Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

For a long time, the German economy remained silent on the dogmatic climate goals and the politically destructive course. Now, Christian Kullmann, CEO of Evonik, is the first business leader to speak plainly. It is time to bury the CO₂ cult.

Finally, one might say, after years of deafening silence from German industry, a CEO is speaking openly. Christian Kullmann, head of the chemical giant Evonik, is at the forefront of the fight against ever-tighter climate regulations from Brussels and Berlin.

Looking ahead to the drastic tightening of the emissions trading system planned for 2027, Kullmann spared no words in an interview with the FAZ: “The CO₂ levy for Europe must go. It threatens at least 200,000 well-paid industrial jobs in Germany.”

Industrial Collapse

And that is likely a conservative estimate. Currently, the economy is forced to cut more than 10,000 jobs per week. Companies such as Bosch, with 22,000 planned cuts, and ZF Friedrichshafen, planning 7,600 by 2030, are slashing jobs on a massive scale. A wave of insolvencies is sweeping across the German economy, expected to break all records with over 24,000 bankruptcies by year-end.

Kullmann’s blunt statement may mark the start of a long-overdue debate on the real costs of European climate policy for the German economy and heavily burdened households.

From 2027, the CO₂ emissions trading system threatens Germany with another cost tsunami: the price per ton of CO₂ could rise to as much as €200, drastically increasing heating, fuel, and energy costs. Households could pay an additional €1,000 annually, while companies face soaring production costs, reduced investment, and job cuts.

Economically, this radical step would impose around €40 billion in extra costs annually on a consumption of 400 million tons, accelerating the socially and politically dangerous deindustrialization.

The EU: An Expensive Affair

What leftist and eco-socialist ideologues unleashed with the Green Deal has become a socio-political landslide. Bureaucracies and official circles have yet to realize that their campaign against civil society and market rules is already lost.

In Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and other capitals of the European debt union, they respond with ever more levies to stave off their own collapse.

Revenue from the CO₂ levy is used almost exclusively to stabilize overstretched national budgets: about 90 percent flows to national treasuries, the rest to Ursula von der Leyen’s EU coffers, which will inject around €750 billion in subsidies into the dried-up channels of the green patronage economy by 2034.

And Brussels’ megalomania knows no bounds. Every capital source is tapped—from steel tariffs to recycling taxes on plastic products. The EU is an expensive ideological game. It is now the ethical duty of business leaders to resist this campaign against reason and market principles. Failure to act risks direct confrontation in the markets. Brussels will be forced to refinance via bond markets—disguised as Eurobonds.

The Commission has positioned itself at the head of a debt union that suffocates the free market with its sprawling, centrally planned ecological patronage economy.

Spain as a Counterpoint

It is likely that after Kullmann’s criticism, a massive wave of counter-propaganda will arise. NGOs and state-affiliated media will mobilize every resource to rally Europeans against the imagined threat of man-made climate change.

Critical voices are often dismissed with a single example—a sign of how detached Brussels officials are from reality. This example comes from Spain. Officially, Spain’s economy will grow by about 2.5% in 2025, with a state quota of 48%, total debt of 109%, and a net new debt of 3.5%.

Even the much-praised Spain fails to meet the once-celebrated Maastricht criteria—just like Germany. Looking at the situation realistically, private industry shrinks by about 1% despite massive Brussels credit support and programs like NextGenerationEU.

But nowhere is the collateral damage of eco-socialism more evident than in Germany. The dramatic industrial output drop from July to August—4.3% overall, 18.5% in the auto sector, over 10% in pharmaceuticals—should serve as a warning even to the staunchest ideologist.

What central planners like Lars Klingbeil, Friedrich Merz, and the Brussels bureaucrats fail to grasp: every euro not flowing through the free market is a lost euro. Through massive interventions and debt-financed programs, states restrict the private sector’s room to invest in the future, endangering Europe’s prosperity engine.

Companies and their workforces will not tolerate this development for long. We are not witnessing a cyclical downturn or a classic recession—but a full economic collapse.

Using the Crisis

Europeans embarked on a climate crusade in recent years. Intellectual and ethical misadventures like this only thrive on the economic success of previous generations, who left their heirs an illusion of growth and the promise of effortless prosperity.

