In a huge development, and coming just weeks after federal health secretary and Fluoride-skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was sworn into office, the state of Utah has become the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water.

The landmark move also comes soon after recent major health studies were published which linked the decades-long US fluoridization in public drinking water with lower IQ in children.

“Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said he would sign legislation that bars cities and communities from deciding whether to add the mineral to their water systems,” The Associated Press reports Monday.

The long-running claim and assumption has been that fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities – and this still remains the official line of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We’ve got tried and true evidence of the safety and efficacy of this public health initiative,” said American Dental Association President Brad Kessler.

But the simple question must be asked: don’t people brush their teeth?

The FDA literally has a poison warning label on the side of toothpaste and other products with fluoride, saying that it’s not meant to be ingested. So why drink it? – skeptics have long questioned.

The AP has noted that the anti-fluoridization movement in Utah gained steam after a major accident:

Already, some cities across the country have gotten rid of fluoride from their water, and other municipalities are considering doing the same. A few months ago, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to kids’ intellectual development.

A Utah teenager who urged lawmakers to pass the bill described suffering a medical emergency when the fluoride pump in Sandy, Utah, malfunctioned in 2019, releasing an excessive amount of the mineral into the drinking water. The fluoride sickened hundreds of residents and led many in Utah to push for its removal.

It’s rare to find high levels of fluoridation in water, according to the National Institutes of Health. The agency said it’s “virtually impossible” to get a toxic dose of fluoride from water with standard levels of the mineral.

When you’ve lost CNN…

Those who are against the mass government-backed social program to add fluoride to water have long been attacked as “conspiracy” loons etc.. But skepticism of the program has recently gone more and more mainstream, especially as more objective science has take a fresh look at the matter.

Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,

• Since the adoption of the REPowerEU Plan, the EU has diversified its supplies and drastically phased down Russian fossil fuel imports.

• Last year, renewable energy contributed 48% of the EU power generation mix, followed by nuclear at 24% and fossil fuels at 28%–the lowest share ever.

• Some European leaders are clamoring for a return of Russian gas to European markets.

Three years ago, Europe suffered one of its biggest energy crises in modern history following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Throughout 2022, the weaponization of natural gas supplies by Russia greatly aggravated the continent’s energy security, leading to a massive spike in gas prices. Consequently, the European Commission implemented its REPowerEU Plan to phase out Russian fossil fuel imports, diversify energy supplies and produce more clean energy. 

Europe stepped up LNG imports from the United States, which had been running at 10-50 billion cubic feet per month but soared by about 100 billion cubic feet per month after the invasion. 

In contrast, Europe quickly cut out Russian gas from 45% of total imports to just 15% currently. EU member states agreed to fill underground gas storage to 80% of capacity by 1 November 2022; however, by working together, EU countries surpassed this, instead reaching 95% of gas storage capacity. 

Since the adoption of the REPowerEU Plan, the EU has diversified its supplies and drastically phased down Russian fossil fuel imports. EU sanctions have banned seaborne imports of Russian crude oil and refined petroleum products as well as Russian coal. Imports of Russian gas have plunged, setting the EU on track to phase them out completely in the coming years. 

But here’s the kicker: Fossil fuels, including natural gas, are gradually losing their grip on EU energy. Renewables remain, by far, Europe’s key energy source. Last year, renewable energy contributed 48% of the EU power generation mix, followed by nuclear at 24% and fossil fuels at 28%–the lowest share ever. Indeed, 2024 marked the lowest emissions from the EU power sector with a 13% drop compared to 2023. While nuclear remains the continent’s single leading power source, wind power leads over natural gas. Meanwhile, last year, Europe’s solar generation overtook coal for the first time ever.

Source: Ember

This trend predates Russia’s war in Ukraine: since the enactment of the European Green Deal in 2019, wind and solar have been gradually pushing coal to the margins and forcing natural gas into structural decline. Europe’s green energy transition has gathered extra momentum over the past three years due to Russia’s war. 

The European Union has implemented measures to significantly shorten the permit granting process for renewable energy projects, including designating specific “Renewable Energy Acceleration Areas” where projects undergo simplified and faster permitting procedures, aiming to expedite the development of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power across the bloc. 

The revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III) includes provisions to significantly reduce the time required to obtain permits for renewable energy projects, especially in designated acceleration areas. Last year, the European updated its Recommendation on speeding up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy projects and the accompanying Guidance on good practices to speed up permit-granting procedures for renewable energy projects and on facilitating power purchase agreements.

Europe Still Needs Natural Gas

That said, it’s unlikely that Europe will be able to kick natural gas from its energy mix any time soon. Europe gas prices recently spiked to multi-year highs driven by colder-than-average weather coupled with lower wind power generation. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy systems largely lack surge capacity to meet sharp spikes in demand or unforeseen energy crises. These crises are typically short-lived and transient, mostly due to short-term disruptions in supply, and not lack of long-term access to foreign energy. 

