Weeks after the Trump administration paused approvals of visitor visas for people of Gaza, the New York Times now reports that the administration has broadened the suspension to cover nearly all categories of visitor visas for Palestinian passport holders. 

NYT cited an August 18 State Department cable, sent to U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, detailing new sweeping measures that would bar many Palestinians from entering the U.S. on various types of non-immigrant visas. The cable was obtained by the media outlet and confirmed by four anonymous U.S. officials.

Impacted Palestinian visas include medical treatment, university studies, visits to friends or relatives, and business travel. 

U.S. consular officers have been instructed to invoke Section 221(g) of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), a legal provision that allows them to refuse visa applications from Palestinian passport holders temporarily.

“Effective immediately, consular officers are instructed to refuse under 221(g) of the Immigration Nationality Act all otherwise eligible Palestinian Authority passport holders using that passport to apply for a non-immigrant visa,” the State Department cable said.

NYT spoke with Kerry Doyle, the former lead attorney for Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Biden-Harris regime, who said the Trump administration should be open about its decision-making:

“If it’s a true ban, then it’s concerning to me in that they should be transparent about it and then make their arguments for the basis of such a ban.” 

Last month, the State Department halted visitor visas for the roughly two million Palestinians from Gaza. This came shortly after Laura Loomer called incoming flights a “national security threat …” 

The national security threat Loomer could be describing appears to come from one of her X posts: “We have been totally infiltrated by Islamic jihadists. The Palestinian movement is a terrorist movement.”

We have been totally infiltrated by Islamic jihadists.

The Palestinian movement is a terrorist movement. pic.twitter.com/kCr6c2TV2m

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) May 25, 2025

Perhaps the scrutiny is centered on the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, or ‘Samidoun,’ a dark-money-funded non-profit that acts as an international fundraising arm for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization, which has been active in North America and linked to efforts ranging from disrupting critical infrastructure to organizing campus protests and riots. 

PFLP states in their manifesto about their weird obsession with Marxism and their dream of destroying capitalism across the West.

Late last month, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sounded the alarm about a separate rogue non-profit, Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), a leftist activist group closely aligned with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), accusing it of working across university campuses to incite anti-Israel protests and campus chaos.

“PYM’s support of Hamas and ties to terror groups should prevent it from receiving tax-exempt donations. I’m asking the IRS to investigate and remedy this situation,” Cotton wrote on X last month. 

Tom Cotton Targets Tax Status Of ‘Terrorist-Supporting’ Youth Movement https://t.co/retubA3goC

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 27, 2025

We suspect that the Trump administration views the potential influx of Palestinians as a national security threat, given the Marxist revolutionary activities of Samidoun, the PFLP, and other affiliated groups already underway on the Homeland.

Authored by Armando Aguilar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin was treated as a purely inert asset for years: a decentralized vault, economically passive despite its fixed issuance schedule. Yet more than $7 billion worth of Bitcoin already earns native, onchain yield via major protocols — that premise is breaking down. 

Gold’s ~$23-trillion market cap mostly sits idle. Bitcoin, by contrast, now earns onchain, while holders keep custody.

As new layers unlock returns, Bitcoin crosses a structural threshold: from merely passive to productively scarce.

That change is quietly redefining how capital prices risk, how institutions allocate reserves and how portfolio theory accounts for safety. Scarcity may explain price stability. Still, productivity explains why miners, treasuries and funds are now parking assets in BTC rather than just building around it.

A vault asset that earns yield isn’t digital gold anymore — it’s productive capital.

Scarcity matters, but productivity rules

Bitcoin’s economic DNA hasn’t changed: The supply remains capped at 21 million, the issuance schedule is transparent, and no central authority can inflate or censor it. Scarcity, auditability and resistance to manipulation always set Bitcoin apart, but in 2025, these differentiating and unique factors started to mean something more.

As the issuance rate is locked, even as new protocol layers allow BTC to generate onchain returns, Bitcoin is now gaining traction for what it will enable. A new set of tools gives holders the ability to earn real yield without giving up custody, relying on centralized platforms and altering the base protocol. It leaves Bitcoin’s core mechanics untouched but changes how capital engages with the asset.

We’re already seeing that effect in practice. Bitcoin is the only crypto asset officially held in sovereign reserves: El Salvador continues to allocate BTC in its national treasury, and a 2025 US executive order recognized Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset for critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) now hold over 1.26 million BTC — more than 6% of the total supply. 

Also on the mining side, public miners are no longer rushing to sell. Instead, a growing share allocates BTC into staking and synthetic yield strategies to improve long-term returns.

It’s becoming evident that the original value proposition has evolved subtly in design but profoundly in effect. What once made Bitcoin trustworthy now also makes it powerful — a once passive asset is becoming a yield-producing asset. This lays the foundation for what comes next: a native yield curve that forms around Bitcoin itself, not to mention Bitcoin‑linked assets.

Bitcoin earns without giving up control

Until recently, the idea of earning a return on crypto seemed out of reach. In Bitcoin’s case, it was hard to find non-custodial yield, at least without compromising its base-layer neutrality. But that assumption no longer holds. Today, new protocol layers let holders put BTC to work in ways once limited to centralized platforms.