Let us hope that the Evonik CEO’s voice opens the door to real criticism—a catalyst whose bold impulse sparks a chain reaction of open, constructive debate.

Until now, criticism within German industry has entangled itself within the political framework. Calls for aid and subsidies, especially for energy costs, dominated. But this was not true policy critique—it was submission to the eco-dictate.

It is the ethical duty of business leaders to draw the line for politics. Too much is at stake to entrust it to infantile ideology. Its time is over. The crisis is unavoidable. But now we can begin rebuilding a market-based rulebook and sovereign policies in Europe’s national states. Brussels’ task would remain the safeguarding of the common internal market—a challenge more than demanding.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe is a German graduate economist, who has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Citizenship by investment programs give wealthy individuals the chance to secure a second passport by making significant financial contributions. The requirements vary by country, but these programs typically seek investments in businesses, development funds, or direct donations.

In return, obtaining a second passport offers benefits like visa-free travel, tax advantages, or a backup plan in the event of political or economic turmoil.

In this visualization, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu breaks down the required contributions across 13 countries offering citizenship by investment, showing how much applicants need to spend to qualify.

Data & Discussion

The data for this visualization comes from Henley & Partners, highlighting the minimum contribution required by select countries offering citizenship by investment.

Note that this is not an exhaustive list, and that many other countries have some form of investment migration legislation.

The More Affordable Options

At the lower end of the spectrum, Nauru offers a relatively cheaper program at about $130,000. The country’s passport provides visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to nearly 90 countries, though it lacks the broader travel privileges of Caribbean or European citizenship programs.

Dominica, Antigua & Barbuda, and St. Lucia are also affordable, requiring investments between $200,000 and $240,000. These Caribbean programs are popular for their cost-effectiveness and the travel flexibility they provide within the region.

Here’s a closer look at the benefits of Dominica’s citizenship by investment program:

• Offers visa-free travel to over 140 destinations
• Ability to include a spouse, unmarried children under 31, and parents & grandparents aged 65 and older
• Citizenship by descent available for future generations

To qualify for the program, applicants have the option of making a non-refundable contribution of $200,000 to Dominica’s Economic Development Fund (for a single applicant), or making a real estate purchase with a minimum value of $200,000.

Mid-Tier Investment Thresholds

Countries like Türkiye, Grenada, and Egypt fall in the middle range, with required contributions between $235,000 and $400,000.

Launched in 2017, Türkiye’s program has become attractive due to its large real estate market and access to both European and Middle Eastern travel corridors.

Applicants have many options to participate in the program, including, but not limited to:

• Acquire $400,000 worth of real estate

• Deposit at least $500,000 into a Turkish bank account

• Create jobs for at least 50 people, as attested by the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services

High-End Citizenship Programs

At the top end, Malta and Montenegro require close to or more than $500,000, while Austria demands a “substantial contribution,” often exceeding several million.

These higher thresholds reflect the perceived value of EU citizenship, which offers broad visa-free access, stability, and economic advantages. As of 2025, Austria’s passport is considered the fourth most powerful in the world.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Daily Cost of Traveling in Europe on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

*  *  * We have two new Reverse Osmosis water filters for you to check out…

Cheap and convenient: Countertop Reverse Osmosis Filter (great in campers) with UV sterilization

1200 Gallon / Day Workhorse: High-Flow Alkalizing (Ph 7.5) Reverse Osmosis with 11-stage filtration & faucet. Comes with extra filters for 2-year supply. 

Intro Sale // Free Shipping // Both have great Amazon reviews

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are drawing up detailed plans to evacuate vast numbers of their citizens to the countries’ west in the event of a Russian invasion, with officials warning that Moscow could attempt to overrun all three Baltic states in less than a week.

Reuters reported that planning has accelerated since May, when the three countries agreed to coordinate civil protection efforts amid mounting concern over Russian aggression.

The Baltic governments have doubled their defense spending since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began in 2022, citing repeated Russian cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and recent violations of Baltic airspace by Russian fighter jets and drones as signs of growing hostility.