It’s a big reason why some European leaders are clamoring for a return of Russian gas to European markets. European leaders are set to urge EU authorities and Ukraine to intensify talks over a possible resumption of Russian gas transit through Ukraine. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico has revealed that he’s not ruling out the resumption of gas through Ukraine following the expiration of a 5-year transit deal between Moscow and Kyiv. Fico has been pushing President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to restart the transit, citing higher energy costs for Slovakia and the whole region. European Union leaders met on Thursday for an extraordinary summit to discuss Ukraine and European defence.

‘‘The pipeline that runs through Slovakia has a capacity of 100 billion cubic meters,” Fico told reporters in Brussels. “I want to do everything to ensure it is used in the future,’’ he added.

Last year, Moscow said it’s open to another gas deal with Ukraine. Back in November, Russia said it’s willing to continue supplying gas to Europe via Ukraine if Kyiv and the involved European countries can come to an agreement.

“Of course, in my opinion, the European countries that currently receive gas through this corridor are interested in continuing such cooperation,”  Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, who is in charge of Russia’s energy policy, told reporters “We are ready to supply (gas), but not much depends on us, so probably this should be negotiated directly between the users and the country through which the transit is provided.”

Ukraine is set to lose up to $1 billion a year in transit fees from Russia– which it hopes to offset by quadrupling its domestic gas transmission tariffs for consumers–while Gazprom will lose close to $5 billion in gas sales. Ukraine gas amounted to 5% of total EU gas imports.

European natural gas futures rebounded to €41.5/MWh on Thursday, reversing two sessions of losses, driven by forecasts for colder-than-normal weather. This increase in heating demand is likely to further reduce gas storage levels before the end of the heating season. EU gas storage is currently 37.3% full, having depleted at a faster-than-expected clip this winter due to colder weather and less wind power generation. 

Syria under the Jolani regime, or interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, has inked a landmark deal with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to integrate the armed group by back the US with state institutions.

A televised Monday signing ceremony was held with al-Sharaa and the head of the SDF, Mazloum Abdi. The agreement hails the unity of Syria and declares that “all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria” will be merged “into the administration of the Syrian state, including border crossings, the airport, and oil and gas fields.”

Al Jazeera emphasizes in the wake of the historic deal that “The agreement, if implemented, would bring that territory under the full control of the Syrian central government.”

This of course immediately raises the question of the ongoing US occupation, which has been on for years in Syria’s northeast oil and gas rich territory. The Pentagon has been occupying these energy resources, which is enough to meet Syria’s domestic needs.

The long-running theft of Syria’s oil – much of which has reportedly been ferried across the border into Iraq – was by design a method to strangle the prior Assad government and deprive the state of badly needed resources.

Will the Syrian Kurds now simply hand these oil and gas complexes over to Jolani and his forces?

If the Pentagon occupation persists, this could result in fresh clashes. US special forces have been supporting the Syrian SDF – and in fact the Kurdish-led group is largely a creation of Washington. 

Turkey has been seen as helping Jolani, and has long chafed at the US presence, given it propped up the Kurds.

The timing of this deal is awkward and ironic, given at this very moment there are mass killings of Alawites and Christians along the Syrian coast near Latakia.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar points out: “For Damascus, once you have given special status to a certain ethnicity, or a certain sect, then the question is [for] other sects like Alawites or Druze, are they also going to have special status?… That is not clear for now.”

The outline and main points of the new Damascus-SDF agreement are said to be vague, and underscores full Kurdish citizenship in the Syrian state and merging of institutions; however, it’s unclear the degree to which the Kurds will be required to lay down their arms. For the time being, they are unlikely to voluntarily do so.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Recently, after the speech of Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, various European leaders went public to express their shock and disbelief that they would be accused of rolling back on free speech. For many of us, it was a laughable display of denial, particularly from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 

In a country that has eviscerated free speech, Starmer told Bret Baier that the UK “guards” free speech and “we don’t believe in censoring speech.” 

Now, the government is continuing this month with its effort to regulate and criminalize speech.

The effort to crack down on “Islamophobia” could create a type of blasphemy standard if it encompasses criticism of the faith or its practices.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced that the government will be further cracking down on hate speech with a new working group tasked with defining ‘Islamophobia’. 

The free speech community is raising the alarm that the effort is likely to further broaden the government controls over speech.

It was announced last week that Rayner’s working group would be chaired by former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, who has himself admitted that defining Islamophobia while safeguarding free speech is ‘extremely difficult.’ 

Notably, Grieve wrote the foreword to the 2018 All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) report on Islamophobia, which advanced a definition that many critics argue is far too broad.

The APPG included criticism of Islamic beliefs and practices as examples of Islamophobia. 

