And having shut down its own perfectly clean nuclear plants, Germany became a net electricity importer for the first time, buying power from France’s nuclear grid.

Under German law, if a bartender overserves a customer who then causes a fatal car crash, the bartender can be prosecuted for negligent homicide. Courts have ruled that by serving the alcohol, the bartender becomes legally responsible for the danger they created.

But a government that shuts down its own energy supply, censors its own citizens, and tells law enforcement to look the other way when criminals get aggressive? Apparently no such accountability applies.

And the same goes for the US, where if there was any justice, Teresa Stokes would be in prison for the negligent homicide of Iryna Zarutska.

It’s worth paying close attention, because Germany may be one of the worst offenders, but it isn’t the only Western nation making these choices.

That’s how you build a lowest-common-denominator society— by catering every policy to benefit the worst people in it.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/21/2026 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Lp34wK2 Tyler Durden

‘Incubator Babies’ Are Back, With Iran In Crosshairs

‘Incubator Babies’ Are Back, With Iran In Crosshairs

Tehran is once again pointing the finger at “terrorists” for last month’s bloodshed, rejecting outside estimates and doubling down after President Trump just issued his own high estimate.

Trump told reporters Friday that 32,000 people were killed in the unrest, declaring that “the people of Iran have lived in hell” under the ruling clerical regime of the Ayatollah.

Source: qantara.de

That figure is one of the highest offered so far, even significantly beyond some Iranian opposition claims. But Tehran has rejected this. It’s far beyond even what most Washington-friendly mainstream media said in real time as the bloody protests were unfolding.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Saturday that the government has published a list of 3,117 individuals he called “victims of recent terrorist operation.”

The official figure notably includes roughly 200 security personnel – suggesting at least some elements of the protests were armed, dangerous, and attacked police and military.

Iranian officials have alleged the protesters had outside covert help from Israel and the United States. Indeed, US mainstream media has lately confirmed the US government covertly shipped in thousands of Starlink terminals to aid the anti-government movement’s communications and ability to organize.

“If anyone disputes accuracy of our data, please share any evidence,” Araghchi wrote on X. He had previously claimed that at least 690 of the names offered were “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel.

There could be signs of yet more protests emerging, as Fox Chief Correspondent Trey Yingst writes Saturday, “Large protests today in Iran, led by university students. Monitoring.”

Meanwhile the New York Post has just issued this conflict’s version of the “incubator babies” – with a new report claiming babies are being ripped from mothers’ wombs(!)

NYP claims: “Iranian police officers are gang-raping imprisoned female protesters and then cutting out their uteruses to cover up the horrific torture – before shipping their lifeless bodies home to their families, according to a shocking new report.”

The Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams exposes the report for the laughably crude propaganda that it is…

Every. Single. Time. 

And people still actually fall for such simplistic, evidence-free claims amid the drum-beat for war. We are always told coming off each and every failed Neocon war: “but this time it’s different!”

Americans are some of the most propagandized people on earth, and often this translates to disastrous ‘shock and awe’ style consequences for nations in Washington’s immediate crosshairs.

* * *

For a trip down memory lane

Three months after Nayirah testified, President George H.W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayirah’s claims weren’t true. No human rights group or news outlet could confirm what she said. It also turned out Nayirah was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasser al-Sabah. She had been coached by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was working for the Kuwaiti government.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 02/21/2026 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/TXrc24B Tyler Durden