Some platforms let long-term holders stake native BTC to help secure the network while earning yield, without wrapping the asset or moving it across chains. In turn, others allow users to use their Bitcoin in decentralized finance apps, earning fees from swaps and lending without giving up ownership. And the catch is that none of these systems require handing over keys to a third party, and none rely on the kind of opaque yield games that caused problems in the past.

At this point, it’s clear that this is no longer pilot-scale. In addition, miner-aligned strategies are quietly gaining traction among firms looking to boost treasury efficiency without leaving the Bitcoin ecosystem. As a result, a yield curve native to Bitcoin and grounded in transparency is starting to take shape.

Once Bitcoin yield becomes accessible and self-custodied, another problem emerges: How do you measure it? If protocols are becoming available and accessible, then clarity is missing. Because without a standard to describe what productive BTC earns, investors, treasuries and miners are left making decisions in the dark.

Time to benchmark Bitcoin yield

If Bitcoin can earn a return, then the next logical step is a straightforward way to measure it.

Right now, there’s no standard. Some investors see BTC as hedge capital; others put it to work and collect yield. However, there are inconsistencies in what the actual benchmark to measure Bitcoin should be, as there are no real comparable assets. For example, a treasury team might lock coins for a week but doesn’t have a simple way to explain the risk, or a miner might route rewards into a yield strategy but still treat it as treasury diversification. 

Consider a mid-sized decentralized autonomous organization with 1,200 BTC and six months of payroll ahead. It puts half into a 30-day vault on a Bitcoin-secured protocol and earns yield. But without a baseline, the team can’t say whether that’s a cautious move or a risky one. The same choice might be praised as clever treasury work or criticized as yield-chasing, depending on who analyzes the approach.

What Bitcoin needs is a benchmark. Not a “risk‑free rate” in the bond market sense, but a baseline: repeatable, self-custodied and onchain yield that can be generated natively on Bitcoin, net of fees, grouped by term lengths — seven days, 30, 90. Just enough structure to turn yield from guesswork into something that can be referenced and used as a benchmark.

Once that exists, treasury policies, disclosures and strategies can be built around it, and everything above that baseline can be priced for what it is: risk worth taking or not.

That’s where the metaphor with gold breaks down. Gold doesn’t pay you — productive Bitcoin does. The longer treasuries treat BTC like a vault trinket with no return, the easier it is to see who’s managing capital — and who’s simply storing it.

Authored by RFE/RL Staff via OilPrice.com,

• Significant activity on Russia’s Novaya Zemlya archipelago indicates an impending test of the nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile, known as Skyfall by NATO.

• The Burevestnik, a complex system designed to carry a nuclear warhead and evade missile defenses, has a history of development failures, including a deadly explosion in 2019.

• The timing of the potential test, along with high-level Russian military and nuclear official visits, suggests the missile is nearing operational deployment, driven by Russia’s desire for prestige and defense against US missile shields.

It’s been a busy few weeks up on the windswept Russian archipelago of Novaya Zemlya: people, earthmoving trucks, shipping containers, temporary housing, heavy-lift aircraft, helicopters, cargo ships.

The activity shows up in satellite imagery, aircraft hazard notifications, ship transponder trackers, and open-source intelligence reporting at a time when long Arctic days and good weather mean favorable conditions for building projects at the Pankovo test range and nearby air base.

The betting money for close watchers of Russian weapons development is on another test of a trouble-plagued, nuclear-powered cruise missile called the Burevestnik.

“The operational sites for this system are almost complete. This is going to be an operational system pretty soon here,” said Decker Eveleth, a researcher at the suburban Washington-based Center for Naval Analyses, who examined satellite imagery of the sites in July and August. “This may have been the final check before operational testing and evaluation.”

“They’re clearly pretty far long,” he said.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the test has already happened,” said Pavel Podvig, a Geneva-based arms control researcher and expert on Russia’s nuclear forces.

The missile, dubbed Skyfall by NATO, has been under development for more than a decade now. It’s one of several new systems Russian designers have focused on as the Kremlin pours money into weapons development as part of a not fully recognized arms race — mainly against the United States.

Others include the Sarmat international continental ballistic missile, a nuclear-powered, nuclear-tipped torpedo called Poseidon, and a hypersonic missile called Avangard.

Russian President Vladimir Putin talked up many of the weapons elaborate public ceremonies in 2018 and 2019. Two of the new weapons, the Kinzhal and Tsirkon missiles, have been used in Ukraine. The Sarmat has also been tested, though last year it suffered a major mishap.

The Burevestnik has drawn particular attention from arms control and intelligence experts, partly because of the technology but also its past failures.

The missile is powered essentially by a small nuclear reactor built into the engine, theoretically enabling it to stay aloft for days.

It “would carry a nuclear warhead; circle the globe at low altitude, avoid missile defenses, and dodge terrain; and drop the warhead at a difficult-to-predict location,” according to a 2019 report by the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative.