It has been condemned for treating criticism of the faith as a type of hate speech.

For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests, including in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

The fear is that an expanded hate speech law that includes criticism of Islamophobia will operate like a British blasphemy law. 

In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England. 

This new effort could constructively restore such prosecutions as they relate to Islam.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.

Authored by Sven Valerio via The Mises Institute,

Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference delivered a sharp critique of recent developments in Europe, particularly regarding freedom of expression, migration, and democracy. He highlighted the annulled election in Romania and the exclusion of the German party AFD from most public discourse by the political establishment. Sweden was also explicitly mentioned, with a focus on the suspended sentence of a man convicted of “hate speech” for burning the Koran—a sentence announced shortly after the man’s friend, who participated in the act, was murdered for his beliefs.

While I commend Vance’s historic speech, it’s important to note that Sweden’s hate speech law is only a small part of the broader “Swedish system” and its democratic shortcomings. 

Allow me to provide a fuller picture for an international audience.

In Sweden, the political arena is largely reserved for established parties, without any proper preferential voting. 

Elections here do not represent a fair competition for political power. The leading parties have systematically exploited the system to grant themselves significant advantages. This is particularly evident in the financing of their activities. Six out of the eight parliamentary parties rely heavily on public funding. The leading center-right party—currently holding the office of prime minister—receives 70 percent of its income from taxpayer-funded support, a higher proportion than even the Social Democrats. In total, political parties receive just under 1 billion SEK in direct public support, with even more allocated to party-affiliated organizations. This would be equivalent in the US to taxpayers contributing over 6 billion dollars in support to political parties and their affiliated organizations.

If you believe that media in Sweden is free and independent, think again. 

Swedish media receives 1 billion SEK in annual support, which would be the equivalent of 3 billion dollars in the US when adjusting for the size of the population. The leading right-wing conservative newspaper in Stockholm, Svenska Dagbladet, benefits from taxpayer funding amounting to what would be equivalent to 98 million dollars in the US.

Public service media (television and radio) has a total budget of 9.1 billion SEK. Sweden’s population is 10.5 million. 

For comparison, imagine the US having a government-controlled media system with a budget of 27 billion tax dollars. 

Moreover, the journalists’ union in Sweden issues press passes, and such credentials are required to participate in government-related events. 

Swedish top politicians rarely face truly critical questions, creating a political environment in which politicians are not held accountable by the public. 

Public hearings of the kind familiar in the US simply do not exist in Sweden.

Under these conditions, it is extremely challenging to promote political alternatives, whether right-wing or left-wing, that critique the status quo. 

If one manages to break through, the next obstacle arises: the Swedish parliament (Riksdag) has 349 seats, each apparently representing 0.29 percent (1/349) of the voters. However, a party must secure at least 4 percent of the votes to be allocated parliamentary seats. 

In theory, 13 parties could each receive 3.9 percent of the vote, collectively representing 50.7 percent of the electorate, but none would win a seat in the Riksdag.

Swedish schools teach students that such a system is probably a good thing and that generous public support for political parties and media is to be preferred. Otherwise, we could “end up like the United States.”

JD Vance was correct regarding European politician’s use of the word “disinformation.” 

The above account would never be published in the op-ed pages of a major Swedish news outlet. 

There simply are no media platforms where such criticism is accepted—not even those that I am forced to co-finance.

Via The Libertarian Institute

As President Donald Trump attempts to engage with Russia to end the conflict in Ukraine, supporters of the proxy war in Washington, Europe, and Ukraine claim that President Vladimir Putin is an evil dictator who cannot be trusted. The implication is that talking with the Kremlin is equivalent to surrender for Kiev because Putin wants all of Ukraine, and will use any pause in fighting to gear up for the next invasion.

However, history disproves that assertion. For Moscow, the war was never about seizing Ukrainian territory or attempting to reconstitute the USSR, but pushing back on NATO expansion after the bloc threatened to add Kiev as a member.

Before the invasion and in the early months of the war, Putin made serious offers to both Washington and Kiev to allow eastern and southern Ukraine to remain under Kiev’s control if the country agreed not to join NATO.

The Joe Biden administration outright refused to negotiate on those terms, even if they were acceptable to Kiev. Preventing those talks from occurring first provoked the Russian invasion, then prevented it from ending within a few months.

As Scott Horton explains in the following excerpt from his latest book, Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, there were talks in Istanbul, Turkey that nearly ended with conflict within two months.

A Ukrainian negotiator explained the dialogue was “completely successful” and could have allowed the war to come to an end by April 2022. But Western leaders like then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not want peace, and pressed Kiev to fight.

You can own a signed copy of Provoked by making a contribution to The Libertarian Institute’s fundraiser.

* * *

US, UK Prevent Peace

Early indications that Russia and Ukraine could achieve a quick negotiated solution soon gave way to the reality that the Biden administration was instead determined to drag out the war to “weaken Russia.”