“It is possible that we will see a massive army along the Baltic borders with the obvious goal of conquering all three countries within three days to a week,” said Renatas Požéla, head of Lithuania’s fire and rescue service, as cited by Denník N.

While a conventional invasion remains the most serious scenario, governments are also preparing for a range of other destabilizing events, from sabotage of transportation networks and mass migration waves to civil unrest among Russian-speaking minorities and disinformation campaigns designed to trigger panic.

Exercises are already taking place. A recent drill in Lithuania involved evacuating just 100 people from Vilnius, but Požéla said real plans envision moving around 400,000 residents — roughly half of those living within 40 kilometers of the Russian and Belarusian borders. Kaunas, Lithuania’s second-largest city, has prepared to accommodate 300,000 people in schools, churches, universities, and a stadium. The city is located further west than the capital Vilnius, which lies close to the Belarusian border.

Those fleeing west by car would be diverted to secondary roads to keep main routes clear for mobilization, with maps showing where evacuees could seek refuge already having been distributed.

None of the Baltic states currently plan to relocate civilians beyond their borders, which would require military convoys to negotiate Poland’s Suwałki Gap, sandwiched between Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

“We have to take into account the risk presented by the Suwałki Corridor,” said Estonian security expert Ivar Mai.

Estonia is preparing to move around 10 percent of its 1.4 million residents into temporary shelters, with many more expected to stay with relatives. In Narva, a city with a large Russian-speaking population, two-thirds of its 50,000 residents could be evacuated, with the government assisting at least half. “It’s only for those who have nowhere else to go,” Mai explained.

Latvia is preparing for even larger displacements. Around one-third of its 1.9 million citizens could be forced from their homes in the event of war, said Ivars Nakurts, deputy commander of the Latvian Fire and Rescue Service. “Count on everything,” he warned.

Incidents involving Russian incursions into EU airspace have been reported more frequently in recent months, including the drones reported in Poland and fighter jets entering Estonian territory last month.

However, Moscow insists it has no intention of invading any EU member state.

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in New York last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, “Threats of force against Russia, accused of practically planning an attack on NATO and the European Union, are becoming increasingly common. President Putin has repeatedly debunked such provocations.

“Russia has never had and does not have such intentions, but any aggression against my country will be met with a decisive response.”

Read more here…

The following is the introduction to Mike Fairclough’s new book 2030 – a dystopian novel aimed at teenagers.

I want to speak to you directly, before the story begins.

When I was your age, the books we studied at school were dangerous in the best sense of the word. We read George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. We read William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. We were exposed to stories of mythological heroes – ordinary men and women who faced extraordinary challenges.

These books didn’t come with ‘trigger warnings’. They weren’t wrapped in cotton wool. They were meant to disturb, to challenge, to wake you up.

I grew up in a time when boys were boys and girls were girls. Our fathers, and our grandfathers before them, had fought in wars or been raised in the shadow of those who did. They taught us grit, resilience, and the courage to stand up when something was wrong.

We were also raised with pride in our British heritage. Our history, our culture, our traditions and our flag were things to respect, not to be ashamed of. We learned that our nation had stood up against tyranny, twice, and paid the price in blood. We sang songs that carried our past. We flew the Union Jack as a symbol of unity, freedom and identity.

Today, children and young people are told to see their history not as a source of pride or strength, but as a catalogue of guilt. They are taught that the victories of their ancestors were crimes, that courage was cruelty and that sacrifice was oppression. They are urged to turn away from their heritage, to treat their own flag as a symbol of shame, and to believe that the culture which once defended freedom is now too offensive to exist.

Much of what shaped us has been stolen from you. Books that once inspired rebellion are now treated as dangerous objects. Classrooms have become indoctrination centres. Children are drilled to fear the weather, to doubt their own identity, to repeat slogans about ‘inclusion’ while real truth is erased. Men are called ‘toxic’ simply for being men. Women are told that men can be women and therefore women are redundant.

I spent many years as the headmaster of a school, and almost 30 years teaching within the English education system. I am now the author of books, an editor, a ghostwriter and a campaigner for freedom.