U.S. intelligence reports say the missile has been tested at least a dozen times, including in 2017 and 2019.

Death At Nyonoksa

Among the places Russia has tested the Burevestnik is the White Sea, west of the city of Arkhangelsk, near the port of Severodvinsk.

In August 2019, while trying to raise a Burevestnik from the seabed near the town of Nyonoksa, an explosion occurred that spewed radiation over a wide area, including Severodvinsk. The blast also killed at least five Russian nuclear specialists from the state-owned nuclear company Rosatom, which is believed to have spearheaded the Burevestnik’s development.

The explosion, US officials later concluded, “was the result of a nuclear reaction that occurred during the recovery of a Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile.”

Two years earlier, another missile, also believed to be a Burevestnik, crashed somewhere in the Barents Sea, west of Novaya Zemlya, according to US intelligence officials.

“They’ve been developing this system for well over a decade. And it hasn’t really gone very well for a long time,” Eveleth said. “People died…and they didn’t give up. They kept going for it…. They kept going for it for 15 years. And they are really dedicated to it.”

Constant Phoenix, Nuke Sniffing

The activity at Pankovo in late July was highlighted in part by Eveleth and Jeffrey Lewis of Middlebury’s Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. Burevestnik testing was moved out of the White Sea following the Nyonoksa accident and resumed in 2021 on Novaya Zemlya, which is more remote.

In early August, Russian authorities also released a NOTAM, according to the Barents Observer newspaper, which first reported the advisory. NOTAMs are internally recognized advisories for aircraft — a warning for pilots and ship captains, in this case, to avoid a wide area west of Novaya Zemlya.

Meanwhile, an unusually large number of fighter jets, cargo jets, and helicopters appeared parked at the Rogachevo air base on the southwestern coast of Novaya Zemlya. The aircraft appeared to include an A-50, an airborne radar and warning system experts say is rarely seen so far north; and Il-76 SKIPs, jets designed to gather electronic signals and missile telemetry data.

Open-source aircraft trackers also noted a US Air Force WC-135 jet in the airspace north of the Kola Peninsula and west of Novaya Zemlya. Known as Constant Phoenix, the jet is designed to gather samples of airborne particles to detect specific radioactive isotopes released from nuclear weapons tests.

The most recent satellite imagery, Eveleth said, suggests Russian workers have now packed up equipment on Novaya Zemlya, indicating, he said, that a test had been conducted.

‘Why Is This Such a Big Deal?’

The timing for a test was also auspicious from the point of view of Russian messaging, Lewis said in a podcast released August 20, coming around the time that Putin met US President Donald Trump for a summit in Alaska.

Another bit of evidence came on August 22 when Putin traveled to the central city of Sarov. Formerly a closed city known as Arzamas-16, Sarov has for decades been the heart of the Soviet and Russian nuclear programs: “the equivalent of Los Alamos,” Podvig said, referring to the home of the US atomic weapons program.

Among the dignitaries greeting Putin on the tarmac at Sarov was the chairman of Russia’s General Staff, General Valery Gerasimov, as well as Sergei Kiriyenko, who headed Rosatom until 2016, when he took a top post in the Kremlin.

“The combination of all these things — the test activity, the apparent preparation for deployment, and this visit — again this would be a good occasion for Putin, for the Sarov [engineers] to demonstrate that this is what we’ve done, we’ve fulfilled the assignment,” Podvig said.

“Why is this such a big deal for them?” Eveleth said. “First, the sophistication and prestige of the Russian nuclear arsenal is very important” to Putin and his government.

“Second, they’re worried about [US] missile defenses, they want to hedge against an effective missile shield and this system is technically capable of evading certain systems,” he said.

There are 2.2 billion Christians in the world, which means one out of every four people is a Christian.

The visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, compares the 25 countries with the largest Christian populations, revealing how demographic trends, migration, and conversion have shaped Christianity’s current global footprint.

The data for this ranking comes from the CIA World Factbook, Pew Research and UN World Population Prospects.

Estimated religious shares between 2020–2024 from the first two sources are applied to 2025 population figures to arrive at an estimated for number of Christians in each country.

The Americas Are Christianity Central

With more than 219 million Christians, the U.S. remains the single largest Christian nation.

Although its Christian share has fallen for decades, the overall population continues to grow, keeping the country firmly at the top of the list.

Note: Includes all denominations.

Brazil (169 million) and Mexico (118 million) rank second and third.

Both countries have historically been Catholic strongholds, though Brazil has witnessed a rapid rise in evangelical denominations over the past generation.

Together, the three giants account for nearly a quarter of all Christians worldwide.

Sub-Saharan Africa’s is Reshaping the Christian Faith

Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, and Kenya illustrate Christianity’s fast-growing presence south of the Sahara.

Nigeria alone has about 109 million Christians, almost equal to the entire population of the Philippines.

High fertility rates and youthful demographics mean Africa’s share of global Christians will keep rising well past 2050.

Most of these African nations also have large non-Christian populations.

Nigeria is almost evenly split between Christians and Muslims, while Ethiopia’s Christian majority coexists with a sizable Muslim minority.