One day after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked about the proposed terms to begin negotiations. Though an innocent third person might have assumed that achieving a ceasefire and early end to the fighting would be the highest priority, Price made it clear this was not the case with the American administration. “Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy,” he said.

As Secretary Blinken confirmed in October 2022, the only time he had spoken to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov since February 15, 2022, nine days before the invasion, was over the release of the basketball player Brittney Griner, who had been convicted of bringing a THC vape pen into the country. Otherwise, the policy was “Do not engage.”

Two days after the war began, Zelensky said he wanted to negotiate. “We are not afraid to talk to Russia. We are not afraid to say everything about security guarantees for our state. We are not afraid to talk about neutral status. We are not in NATO now.” But he said the main question was “what security guarantees will we have? And what specific countries will give them? We need to talk about the end of this invasion. We need to talk about a ceasefire.”

Belarus Talks

The two sides met in Gomel, Belarus on February 28. Though they did not make a deal, they departed on positive terms and agreed to talk again on March 3. Early attempts at negotiation by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, though they showed some promise, went nowhere without American interest or support. The Financial Times reported on March 16 that negotiators had “made significant progress” on a ceasefire deal, based on a Russian withdrawal in exchange for neutrality and limits on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces. They said Lavrov had also told them they were very close to a deal.

Bennett

Both sides trusted former Prime Minister Bennett, so at the same time their agents were meeting in Belarus, Putin and Zelensky were communicating through him, outlining the major points of the ceasefire. As Bennett later explained in an interview, Putin promised not to kill Zelensky and dropped his demand for the “disarmament of Ukraine.” In return, Zelensky vowed to drop his attempts to join NATO. Instead, they agreed on something they called the “Israeli model,” which would keep Ukraine outside of NATO, but well-armed enough to guarantee its own independence. “I had the impression at the time that both sides were very interested in a ceasefire,” Bennett said. But the Americans decided to “crush Putin rather than to negotiate.” The former PM did not seem to disagree with the policy, but was just being honest about it. “I think there was a decision by the west (a legitimate one) that right now what’s needed is to keep hitting Putin and not to reach a ceasefire. … I’ll tell you what — I’m not sure they were mistaken.” He said he was merely “acting as an intermediary,” adding, “Everything I did was coordinated to the smallest detail not just with the U.S. but also Germany and France.”

When asked if the U.S. stopped the negotiations, Bennett replied, “Yes, basically they stopped it and at the time I thought they were making a mistake.” He continued, “[T]here’s a not-too-bad chance they could have reached [an agreement] if they didn’t stop it. Not for sure. But I’m not arguing that it was correct to try. In real time I thought it was correct to reach a ceasefire — now I don’t know.”

Though Bennett later tried to walk back his claims, saying there was only a 50 percent chance of making a deal at the time, it is obvious he was being honest the first time and trying to get out of trouble for it.

Fiona Spills

It was only later we found out that was exactly what had happened: both the Ukrainians and Russians had been prepared to make serious concessions to bring the war to an early end.  The diplomats had ironed out a few differences, and it was time for the presidents to meet to make the bigger decisions. Fiona Hill confirmed in Foreign Affairs in the fall of 2022 that they had been on the verge of a deal, citing former U.S. officials. “In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” she explained. “Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.”

Nay No Ned

On March 21, State Department spokesman Price shot down a question about the peace talks, saying the president had “made it very clear that he is open to a diplomatic solution that does not compromise the core principles at the heart of the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine.” He elaborated, “[T]his is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine.” This was about the whole world order. “[T]here are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere, [including] the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right … to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances.”

The reporter got his drift. “But does that mean that if under pressure of negotiation and war, that Zelensky gives up the previous desire to join NATO … that the U.S. wouldn’t go along with … a negotiated agreement?” Price refused to answer.

At that time, Kiev was in a better position to negotiate than at any point after. And by the end of March, Zelensky was signaling that he was willing to make major concessions to achieve an early end to the war. As Anchal Vohra wrote in Foreign Policy, “These include a commitment to Ukrainian neutrality with respect to military alliances, a rejection of any nuclear arsenal, and an acceptance of Russian control over Ukraine’s eastern regions.” She said, “He even indicated a readiness to change language policies that had disadvantaged Russian speakers. Zelensky’s announcements gave the face-to-face talks convening this week in Istanbul some hope of a ceasefire.”

When White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked what the U.S. was doing to encourage diplomacy, she responded only that “[t]he role that we feel we can play most effectively is by continuing to provide a broad range of security assistance, military assistance to them as well as economic and humanitarian assistance to strengthen their hand in these negotiations.”