I have lost count of the number of parents who have said to me, Write something for our children, something that tells the truth.

That is why I have written 2030.

Make no mistake, this book is not pure fiction. It is a prophecy. If we do nothing, if we stay silent, if we accept every slogan and every fear they press upon us, then 2030 will not be a story. It will be your future. Adults may deny this, but the task of resistance will fall to the young. To you.

So read carefully. Remember what has been erased. And when the time comes for you to stand, take your decision with conviction and purpose. Because if you do not stand, nobody else will.

A Note on Style

As a headmaster, my approach to education was celebrated internationally. It was rooted in something called character education, a philosophy in which young people were expected to move beyond their comfort zones. I saw children thrive when they lit fires in sub-zero temperatures, fired shotguns with steady hands, camped under the stars and faced personal challenges that demanded grit. Those experiences expanded them. They forged strength. They forged resilience.

This book has been written with the same spirit. You are about to enter a dystopian world. It is deliberately crafted to feel that way. The early chapters may feel like a grind, heavy, relentless. That is intentional. This is not TikTok with its quick dopamine hits, nor a Hollywood blockbuster that begins with explosions. This story asks for your focus, your stamina. The hardest journeys are the ones that change us most deeply.

And while the opening chapters set the weight of this world, know that the journey does not remain there.

The path widens, the pace quickens, and what follows will reward your perseverance.

2030 is not an ordinary book. You will discover, as you read, that you are not simply an observer. You are a participant. This story is rooted in truth. You, the reader, have the most important role to play.

So buckle up. Stay with me. Let us step together into 2030. Because until you realise you are sleepwalking into dystopia, you cannot begin to unlock the prison door.

And when that moment comes, you will discover just how powerful you truly are.

Chapter 1: The Digital Prison

George woke to silence. Not the silence of peace, but the heavy, engineered quiet of a world with no birdsong, no traffic, no laughter. The Council had found ways to mute even the dawn.

His room was the same as every other room, square walls, pale light, a bed without softness. A clock blinked on the wall, but its hands did not tick. Time was measured now in doses and data, not in minutes and hours.

He sat up slowly, pressing his palms against his eyes. The same dream again, a sound he could not place, a ripple of joy, a child’s laugh that did not belong in this world. He tried to catch it, to hold it in his memory, but it slipped away like water through his fingers.

The World Safety Council called these fragments ‘spikes’. Citizens were taught to report them immediately, to present themselves for correction. But George had learned to keep his silence. To carry the spike quietly. To let it burn like a secret fire.

Today would be no different. He would dress in the World Safety Council’s uniform, walk the Council’s streets, speak the Council’s words. But deep inside, he carried something the injections and lessons had never erased. A trace of another life. A whisper that the world had once been more than this.

And the walls, though he did not yet know it, remembered too.

Mike Fairclough was the only serving headteacher or school principal (out of 43,500 in the U.K.) to publicly question the rollout of the Covid vaccine to children. His new book, 2030, is now available on Amazon.

*  *  * Check it out – we have water straws now (3-pack) // FREE shipping

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan emailed Reuters a statement in mid-September criticizing China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to the island.

They declared that “China intentionally mischaracterises World War Two-era documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco, to try to support its coercive campaign to subjugate Taiwan.” The latest twist in this dispute coincides with the 80th anniversary of Japan’s defeat.

For background, the 1943 Cairo Declaration states that Formosa (Taiwan’s colonial-era name) will be returned to the Republic of China (ROC); the 1945 Potsdam Declaration references Cairo and limits the geographic scope of Japanese sovereignty without mentioning Formosa; and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco resulted in Japan officially renouncing its claim to Formosa while leaving its status unresolved. The ROC’s and People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) interpretations thereof will now be briefly summarized.

The Taiwan-based ROC considers itself to be China’s only legitimate government since it represents the League of Nations-recognized ROC despite that erstwhile organization’s UN successor expelling them in 1971 and replacing their permanent Security Council seat with the PRC. It thus interprets the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations as confirming its control over Taiwan while the PRC relies on the aforesaid decision, which recognized it as the only legitimate representative of China, to legally claim Taiwan.