Minority Christian Communities in Population Giants

China and India appear in the ranking despite Christians making up only 5% and 2% of their populations, respectively.

Sheer population size—over 1.4 billion people each—translates into tens of millions of believers even when Christianity is a small minority.

The presence of 72 million Chinese and 34 million Indian Christians underscores how religious minorities can still represent significant global communities.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Largest Muslim Populations on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The British government has won its legal fight against a local council that sought to shut down a migrant hotel in Essex.

The Court of Appeal ruled on Friday that a temporary injunction obtained by Epping Forest District Council against the continued use of the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers should be overturned.

During the hearing, Home Office lawyers argued that the human rights of asylum seekers outweighed the council’s decision to close the hotel. The council had insisted that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, was in breach of planning law by changing its use to accommodate migrants. But the judges found that the lower court, which granted the injunction, had made errors that “undermine his decision.”

The ruling lifts the interim injunction and scraps a Sept. 12 deadline for asylum seekers to be relocated. A final appeal hearing will take place later this year.

The hotel has been at the center of controversy in recent months after anti-immigration protests erupted in the town, following the arrest of one of its occupants on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old schoolgirl.

The Court of Appeal’s decision has sparked anger among opposition lawmakers, who accused Labour of prioritizing the rights of illegal immigrants over the safety of local communities.

Robert Jenrick, the Conservatives’ shadow justice secretary, posted: “Starmer’s government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our country.”

Rupert Lowe, an MP and leader of Restore Britain, wrote: “A Government against its own people. No more appeals, court cases, or debates. We must deport the illegal migrants. Not some of them. Not most of them. All of them.” He later called for the Home Office to be abolished.

Abolish the Home Office and start again.

A new department, staffed with British patriots who believe in secure borders and mass deportations.

— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) August 29, 2025

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, said the ruling was a setback but vowed to keep fighting: “Local communities should not pay the price for Labour’s total failure on illegal immigration. This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – keep going! Every case has different circumstances, and I know good Conservative councils will keep fighting for residents, so we will keep working with them every step of the way.”

My statement on the Epping migrant hotel injunction decision. pic.twitter.com/FjWYvLgHcO

— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) August 29, 2025

Ben Habib, leader of Advance UK, echoed the anger: “He says he wants to shut illegal migrant hotels, but Keir Starmer fights tooth and nail to keep them open. Against the wishes of local residents and the local authority, the Epping hotel will now stay open. So much for democracy and the security of British citizens.”

Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor of The Sun, went further, alleging judicial bias: “No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment, stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping. The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.”

No surprise Lord Justice Bean, a Labour Party member for 28 years, has in his Appeal Court judgment, stopped the 128 migrants being kicked out of the Bell Hotel in Epping.
The law and Labour are in lockstep. A migrant has more rights than a British citizen. A serious moment.

— Kelvin MacKenzie (@kelvmackenzie) August 29, 2025

A full trial to determine the future of the hotel will take place in October.

Read more here…

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The French debt crisis reminds us that gradualism never works, that statism always ends in ruin and that those countries that bet on more government and higher taxes always end in stagnation, risk of default and social unrest.

France’s government debt-to-GDP exceeds 114%. However, unfunded committed pension liabilities reach 400% of GDP, according to Eurostat. The fiscal deficit announced for this year is 5.4%, but market consensus maintains an expectation of 5.8%. The five-year credit default risk has risen by 20% in twelve months. The yield on French two-year debt exceeds that of Spain, Italy, and Greece, and its risk premium to Germany has reached 80 basis points—20 above that of Spain.

The problem in the euro area is that all the mainstream claps when a government inflates GDP with massive government spending and public sector jobs as well as immigration, disguising persistent fiscal imbalances and declining productivity growth. Furthermore, Keynesian analysts ignore the crowding out of the private sector and the harmful impact of high taxes on long-term public accounts’ sustainability.

I am old enough to remember when the mainstream media hailed Greece as the engine of growth in the eurozone when it was bloating GDP with massive government spending and public sector jobs. Greece was hailed as “safeguarding high economic growth” and “leading the euro area recovery” in 2005 and 2006 by the IMF and the European Commission publications. Headlines and policy reports widely acknowledged Greece’s economic achievements as an example of strong leadership within the euro area. We all know what happened in 2008.

We cannot forget that the European Central Bank has been instrumental in creating the perverse incentives for politicians to maintain and increase elevated spending and fiscal imbalances.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has, over the past decade, deployed a policy toolkit of unprecedented scale—including repeated rate cuts, negative nominal rates, the controversial anti-fragmentation tool, and de facto debt monetisation—designed to safeguard the eurozone’s stability. Yet, for all the rhetoric of stability and independence, these measures have created powerful incentives for fiscal recklessness, eroding the very foundations of European monetary credibility and planting the seeds of today’s sovereign debt crises, including the current French debt debacle.

ECB policy rates, once anchored to discipline both sovereign and private borrowing, have plummeted from above 4% in 2008 to negative territory and have remained in negative real territory for years. Furthermore, the ECB’s asset purchase programmes, expanded during crises under initiatives like the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) and the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), have saturated bond markets with central bank money and generated an enormous crowding-out effect that penalises credit to families and businesses and disguises solvency issues of public sector issuers.