Turkey

On March 29, the parties convened in Istanbul, where they issued the Istanbul Communiqué based on Ukraine’s proposals. The key concession from the Ukrainian side was an offer of “permanent” neutrality, to refrain from developing nuclear weapons, recognize de facto Russian sovereignty over Crimea, punt on the question of the future of the Donbas and promise not to host any foreign forces on their soil. In exchange they would receive security guarantees from Western nations and Russia, including a promise to be allowed to join the EU. These represented major concessions by Russia compared to its attempt to sack the Ukrainian capital and achieve regime change just weeks before. For their part, “Russian negotiators said they would look into these proposals while Russia [would] ‘drastically reduce’ military activity near the cities of Chernihiv and Kyiv ‘to increase mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations.’”

Alexey Arestovich

Then-Zelensky adviser Alexey Arestovich, the same man who had seemed to predict the war and accept its inevitability three years before, later said that the talks had been “completely successful.” Having participated in the Istanbul negotiations, he explained that “it was the most profitable agreement we could have done. … We opened the champagne bottle. We had discussed demilitarization, denazification, issues concerning the Russian language, Russian church and much else.” He continued, “And that month, it was the question of the amount of Ukrainian armed forces in peacetime, and President Zelensky said, ‘I could decide this question indirectly with Mr. Putin.’” Arestovich added, “The Istanbul agreements were a protocol of intentions and was 90 percent prepared for directly meeting with Putin. That was to be the next step of negotiations.”

Boris Johnson

But then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to town with an offer of weapons and a message from the Biden administration: now was not the time to negotiate. They should instead increase the pressure on Putin. If Ukraine made a deal with Russia, they could not count on U.S. and UK support. So the talks were canceled. This tragic tale was told in extensive reporting by Ukrainska Pravda — a paper with a similar name but no ties to the Russian publication. In fact, it is owned by Dragon Capital, in a fund managed by Soros Fund Management LLC, and has a strong pro-Kiev slant. They said Johnson “appeared in the capital almost without warning” with two messages from Biden. The first was, “Putin should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and the second was that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.” Then they got right to the heart of the issue: “[T]he collective West … now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to ‘press him.’”

As Michael von der Schulenburg, a former UN assistant secretary-general, later explained: “As late as 27 March 2022, Zelensky had shown the courage to defend the preliminary results of the Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations in public in front of Russian journalists — despite the fact that NATO had by then already decided at its special summit on 24 March 2022 … to oppose these peace negotiations. In the end, Zelensky gave in to NATO pressures and opted for a continuation of the war.”

Lavrov later said that after a workable proposal was on the table, in mid-April the Ukrainians simply broke off talks. Putin complained that after Istanbul, “Kyiv representatives voiced quite a positive response to our proposals. These proposals concerned above all ensuring Russia’s security and interests. But a peaceful settlement obviously did not suit the West, which is why, after certain compromises were coordinated, Kyiv was actually ordered to wreck all these agreements.” He was obviously being a major hypocrite in saying this, since he was surely playing his own role in the conflict. But he was not wrong.

South Dakota has passed a law prohibiting the use of public tax dollars for the research or purchase of cultivated (aka ‘lab grown’) meats.

Introduced in the state’s House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee by Rep. Jana Hunt (R) on Jan. 29, bill HB 1118 was signed into law less than a month later by Gov. Larry Rhoden (R).

“I’m grateful for the unanimous backing from my colleagues in both the House and Senate. As elected officials, it is our duty to serve the people of South Dakota and ensure responsible stewardship of their hard-earned tax dollars,” said Hunt, who also credited testimony from The Beef Initiative, a non-governmental organization that coordinates with local farms nationwide who champion food security through local access.

The new law will be effective July 1.

Rhoden has been in office since Jan. 25 following the resignation of former Gov. Kristi Noem, who is now Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS).

South Dakota is one of a growing number of states where the legislatures have taken efforts to place restrictions on cultivated meat to protect their own animal agriculture interests. Other states to do so include Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Iowa and Michigan. –WATTPoultry

As we noted in January, Florida and Alabama banned lab-grown meat for consumption, while three others have proposed similar restrictions on the controversial 3D-printed meat. Additionally, ten states now mandate labeling of lab-grown meat. Meanwhile, the rest of the US has no regulations governing fake meat.

In the era of Trump 2.0, the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative aims to promote nutritious, clean, and natural food—rejecting not just science experiment foods funded by woke billionaires like Bill Gates but also toxic processed foods.  

In January, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen announced a new legislative proposal to ban lab-grown meat from being produced in or sold in stores across the Cornhusker State. 

“It’s important we get on the offense so that Nebraska farmers and ranchers are not undermined,” Pillen told reporters at a news conference.

Under Trump’s second term, we believe the backlash to lab-grown meat will only grow louder from here as a growing number of states will issue proposed legislation to ban the science experiment meat.