The significance of the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan criticizing China’s (formally the PRC’s) reliance on these WWII-era agreements (Reuters reminded readers that it considers the Treaty of San Francisco “illegal and invalid” since it wasn’t party to it) is that it’s a sign of the times. As the New Cold War shifts from the US prioritizing Russia’s containment in Europe to China’s containment in Asia, so too is the trend of the US gradually revising the results of WWII in order to give it an edge on that front too.

Russia believes that Germany’s remilitarization, Finland’s membership in NATO, and the push for neutral Austria to follow, all of which are backed by the US, prove that the US is gradually revising the results of WWII. Likewise, so too does it believe that Japan’s US-backed remilitarization is proof of the same, the view of which China shares as well. It was therefore predictable that the US would one day start to more assertively challenge China’s reliance on WWII-era agreements in support of its claim to Taiwan.

The world order always changes as history attests, but in these instances, associated processes are being weaponized by the US for containment purposes vis-à-vis what can nowadays be described as the Sino-Russo Entente in order to justify more aggressive policies against them on false legal bases. Permanent UNSC members Russia and China obviously wouldn’t agree to the abovementioned revisions, hence why the US is backing them unilaterally, which further accelerates the collapse of the post-WWII order.

The ideal scenario as envisaged in the UN Charter is for the UNSC to jointly pioneer a controlled transition to a new order that preserves the balance of power between them so as to reduce the risk of conflict during this period. That became impossible after the US’ unilateral withdrawal from arms control pacts with Russia dismantled the global security architecture, however, which inevitably led to it gradually revising the results of WWII and dangerously raising tensions with the Sino-Russo Entente.

There were 101,513 properties with foreclosure filings across the United States during the third quarter of 2025, up by 17 percent from a year back, real estate analytics company ATTOM said in an Oct. 9 statement.

One in every 1,402 housing units nationwide saw a foreclosure filing in Q3, the company said. Florida had the highest foreclosure rate, with one in every 814 housing units having a foreclosure filing. This was followed by Nevada, South Carolina, Illinois, and Delaware.

Among 225 metropolitan statistical areas with a population of at least 200,000 individuals, the highest foreclosure rate was seen in Lakeland in Florida, followed by Columbia in South Carolina, Cape Coral in Florida, Cleveland in Ohio, and Ocala in Florida.

As Naveen Athrappully reports for The Epoch Times, during the first half of 2025, there were a total of 187,659 foreclosure filings made, up 5.8 percent from a year back, according to ATTOM.

“In 2025, we’ve seen a consistent pattern of foreclosure activity trending higher, with both starts and completions posting year-over-year increases for consecutive quarters,” said Rob Barber, CEO at ATTOM.

“While these figures remain within a historically reasonable range, the persistence of this trend could be an early indicator of emerging borrower strain in some areas.”

Together with a jump in foreclosure filings, the third quarter also saw the average time to foreclose a property decline by 25 percent from a year back, ATTOM said, adding that this continues a downward trend from mid-2020.

In a June 26 statement, credit scoring model company VantageScore reported that mortgage delinquencies rose in May from the previous month, suggesting this could be an early sign of financial stress among borrowers in the housing sector.

“While consumer behavior generally remains positive, particularly among younger borrowers, mortgages may be an area to watch for increasing credit stress, particularly for traditionally less-risky segments with credit scores above VantageScore 660,” Susan Fahy, chief digital officer at VantageScore, said at the time.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported similar trends in an Aug. 5 statement, highlighting that 1.29 percent of mortgage debts were in serious delinquency—90 days or more—in the second quarter of 2025, up from 0.95 percent in Q2, 2024.

However, Joelle Scally, economic policy advisor at the New York Fed, said that despite the increase in mortgage delinquency, the overall mortgage performance “remains strong by historical standards.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers have taken various actions to tackle foreclosure threats facing Americans.

In March, the VA Home Loan Program Reform Act was introduced by Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.). The Act eventually passed both chambers of Congress and was signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 30.

The bill aims to financially assist military veterans when it comes to making their home payments in an environment of elevated mortgage rates, thereby avoiding foreclosures.