The anti-fragmentation tool, designed to contain the “spread” between the core and periphery country bonds, takes this issue further: by promising open-ended intervention, the ECB reassures markets that it will backstop sovereign debt at virtually any price, diluting the discipline that risk premia once imposed on profligate governments. In fact, it could be considered a pro-squandering tool, as it benefits those countries with poor fiscal compliance and penalises those who reign in debt and deficits.

While these interventions immediately calm markets, they foster a mindset of indifference in governments, leading them to consistently increase their spending. Thus, many governments, like Spain’s, brag about the low interest rates and spread of their debt despite rising imbalances and worsening public accounts. The anti-fragmentation tool and negative nominal rates destroy the market mechanism that should serve as an essential warning for reckless fiscal policy. Member states, assured of cheap funding and endless ECB support, have little incentive to reform bloated budgets or contain deficits, especially when electorally costly. The persistent threat warned by German policymakers, that ECB actions are subsidising “fiscal freeloading” in high-debt member states, is becoming a reality.

The most dramatic case is France. The French government’s debt has soared above 114% of GDP in 2025, driven in part by persistent large deficits covered cheaply under the ECB’s umbrella. Attempts at fiscal consolidation have always been timid and thus have failed to achieve lasting discipline, with ECB support always in the background as a failsafe. The result is a mounting sovereign risk premium: French bonds, for the first time in modern euro history, now yield more than comparably rated Spanish, Greek, or Italian bonds, signalling the market’s discomfort with France’s debt trajectory even in the age of ECB backstops. The fact that this rise in spreads happens in the middle of a large stimulus plan (Next Generation EU) and rate cuts is even more alarming.

The so-called anti-fragmentation instrument, meant as a crisis containment tool, is inherently a mechanism of “joint liability without joint control”. It binds prudent euro members to the fiscal choices of their less disciplined partners, socialising risk but nationalising rewards. With this facility, markets can no longer efficiently discriminate; anxiety about debt sustainability that once spurred necessary reforms is suppressed rather than solved. Furthermore, it is like debt mutualisation with no real obligations.

The “whatever it takes” philosophy, so lauded by ECB leaders, is now a double-edged sword: it has replaced accountability with dependency and emboldened fiscal laxity.

Central bank purchases and the suppression of yields to nominal negative territory are, by definition, the worst case of debt monetisation. The ECB is a loss-making entity because it purchases bonds even when they are exceedingly expensive. The ECB’s accumulated unrealised paper losses on its asset purchase programmes are estimated at €800 billion, vastly exceeding its capital, according to IERF.

These policies are disguising solvency problems even if dressed in the language of emergency support. This removes the ultimate deterrent to government overspending: the cost of money itself. The long-term result is an environment in which euro area governments, aware that refinancing is guaranteed at low cost even during difficult times, accumulate increasingly larger debts—making the bloc vulnerable to even minor shocks in confidence, inflation, or governance. This situation could likely harm the euro in the future if Germany falls into the same trap as France, a scenario that seems probable given the latest policy announcements.

If you read newspapers in France, this perverse incentive is very evident. Instead of talking about the unsustainable spending path, many demand more central bank purchases and stimulus. Furthermore, some demand the acceleration of the digital euro to implement even more aggressive monetary measures.

The unfolding French debt crisis is a direct byproduct of these policies. France’s spending has persistently outstripped growth, yet the promise of perennial ECB support delayed any reckoning. Now, as risk premia rise and markets test the ECB’s resolve, the eurozone faces the bitter consequences of a policy era marked by moral hazard and eroded fiscal discipline.

While ECB activism may buy temporary stability, its long-term cost is clear: higher debts, private sector weakening, currency debasement, and the erosion of incentives for responsible policymaking. Unless Europe rethinks its reliance on central bank eternal stimuli and restores mechanisms for market discipline, today’s French crisis may be only one of many fiscal storms ahead. The success of the euro as a reserve currency was based on the pillar of fiscal prudence and responsibility. Lack of fiscal discipline always means a risk for the currency.

Central banks cannot print solvency, and the lack of structural reforms and excessive easing policies can end up destroying the euro.

Via Remix News,

Major General Sándor Töreki, Hungary’s deputy chief of police for criminal matters, has revealed that the Delta action program launched this year has led to a large-scale, offensive professional action to detect drug-related crimes, reports Mandiner. He highlighted that thousands of procedures have been initiated, significant quantities of drugs have been seized, and significant financial assets and assets have been seized from the perpetrators of the crimes. 

The program has been running for six months, and according to Sándor Töreki, professional evaluations are currently underway, and the results will be presented in the near future. 

Prevention, noted the general, is also playing an important role, for which a professional program has been developed. 

“Not only does the school year start on September 1st, but so does drug prevention.”

At a drug prevention press conference this morning, he noted how drug use and drug distribution destroy the fabric of society, that drugs tear apart human communities, and destroy the security of society as a whole. 