Recall that billionaires like Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum have pushed a dystopic nightmare across the world in their attempt to reset the global food supply, one where the world eats insects and highly processed fake food. 

Under the guise of ‘climate change’ … Gates wants to “work towards artificial meat.” 

“We need to change cows and work towards artificial meat” – Bill Gates

SHARE if you refuse to eat the fake meat 💪pic.twitter.com/zKRR1lJ1zW

— PeterSweden (@PeterSweden7) June 15, 2024

An alternative to this dystopic nightmare is real, clean food. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – newly minted head of the Department of Health and Human Services – has outlined plans for the most significant transformation of America’s food system—a sweeping effort known as “Make America Healthy Again.”

RFK Jr. explains his plan to ‘Make America Healthy Again’pic.twitter.com/FzS8nYZeFO

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) November 20, 2024

*   *   * 

Top sellers from last week at ZH Store:

ZH Multitool

Anza Swat Micarta Blued knife

ReadyWise Heirloom Seed Vault

IQ Colostrum

ZH Coffee + Tumbler deal (buy 2 bags, get free tumbler)

Authored by Drieu Godefridi via The Gatestone Institute,

Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky finally agreed to the “Golden Parachute” U.S. President Donald J. Trump offered him as a first step to have Russian President Vladimir Putin negotiate a ceasefire to the war he began three years ago, the meeting on Feb. 28 between Trump and Zelensky—as the world, to its shock, saw on television—collapsed.

Trump seems to have been anticipating a signing ceremony; Zelensky seems to have been anticipating receiving assurances of greater security. Trump’s ultimate message apparently was: a Trump final offer is a Trump final offer.

Trump was gracious enough to offer Zelensky the opportunity to return if he changed his mind—as he did on March 4. Trump also did not preclude the possibility that the U.S. would consider coming to Europe’s military assistance should it be needed at some future time.

For a long time, it was difficult to express doubts about Ukraine’s success without immediately being branded a “Putinist.” It was as if the horror of war forced everyone to take sides: only “Putinists” and “Slava Ukraini” remained.

Britain’s daily Telegraph, which is usually more discerning, labeled the U.S. demand for repayment of the hundreds of billions invested in war matériel for Ukraine as a “stranglehold.”

The Telegraph compared it to the reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I—an analogy all the more shocking, they argued, because Ukraine is the victim, not the aggressor.

Trump has asked that Ukraine repay the enormous sums advanced by the United States—especially after he found out that the money given to Ukraine by European countries had been loans, not grants. Trump proposed a deal whereby the U.S. would help to develop Ukraine’s minerals, such as lithium and titanium, and help to develop Ukraine’s infrastructure, and suggested that such a business collaboration would serve as an adequate deterrence against renewed Russian aggression, making the security guarantees Zelensky was seeking unnecessary, at least during his tenure.

Reports suggest the U.S. would own 50 percent of these assets or their revenues, as a repayment to U.S. taxpayers for past aid. Zelensky said that he was open to investment but needed stronger security guarantees.

Critics of Trump called his request exploitative, akin to a colonial resource-grab, while supporters seemed to see it as a potential win-win if U.S. investment would help to rebuild Ukraine’s economy—a kind of new “Marshall Plan.” Details have not yet been confirmed.

The true analogy is with the assistance granted by the United States to the United Kingdom during World War II: the Lend-Lease Act of 1941. Under Lend-Lease, the U.S. provided Britain with goods valued at approximately $31.4 billion (in 1940s dollars) over the course of the war. This figure represents the total value of aid shipped to Britain, including everything from military equipment like ships, aircraft and tanks, to civilian necessities like food and oil. Adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars (as of February 2025), this amount equates to roughly $550 billion.

This amount was then rolled into the broader Anglo-American Loan Agreement of 1946, with a substantial rebate. Alongside settling Lend-Lease, the U.S. extended a new $3.75 billion loan at 2 percent interest to help Britain’s postwar recovery, bringing the total package to $4.4 billion (plus Canada’s separate $1.19 billion loan). The UK began repaying this combined sum in 1950, with payments stretching over decades. The final installment—covering both the Lend-Lease settlement and the postwar loan—was paid off on December 29, 2006, when Britain sent its last check of about $83 million to the U.S. Treasury.

In reality, a Ukraine-U.S. agreement on debt repayment is assuredly one way to keep America engaged in Ukraine for decades to come—and thus at least a non-military security guarantee. One does not allow a debtor owing $300 billion to be crushed. A long-term debt repayment agreement between Ukraine and the United States could serve as a powerful mechanism to ensure sustained American engagement in Ukraine’s security. Financial obligations of such magnitude—potentially in the hundreds of billions—create an inherent incentive for the creditor to protect the debtor from existential threats. No country, one hopes, allows a strategic partner with outstanding debts of that scale to be destabilized or overrun.