“The VA Home Loan program has helped millions of veterans achieve the American Dream of owning a home. However, we know that veterans—like all Americans—can fall on hard times and may need a safety net in place to avoid foreclosure on their home,” Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said in a July 16 statement.

“The VA Home Loan Program Reform Act addresses that need head on.”

This week, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) led a group of senators to introduce the Federal Employee Civil Relief Act to protect federal workers and contractor employees, as well as their families, from facing difficulties such as foreclosure or evictions during the ongoing government shutdown, the lawmaker’s office said in an Oct. 8 statement.

This protection will last during the shutdown and 30 days after it so as to “give workers a chance to keep up with their bills,” it said.

In a government shutdown, certain employees deemed to be performing essential work are required to continue working without pay, including law enforcement officers, air traffic controllers, and military personnel.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Family members of law enforcement officers are facing threats from individuals affiliated with the far-left extremist group Antifa, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in an Oct. 10 X post.

“Antifa terrorists are threatening the families of our law enforcement. We will hunt these sickos down and put them behind bars,” the post said. “In Texas, the spouse of an ICE officer received a voicemail filled with violent threats.”

The agency uploaded an audio clip of the threat received by the spouse, in which a woman can be heard using expletives against the wife of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, comparing them to Nazis.

“Did you hear what happened to the Nazis after World War II? Because that’s what’s going to happen to your family,” the caller said in the expletive-filled message.

In an Oct. 10 X post, the White House said Antifa is a radical terror group explicitly calling for the overthrow of the American government.

“Under the Trump Administration, Antifa’s days are over,” it said.

The post included a video of several officials and personalities detailing threats posed by the group.

For instance, conservative influencer Cam Higby reported he was “brutally attacked and almost killed” by Antifa in Seattle and that all of his colleagues have faced violence.

In the video, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Antifa attacked police stations, attacked court houses, and doxxed law enforcement officers. “They are a terrorist group and we are coming after them,” she said.

Antifa is a far-left extremist group originating in the Soviet Union and is known for committing politically motivated violence against their opponents, whom the group typically labels as fascists.

President Donald Trump designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization in a Sept. 22 executive order, calling the group a “militarist, anarchist enterprise” that uses campaigns of violence and terrorism to accomplish its goal of overthrowing the U.S. government and the system of law.

“Antifa recruits, trains, and radicalizes young Americans to engage in this violence and suppression of political activity,” said the order.

The group then employs “elaborate means and mechanisms to shield the identities of its operatives, conceal its funding sources and operations in an effort to frustrate law enforcement, and recruit additional members.”

During a roundtable discussion at the White House on Oct. 7, several journalists assaulted by Antifa shared their experiences. One journalist, Andy Ngo, senior editor at The Post Millennial, recounted being attacked by members of the group in 2019 and 2021.

Talking about an assault in Portland, Ngo said, “That was my only near-death experience in my life, and I’m quite shaken when I think about it now.”

At the event, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Antifa members do not just want to threaten law enforcement officers but also want to kill them.

FBI Director Kash Patel said disrupting Antifa’s funding was a priority and the agency will not rest until it finds every single donor and funding mechanism used by the terror outfit.

Trump vowed to take strong action against the group. “We’re going to be very threatening to them, far more threatening to them than they ever were with us,” he said. “And that includes the people that fund them.”

Cracking Down on Antifa

In a Sept. 26 statement, the DHS said it was fighting back against Antifa violence and arrested dozens of “left-wing violent extremists” aligned to the group that have attacked law enforcement officials, killed civilians, and triggered riots across the country.

Such arrests include a 36-year-old citizen suspected of making a bomb threat on the ICE Dallas Field Office; extremists who ambushed and shot officers at the ICE facility in Prairieland, Texas; and an extremist who attempted to run over a Border Patrol agent with their car, DHS said.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said federal law enforcement personnel have seen a 1,000 percent increase in assaults against them. However, this hasn’t stopped officers from upholding the rule of law, she said.

“Antifa and their friends haven’t stopped us. They’re not even slowing us down,” McLaughlin said.

Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terror outfit has also drawn criticism.