Mass consumption of designer drugs has appeared in medium-sized and small settlements across Hungary.

According to the general, the police want to be the driving force behind drug prevention activities. The program will also call upon civilians, as they also need to carry out drug prevention in schools. So far, 3,049 police officers are participating in the REDP program, which school guards are also joining.

With more than 200 million forints available for prevention, Sándor Töreki said that the target audience of the program is students, teachers and parents. They will participate in professional workshops, where the harmful effects of drug use will be presented. Any work done in educational institutions will be constantly monitored and measured via questionnaires. 

There will also be joint programs with prisons, and authorities are continuously investigating what drug prevention programs exist in neighboring countries to learn from them as well. 

According to László Horváth, the government commissioner responsible for the eradication of drug trafficking, strict action is essential, and strict legislation is needed. The goal is to “protect children and ensure their development,” he said. 

According to the politician, drugs now pose a direct threat to all youth, and dealers have also targeted areas around schools. He said that the domestic drug situation has changed recently and a new program is needed, as he highlighted: “The key is to act quickly.” 

Read more here…

Authored by Mikkel Thorup via InternationalMan.com,

Canada is often portrayed as a land of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity. Reality, however, tells a different story…

Statist policies, crushing taxes, bloated bureaucracy, and a society overtaken by woke ideology have shattered Canada. This is a cautionary tale for those looking at Canada as an ideal living space. If you are asking yourself what living in Canada is like, let me explain: Canada is not a land of fulfilled dreams but of enduring harsh conditions and barely getting by.

As if economic hardships aren’t enough, Canadians are also oppressed by the Orwellian newspeak that woke culture is creating. If you speak your mind, you’re labeled a fascist. If you question social policies, you’re accused of microaggressions.

There are no best places to live in Canada anymore. As a Canadian, I see little chance of Canada becoming livable again. Since I founded Expat Money in 2017, I have been helping expats build their Plan-Bs to protect their wealth and freedom and leave countries like this one.

Let’s look at the unfortunate condition that Canada has fallen into.

The Restrictions Imposed During Covid

The strict quarantine measures and harsh government interventions implemented in Canada during the COVID-19 hysteria were shameful. The government expanded police and administrative powers to smash public backlash against its COVID policies.

A significant protest movement called The Freedom Convoy began in early 2022. Truckers and citizens held large demonstrations in Ottawa against vaccination mandates, harsh pandemic restrictions, and the government’s authoritarian tendencies.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau used extraordinary powers to freeze the bank accounts of protesters and crack down on activists. Individual and property rights were arbitrarily violated.

The Canadian government imposed mandatory vaccinations on federal employees, healthcare workers, and those in the transportation sector, turning personal health decisions into state mandates. Those who were not vaccinated were suspended from their jobs, their travel rights were restricted, and they were ostracized from society. Even the private sector was coerced to impose vaccinations under government pressure.

Moreover, harsh lockdowns and restricted entry into the country forced businesses into bankruptcy. Massive numbers of people lost their jobs, and the government’s financial structure was severely damaged.

Woke Culture And The End Of Free Speech

The problems aren’t limited to elections. In recent years, woke ideology has overtaken Canada’s politics, education system, and workplace. This “progressive” ideology has replaced individual freedoms and meritocracy with the so-called principle of inclusivity and equity. As a result, freedom of speech has been destroyed, social engineering has increased, and social polarization has deepened.

In Canada, laws enacted under the guise of “combatting hate speech” have imposed mandatory language use by the government, determining how individuals should speak.

Now, we have another Bill C-11 to update the Broadcasting Act. The government’s media watchdog, the CRTC, will now be able to monitor online platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Spotify. Bill C-11 is a censorship tool to kill free speech in Canada. The government may have sugar-coated the law by saying, “We support Canadian content,” but at its core, it’s an attempt to take control of the internet. The government deciding what content is “sufficiently Canadian” will soon become a matter of deciding what content is appropriate, approved, and safe.

What about Bill C-18? This is another example of an intervention that legislates internet censorship under the pretext of “protecting the independent press.” Bill C-18 requires internet platforms (especially companies like Google and Meta) to pay media outlets for news content. The government is turning content sharing into an economic penalty to extract money from big tech companies.

Because of this law, platforms like Google and Meta have decided to remove news content completely. In other words, the government’s move to “access information” has actually restricted access to information.

Similarly, due to cancel culture, academics, business people, and members of the media are censored, fired, and subject to social lynching when they voice different views. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, especially in business and academic institutions, cause decisions to be made based on identity rather than merit. Canadian universities have been degraded from institutions that encourage intellectual freedom into ideological centres where a singular type of thinking is imposed. Companies must prioritize political correctness over efficiency and productivity in business life. Canada has shifted from a society based on individual freedom and voluntary cooperation to a system governed by the ideological impositions of the government.

Assisted Suicide And Moral Decline

Indicators of Canada’s political and economic collapse can also be traced to the individual level. The rapid increase in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) applications in Canada has led to deep debate on personal freedoms, ethical values, ​​and the role of the state in the country.