What, however, happens once the debt is repaid? Without a lasting strategic framework, financial leverage alone might not be enough to guarantee long-term security. The case of Hong Kong is a sobering precedent: the West was deeply invested in the city’s economy, but when communist China asserted control, international businesses largely packed up and left rather than confront Beijing.

For Ukraine, if economic leverage alone is not enough, what structures might be built to ensure that Ukraine’s security does not become another Vietnam, Hong Kong or Afghanistan, where outside powers ultimately choose to walk away? According to reports, such questions are to be addressed after a negotiated ceasefire.

In the meantime, the debt would be repaid by a U.S.-Ukraine “partnership” in mining Ukraine’s natural resources and rebuilding its economy. At the moment, Trump’s unconventional proposal is probably the best offer for Ukraine—and the only realistic one. It gives the U.S. “skin in the game,” enables Trump to have leverage when he approaches Russia, and prevents Putin, at least for a while, from retaking that part of the former Soviet Union.

The Error

Unlike his predecessors, Trump acknowledged that NATO had pledged not to expand beyond East Germany. For the past three years, merely stating this fact had led to being labeled a “Putinist,” an attempt at permanent discreditation. The facts, however, are clear: James Baker, Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush, made an unambiguous public commitment, confirmed by NATO’s secretary-general himself. To be clear: these declarations do not have the status of a treaty or international law, but they were commitments, at best a kind of unilateral undertaking.

On the other hand, so was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which Russia, the United States and Ukraine agreed that Ukraine’s borders would be respected in exchange for giving up the nuclear weapons it had at the time. Both Russia and the U.S. failed to uphold their part of the agreement.

NATO, as may have postulated, does not really seem to be the problem. Russia already has hundreds of miles of peaceful borders with NATO countries, including the Baltic states, and did not kick up a fuss when Finland joined NATO last year. The only country where joining NATO ostensibly appears to be a problem is Ukraine. Perhaps this exception should be regarded as a flashing red light, warning that Putin still might have his eye on Ukraine for its minerals, agricultural land, and outlet on the Black Sea.

As long as Ukraine is not in NATO, Putin might regard it as fair game. As for the potential deal with Trump, it might well appear to Putin that some of Ukraine is better than none of Ukraine—especially after already having successfully captured all of Crimea and a good chunk of Georgia. It also might help to remember that, for better or worse, Putin will not be around forever.

What appears to terrify Putin the most is a democracy 250 miles from Moscow—where people inside Russia might see up close what it is like to live in a free society.

Towards a Yalta?

The main risk for Europe is that the Ukraine crisis formalizes its geopolitical downgrade. Europe lacks the resources to challenge the United States and can only confront Russia due to NATO’s support. In short, Europe does not count. So far, at least, Europe has not wanted to pay, and has not wanted to fight.

Trump has been a supporter of NATO but not as its guarantor. His worldview at the moment is that he rejects war, except as a last resort. To him, it seems, America’s true rival in the 21st century is not Europe, or Russia, and certainly not the amorphous, inconsistent entity known as the BRICs. It is China. To counter this threat, Trump needs a cooperative Europe that finances more of its own defense.

Russia may be an impoverished empire but it still thinks of itself as powerful one. It flexes its influence—based on oil and nuclear weapons—and power beyond its borders, but primarily when its economy is stable and flush with resources. When Russia is financially strained or “broke,” its imperial ambitions take a backseat.

It was the Biden administration’s energy policies that bolstered Russia’s economic position, and actually provided the funds that fueled its military actions, especially the invasion of Ukraine. Biden’s restrictions on domestic energy production in the U.S. and a shift away from energy independence drove up global oil and gas prices, filling the coffers of Russia, which relies on energy exports.

Russia does not want NATO a stone’s throw from Moscow, just as the United States did not want Soviet missiles in Cuba. The United States, nevertheless, does not go around invading other countries; Russia does. It is no secret, even to Trump, that Russia is the aggressor here, and probably determined to keep acting that way.

In the Caribbean, near the U.S., are islands that belong to France, the Netherlands and the UK—and no one loses sleep over them. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, on the other hand, have been acting as predators. It is not just that they flex their muscles; they act as if they expect the West to give them a pass to overthrow it without any consequences. The U.S. is not out to conquer Asia, but Russia, China, Iran and North Korea seem hell-bent on carving out their empires one aggressive move at a time.

Today, three military powers dominate the world: China, Russia and the United States. Europe, if not on the list, has only itself to blame. Economically on par with the U.S. until the year 2000, the old continent has since succumbed to a morbid environmentalist fantasy—the “Zero-Carbon Society,” a totalitarian myth for which the European Union sacrificed everything: the economy, citizens’ well-being, freedom of speech, and perhaps eventually its culture and democratic form of government.