In a Sept. 22 statement, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) said the U.S. government has never named a domestic terrorist organization in the history of the United States. Designating Antifa as such, which he said has no defined organizational structure or leadership, is “incorrect,” he said.

“It serves no purpose other than an excuse for the Trump administration to stifle dissent, investigate anyone—or any group—they don’t like, punish their enemies, and potentially label any American they want as a terrorist,” Thompson said.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced the Stop ANTIFA Act last month, aiming to codify Trump’s executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terror group, the lawmaker’s office said in a Sept. 30 statement.

The bill instructs the National Joint Terrorism Task Force to treat the group as domestic terrorists and put a stop to the outfit’s violent suppression of political speech and its destruction of the rule of law.

“Antifa has gotten away with its evils and terrorized cities across our country for far too long,” Scott said.

“President Trump was right to fearlessly call them out as the domestic terrorists they are and to take action to stop their evils around the nation and uncover the funding behind it. I am proud to codify the president’s actions.”

*  *  * Check it out – we have water straws now (3-pack) // FREE shipping

The power bill crisis has gone mainstream in recent months, with soaring electricity prices epicentered across the Mid-Atlantic region. Legacy grids and misguided “green” energy policies have been colliding with surging new power demand from AI data centers. We first warned about this crisis in August 2024. Ignored at the time, it has taken more than a year for corporate media to catch up (read here) – now being framed as a “major political issue” in states across the region, most of which are controlled by Democrats. 

In one year, this will be the most popular chart on this site pic.twitter.com/h93gWXMoNL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 11, 2025

A new report from Goldman Sachs, led by analyst Carly Davenport, sheds light on the surge in electricity costs sweeping across key U.S. regions, particularly the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and California, where affordability concerns are soaring just as utilities begin a historic capital-investment cycle. The situation has all the ingredients for a political reckoning: years of grid mismanagement under far-left leadership, which prioritized climate change ideology over reliability and aggressively retired stable fossil-fuel generation, have become a key driver of today’s affordability crisis. 

Davenport told clients that over the past three years, residential power bills jumped 29% in states like Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and California, roughly 20 percentage points above the Consumer Price Index, while regulated states such as Michigan, North Dakota, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Louisiana saw only about 5% growth. She pointed out that deregulated markets experienced higher power bill inflation due to capacity-price spikes, natural gas price volatility, and rising “public benefit” charges tied to climate change mandates. 

Davenport includes a Q&A section that adds more clarity about the unfolding affordability crisis:

What is driving this regional dispersion in bill inflation?

In the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic and California, we believe higher bill inflation has been a function of (1) tighter regional power markets as demand inflects from electrification, data centers, and reshoring, and as coal units are retired, driving higher capacity prices that are passed onto customers, (2) volatility in natural gas prices as well as supply constraints on domestic natural gas flows in certain regions, (3) public benefits charges that support state/federal mandates around energy efficiency, wildfire mitigation, and clean energy goals increasing on bills, and (4) higher delivery charges, as utilities invest in aging grid infrastructure. In the states that have seen lower inflation, robust local resource availability (coal/wind/gas) have helped keep electricity rates lower with ample supply.

Why does affordability matter for utilities?

Ultimately, affordability matters as it increases regulatory risk. If consumers are too constrained by high electricity bill levels, regulators might be less lenient in approving returns or rate increases for the utilities, whether they are in a regulated or competitive power market. We believe we are in the midst of a capital investment upcycle across the regulated utility space, which can translate into higher earnings growth for utility companies, but this opportunity will need to be balanced with customer bill affordability. Stocks most exposed to states that had the five highest bill inflation in the past three years include EIX, PCG, EXC, SRE and ES, and those exposed to the lower bill inflation states include AEP, WEC and XEL (Exhibit 2).

We believe the affordability concern is largely regional, and forecast national bill inflation as broadly in line with history, but higher capex poses risks. On a national level, resi utility bills have lagged CPI since 2008, largely due to declining usage trends, but in 2024, both usage and price inflation inflected, driving bills above CPI. Going forward, we expect customer bills to grow in line with historical levels of 3% through 2029 on average, based on our published utility capex forecasts and a number of other key factors we take into account such as electricity sales, customer growth and gas prices. However, if utility capex accelerates above our base case scenario, bill inflation could reach 6% through 2029, which increases regulatory risk for the regulated utilities, in our view.