Canada has the fastest-growing assisted suicide program in the world. When MAiD was legalized in 2016, it only included individuals with terminal illnesses. However, over time, the criteria were relaxed and expanded to include psychological disorders or illnesses that do not have a natural death period. In 2021, approximately 10,000 people ended their lives under MAiD. This number constitutes 3.3% of all deaths. Even people who were experiencing financial difficulties or housing problems resorted to euthanasia, causing heated arguments in the public domain.

In the face of all the challenges, assuming Canada has a functioning social welfare state would be unwise. Canada’s health system is seriously unreliable because of long waiting times, overburdened hospitals, and staff shortages.

Before moving to Canada, be mindful that you can wait months to years for doctor’s appointments and surgeries. The shortage of doctors and nurses severely disrupts health services. Excessive bureaucracy and limited private health services make the health system even more inefficient.

Federal Government Overreach

The federal government’s drama is not Canada’s only political issue. The political conflict between the federal and provincial governments is becoming a serious problem.

There are several main disagreements between the federal and provincial governments:

• First, the federal government’s carbon tax has drawn fierce criticism from energy-independent provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario.

• Second, the federal government demands that the provinces spend more on healthcare financing, while the provinces say they are underfunded and subject to excessive federal intervention.

• Third, immigration has exacerbated the housing crisis and the burden on public services in large provinces such as Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. The provinces demand more funding, saying they shoulder much of the cost burden, but funding is unavailable.

• Fourth, the federal government’s policies restricting fossil fuel use continue to economically harm provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, which depend on oil and gas.

It’s no surprise that many people in Alberta and the Prairie provinces responded positively to Trump’s annexation proposal. It reflects a deep and long-standing frustration with federal control over energy policy. At the same time, a grassroots “Make Alberta Great Again” movement is gaining real traction. Pro-separation initiatives are picking up momentum, with growing calls for a referendum on Alberta’s independence.

Even Bill 54, passed in May 2025, lowered the threshold required to trigger a referendum on the province’s sovereignty. Now it’s easier for separatist groups to push for a vote.

I was in Alberta last year and met with several people involved in the movement in person. We spoke at length about the political landscape, their frustrations, and their hopes for Alberta’s future. Many of them told me that, while they believe strongly in the cause, they also know how easily their involvement could make them political targets. That’s why they’re working on their Plan-B strategies to protect themselves and their families if things take a turn for the worse.

Over-Regulation And High Taxes

Strict government regulations and high tax rates in Canada negatively impact economic growth and entrepreneurship by increasing the financial burden on individuals and businesses.

Let me give you an example. Ontario’s total income tax payment can be as high as 53.5%. These high tax rates reduce the disposable income of individuals and businesses and restrict economic mobility. Under the guise of “Tax the rich” and “Pay your fair share,” the Canadian government began taxing capital gains over $250,000 CAD at up to 66.6% starting in 2024. Being an entrepreneur or creating economic productivity in Canada is one of the government’s favourite activities to punish.

High Cost Of Living

Rising real estate prices, the cost of essential consumer goods, and transportation have greatly increased the economic burden on individuals. Real estate prices have reached astronomical levels in cities like Vancouver and Toronto. This fact makes home ownership nearly impossible for the middle class. The lack of affordable housing options is threatening life in Canada.

With average home prices pushing $730,000 CAD ($536,000 USD), double-digit inflation on food and energy, and yet another round of carbon taxes, everyday life in Canada has become flat-out unaffordable. More and more people are waking up to the reality that they can live better, in places like Latin America, for a fraction of the cost and without being punished for simply trying to get ahead.

Most people seeking to migrate to Canada think about living in Toronto. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto is around $ 2,500 CAD ($1,700 USD). If your job is in Vancouver, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $2,700 CAD ($1,900 USD).

Living expenses in Toronto and Vancouver are sky-high, and if you’re hoping Montreal offers a more affordable alternative, you’ll be disappointed—it’s just as costly. Factor in additional expenses for your family, and Canada quickly becomes an impractical place to invest in or build your future. It is difficult to see the benefits of living there.

The rapid growth of Canada’s immigrant population has also become another socio-economic issue. Canada does not have a dynamic market economy that can absorb all immigrants without lowering the standard of living of other citizens. Therefore, economic difficulties have not only caused immigrants to become targets but also a threat to social peace.

Elections In Canada

Do you recall the political debate that flared up after Trudeau’s resignation, revealing Canada’s polarized politics? Canadian politics was left in confusion about which way to turn after U.S. President Donald Trump hinted at annexing Canada as the 51st state.

What an absolutely painful circus to watch unfold. After being thoroughly humiliated by Trump and losing whatever political capital he had left, Trudeau stepped down, hoping to give the Liberals one last shot at survival in the next election.

The Liberals wasted no time in installing Mark Carney, a globalist even more elitist than Trudeau, as Prime Minister. As a career technocrat, Carney’s credentials read like a who’s who of globalist power centres—Goldman Sachs, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, and the World Economic Forum.