Consider this: the average European pays four times more for home heating than the average American. Why? Because in Europe, fracking for gas is banned, oil is despised, electricity is dependent on wind turbines and solar panels, and perfectly functional nuclear reactors are being decommissioned. Now Russia is trying to repair the Nord Stream II gas pipeline so that Europe can depend on Putin. Good luck with that.

Trump has the ambition, the means, and the momentum for a new Yalta. The Russians will be only too happy to return to the negotiating table. Cursing and shivering, the Europeans will be of enormous help.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Egypt plans to build a $7 billion petrochemical complex and launch new oil and gas auctions to boost domestic production.

• The country aims to enhance energy security and attract foreign investment, despite recent economic challenges and energy shortages.

• Egypt is balancing its fossil fuel development with renewable energy targets, though it has adjusted its green energy goals.

Oil-rich Egypt has big plans for the future of its fossil fuel development with several major new auctions and investments planned for the North African country. A new $7 billion petrochemical complex and other major oil and gas investments are expected to reinvigorate Egypt’s oil industry, although it may have to win back investor confidence following a disappointing financial year.

Egypt is a major African fossil fuel producer, the second-largest non-OPEC producer of liquid fuels after Angola. It was also the second-largest producer of natural gas in Africa in 2022, after Algeria. The expansion of Egypt’s gas production has been supported by the launch of operations at several major offshore fields over the past decade, including its Zohr gas field. However, Egypt’s gas production has been forecast to fall in the coming decades as Zohr matures, as well as due to several recent exploration failures.

In February, Egypt signed a framework agreement with U.K.-based Shard Capital and Saudi Arabia’s Al-Qahtani Group to construct a $7 billion petrochemical facility in New Alamein City in the northwest of the country. The project will be overseen by a consortium, including members from Shard Capital, Al-Qahtani Group, and the UAE’s Royal Strategic Partners. Once complete, it is expected to produce 3.1 million tonnes of eight different petrochemical products annually.

Karim Badawi, Egypt’s Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, said that advanced technologies will be incorporated into the facility’s design to reduce the impact on the environment. Badawi said the development is key to improving the value of Egypt’s natural resources. The complex is expected to enhance Egypt’s export capacity significantly. It is also expected to help deepen ties between Egypt, Gulf countries and the U.K.

In March, Egypt’s Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources announced new investment opportunities, aimed at expanding exploration and production activities. The ministry plans to offer seven undeveloped fields in the Mediterranean and six exploration areas in the Gulf of Suez and the Western Desert. Companies can bid using the Egypt Upstream Gateway (EUG) over the next two months, until 4th May 2025.

The ministry recently closed the bidding round for 13 exploration areas and mature fields, after several offers were received, which are currently being assessed. The combined investments from the previous auction could bring in more than $700 million in investments.

In the new auction, the seven undeveloped fields are being offered in two clusters – the Aten, Merit, and Rahmat fields, as well as the Notus, Salamat, Satis, and Salmon fields. This approach is aimed at increasing investment returns, reducing production costs, and streamlining development and production processes.

The government aims to boost Egypt’s energy security through the expansion of the country’s oil and gas industry. 

The largely untapped natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean are expected to help make Egypt more energy-independent in the future, as the national energy demand continues to grow. Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi views the country as a production and re-export hub for international markets.

As host to the 2022 COP27 Climate Conference, Egypt also stated aims to expand its renewable energy sector. Before hosting COP27, Egypt pledged to increase renewable energy production to 42 percent of its energy mix by 2035, a target which it later moved forward to 2030. In June 2024, then-Electricity Minister Mohamed Shaker announced the ambitious target of an energy mix with 58 percent renewables by 2040. 

However, in October, the government revised its green energy target, reducing the figure to 40 percent of the energy mix. During the announcement, Petroleum Minister Karim Badawi said that natural gas will remain a vital part of the country’s energy mix for several years. At the opening session of the Mediterranean Energy Conference 2024, Badawi stated, “This is a message to all of us to work together to increase discoveries and attract more investments through the bids being offered for exploration, aiming to achieve new discoveries in the region, which holds more wealth, particularly natural gas.”

Egypt’s government is currently working to rebuild trust with foreign companies following the 2024 energy crisis. Following a sharp gas production decline, Egypt was forced to import billions of dollars’ worth of gas cargoes to meet its national demand last summer. The energy ministry had to resort to load-shedding to keep its grid online as its gas supplies depleted and demand rose. As Egypt was facing a currency crisis, countries, including Saudi Arabia and Libya, stepped in to help Egypt fund the gas imports it needed. 

Egypt’s pound experienced a devaluation of 60 percent between March and September 2024. In addition, Egypt reportedly accumulated around $6 billion worth of debt for gas and fuel supplies. President Sisi and Energy Minister Badawi now aim to attract new investments through the new oil and gas auctions, as well as reassure companies that already have operations in Egypt.