The analyst explains the origins of this mess…

We believe the higher inflation in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic and California regions are being caused by: (1) tighter regional supply/demand as load growth inflects from electrification, data centers, and reshoring, driving higher capacity prices that are passed onto customers, alongside coal plant retirements, (2) volatility in natural gas prices as well as supply constraints on domestic natural gas flows, (3) public benefits charges that support state/federal mandates around energy efficiency, wildfire mitigation, and clean energy goals, and (4) higher delivery charges, as utilities invest in aging grid infrastructure. In the states that have seen lower inflation, robust local resource availability (coal/wind/gas) have helped keep electricity rates lower given abundant supply.

Power bill inflation appears to be regional, not present on a national level, which means political pressure will be localized.

U.S. state map of regulated/deregulated/partially regulated regions

States in red below had the highest accumulated bill inflation over the past 3yrs, while states in green had the lowest bill inflation in the same period

The focus should be on the political ramifications at the local level – specifically, how skyrocketing power bills will impact voter sentiment with those in power that pushed endless amounts of fake climate change narratives to ram through green policies – loot the Treasury with climate bills (recall $20bln of taxpayer funds frozen at Citi, slated for Biden-Harris regime to funnel into shady NGOs) – all while making the grid more fragile (read this) in the era of AI data centers. 

Do people realize there is literally zero chance of this happening? https://t.co/EMMQtMcCjX pic.twitter.com/j4AicQBqEv

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 8, 2025

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can find the complete report in the usual place, full of more graphics and charts about regional power crises.

Via Middle East Eye

Hamas has warned that Tony Blair would not be welcome in any role in governing Gaza following the commencement of a ceasefire in the enclave. Speaking to Sky News, senior Hamas official Basem Naim said he welcomed US President Donald Trump’s involvement in bringing about an end to the two-year war.

However, he said that there could be no role for the former British prime minister in the governance of Gaza, despite Trump’s previously announced support for Blair’s involvement. “When it comes to Tony Blair, unfortunately, we Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, and maybe others around the world have bad memories of him,” Naim said. “We can still remember his role in killing, causing thousands or millions of deaths to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

As official envoy for the Middle East Quartet (US, Russia, European Union and UN) between 2007 and 2015, Blair was also previously tasked with attempting to bring about a solution to the Palestine-Israel question, something he was unable to achieve.

Last month, various media outlets reported that Blair was in discussions to lead a transitional authority in the Gaza Strip as part of a US-backed plan for post-war governance. The plan would establish a transitional authority in Gaza for up to five years, excluding both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

Under the reported proposal, the authority would hold “supreme political and legal authority” over Gaza during the interim period. Hamas has rejected the involvement of Blair in governing Gaza, citing in part his previous failures in the region.

Thousands of Palestinians began returning to northern Gaza on Friday after a ceasefire took effect, following Israel and Hamas’s approval of a deal to “end the war” and exchange prisoners.

The Israeli military said the ceasefire officially began at 12pm local time (9am GMT) after the completion of its withdrawal to agreed-upon lines of the first phase. There was no immediate comment from Hamas. The Israeli government ratified the agreement on Friday morning, just hours after Hamas announced that a deal had been reached.

Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, on Thursday published a leaked copy of the agreement’s first phase signed in Egypt, which states that the war would “immediately end” once approved by Israel.

Trump is expected to visit Egypt over the weekend to attend an official signing ceremony, followed by a visit to Israel on Monday. 

On Thursday, Hamas chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya confirmed that the Palestinian movement had also approved the agreement to end the war. He added that the United States and other mediators had provided guarantees that the signing of the deal would mean the war “has ended indefinitely”.

However, Israeli air strikes, artillery fire and gunfire were reported in Gaza City and Khan Younis on Friday morning. No injuries were reported.

Israeli forces also carried out bombings in Gaza on Thursday, after mediators announced a deal had been reached, killing at least eight Palestinians.