When I saw that the so-called conservative Pierre Poilievre was positioned to run against Carney in the snap elections on April 28, 2025, it became obvious that the entire contest was pure theatre. Poilievre played his part well, talking tough, staying on script, and never crossing the lines he wasn’t supposed to. In an election where the outcome was never in doubt, Carney picked up where Trudeau left off.

What’s truly hilarious is that Canadians rallied behind Carney, thinking he was the tough guy who could stand up to Trump, as if a globalist banker could salvage national pride. They saw him as the unifier for the challenges ahead, not realizing he was just the next polished face of the same worn-out agenda. They did not hesitate to choose a copy of the same man as their hope, as if they had forgotten why they had withdrawn their support for Trudeau.

Watching these painful realities from a distance, I feel compelled to speak the truth. Liberals and conservatives are inflicting irreparable wounds on social cohesion without knowing that the system itself is rigged. Political scandals, unfulfilled campaign promises, and a lack of transparency continue to fuel growing skepticism toward Canadian leaders. My only hope is that more people begin to realize there are far better places to live and truly thrive outside of Canada.

Canada is no longer worth the debate. Broken systems, high taxes, lost freedoms, there’s nothing left to fix. The smart ones aren’t waiting. They’re departing.

Conclusion

It’s time to stop calculating the pros and cons of living in Canada. There are no advantages at all. Canada is a country stuck under high taxes, failing public services, ideological impositions, and an increasingly authoritarian government. Buying a house has become a dream, healthcare a lottery, and freedom of expression a luxury.

Even worse, despite all these problems, there is no will to fix Canada’s future. Canada has become divided by ideological wars between ever-growing state control and failed economic policies. Simply put, the best place to live in Canada doesn’t exist.

The answer for those looking to secure their future is to look beyond Canada. If you don’t want to be penalized for your success, crushed by high taxes, and deprived of your fundamental rights, now is the time to explore alternative countries that genuinely value freedom and opportunity.

*  *  *

The truth is, Canada’s decline is just one piece of a much bigger global pattern. The warning signs are everywhere: collapsing economies, overreaching governments, and shrinking personal freedoms. You don’t have to wait until it’s too late—or stay trapped in a system that’s stacked against you. There’s a better way forward, and the time to act is now. That’s why we’re urging you to join Doug Casey’s urgent online video event, where he’ll reveal his proven strategy to survive and thrive during the coming collapse. You’ll learn exactly how to secure a real Plan B with second passports, offshore banking, and the kind of freedom insurance that governments can’t take away from you. Reserve your spot here before it’s too late.

Former FBI Director and Trump special counsel Robert Mueller claims he has Parkinson’s disease, and “cannot comply with a request to testify this week before a congressional committee investigating the government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigations,” the NY Times originally reported Sunday evening before stealth-editing their article to lead with the committee having withdrawn their request. 

It’s a little unclear how it went down since the Times never issued a correction.

Anyway, this sudden Parkinsons’ diagnosis came shortly after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said it would subpoena Mueller to testify on Tuesday over the FBI’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein while he was director of the FBI. 

Of note, committee chair James Comer (R-KY) wrote in a letter to Mueller; Because you were F.B.I. director during the time when Mr. Epstein was under investigation by the F.B.I., the committee believes that you possess knowledge and information relevant to its investigation.”

In 2008, the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, negotiated a so-called nonprosecution agreement with Mr. Epstein’s lawyers. Under the deal, federal prosecutors declined to charge Mr. Epstein but he pleaded guilty to a lesser state charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution. As part of that agreement, Mr. Epstein served 13 months at a local prison, where he was allowed to leave custody and work out of his office six days a week.

After federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Epstein in 2019, the deal reached in 2008 was widely criticized, as it was seen as far too favorable to Mr. Epstein, who, according to court documents, continued to abuse underage girls in the years that followed. It is not clear how much involvement Mr. Mueller had in the Epstein investigation. -NYT

The Times then spends a considerable portion of the article ‘selling’ the notion that Mueller’s too sick to testify over Jeffrey Epstein – with people such as former AG Bill Barr (also linked to Epstein) having noted Mueller’s relatively recent frailty in his memoir. 

During a key meeting to discuss the findings of Mr. Mueller’s investigation in 2019, Mr. Mueller’s hands “were trembling” and his voice was “tremulous,” Mr. Barr wrote in a memoir published in 2022.

“I knew he wasn’t nervous, and I wondered if he might have an illness,” Mr. Barr wrote.

Mr. Barr wrote that after the meeting, he and the deputy attorney general at the time, Mr. Rosenstein, discussed Mr. Mueller’s condition.

“Wow,” Mr. Barr said he said to Mr. Rosenstein. “Bob has lost a step.”

Indeed. 

Others in Comer’s crosshairs include; James Comey, the former F.B.I. director; Hillary and Bill Clinton; and Eric H. Holder Jr., Merrick B. Garland, Alberto R. Gonzales, Jeff Sessions and Mr. Barr, all former attorneys general.

Did you catch that Bill Clinton’s been seen walking around with a defibrillator? 

Poor guy might not be able to testify either! These things happen.