Category: Update

“Australia plans to take US beef for the ‘first time,’ Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Thursday,” Reuters reports, “calling it a ‘very big market.’

Last night, in another Truth Social post, Trump said the US would “sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World.”

“The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE,” the post continued.

Kanishka Singh and Peter Hobson, “Trump says US will sell ‘so much’ beef to Australia,” July 26, 2025.

Though Trump’s social media boasting has been shared fairly widely, things are not as they seem.

Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices.

On Wednesday, Australia’s agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States.

The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector.

Ibid.

So while Trump seems to be talking trade policy and opposing Australian protectionism, if Australian officials are right (and why would they lie), a very different issue is at play here.

Could it be that Trump is again taking credit for something he has nothing to do with? Like his recent sugar cane Coke boasts?

The official federal government website sides with the president, naturally enough:

July 25, 2025 

WASHINGTON – President Trump secured expanded access to Australia’s market for U.S. fresh and frozen beef, scoring a historic win for American ranchers. For over two decades, Australia imposed non-scientific barriers on U.S. beef, closing off a critical market. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, Australia opened its market to U.S. beef, scoring a major win for U.S. ranchers. 

The rule in statism is that everything not prohibited is subsidized. Or, worse yet, mandated. And that has been recent American practice.

You can see it in the nine charts The Epoch Times published Friday.

In 2020 Americans filled 6.4 billion prescriptions, about 19 per person.

By 2023, Americans were consuming more than 210 billion daily doses of medication annually. That’s more than 600 pills, shots, drops, IVs, creams, mists, or suppositories for every person in the country.

“9 Things to Know About Big Pharma, in Charts,” The Epoch Times (July 18, 2025).

And all these drugs have political consequences:

And consequences on federal government spending:

Meanwhile, the federal government’s hand in the creation of SARS-Cov-2 — the coronavirus that induced the pandemic and the panic — is clearer than ever, and the clarity is all about America’s most notorious bureaucrat, Anthony Fauci:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday requesting that the Department of Justice investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci for possible criminal prosecution regarding Fauci’s congressional testimony in May 2021 about gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“Rand Paul ‘re-refers’ Fauci to Department of Justice,” The Washington Examiner (July 15, 2025).

In formally requesting the prosecution of Fauci again, Sen. Paul cited the questionable legality of the autopen signatures that preemptively pardoned Fauci, while “Sleepy Joe Biden” was . . . on who-knows-how-many drugs.

The spread of the novel coronavirus led, we all remember, to the roll-out of a number of new novel medications, subsidized by government and, in many cases, required by government.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has once again postponed her next UAP (UFO) hearing. The whistleblowers keep balking. “We asked multiple people, and they weren’t willing to testify. They said, ‘we either didn’t want to be the only one,’ ‘we were worried about our safety,’ etc.”

The real issue, Secrets Task Force Chair Luna suggests, appears to be that they are avoiding SCIFs — secure meetings between testifiers and congressfolk — perhaps because their bosses do not want them exposed to the more freewheeling, spontaneous and to-the-point lines of questioning that come up during SCIFs.

Well, that’s what Daniel “Dark Journalist” Liszt hazards, anyway. He names at least one Deep State orchestrator: Chris Mellon.

Meanwhile, Newsmax’s Ross Coulthart blurted out that he “categorically” knows that the “tic tac” UFO is the property of Lockheed-Martin.

By the way, is it funny that the House committee investigating UFOs is led by someone names “Luna”?

Regardless, the ongoing UFO “disclosure” is not mimicking reported outré UFO behavior: turning on a dime, G-force defying speeds. It’s proceeding, instead, at a snail’s pace — if the snail is traveling a salt flat.

---

The previous site update on UFOs was in mid-June; Paul Jacob has been covering the subject for years, in December in the context of “drones.”

On July 11, 2025, Paul Jacob covered the suspensions of key Secret Service personnel in “Secret Stupidity?”

The next day, the General Accounting Office (GAO) came out with a new report, revealing “that the Secret Service received classified intelligence regarding a threat to Trump’s life ten days before the rally, but failed to share the information with other key agencies,” explains a FoxNews story.

“It also identified a series of procedural and planning mistakes, including ‘misallocation of resources, lack of training and pervasive communication failures’ that led to the near assassination,” the FoxNews coverage declares.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who ordered the report, blames the failures on “years of mismanagement.” But what else could he say?

On Wednesday, in “The Devil and the Deep Blue Dress,” Paul Jacob dealt with the closing of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Since then, reactions have run the gamut, but there is a persistent theme: disbelief. What President Trump and his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, have told us about Epstein is not widely believed. But what does this mean for those most closely associated with reforming the FBI, Dan Bongino and his boss, Kash Patel?

Well, Laura Loomer made waves on X:

The New Republic tries to place this tweet in context: “It’s important to keep in mind that Loomer has her own agenda when she ‘reports’ on the Trump administration, and is desperate for any job that will keep her in close to the Oval Office.” But the progressive magazine goes on to say that Loomer has exerted no small amount of influence on the Trump Administration in the past.

“Conservatives have taken to social media to back FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino in an apparent falling out between the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) following Attorney General Pam Bondi’s defense of a memo regarding the Epstein files,” explains Newsweek.

“According to a far-left Axios scoop,” the Independent Sentinel tells us, “Dan Bongino took the day off today after a clash with Pam Blondi [sic] over the handling of the Epstein tapes. The dispute erupted Wednesday amid the fallout on the administration walking back its claims about Epstein. They said there was no client list and he committed suicide.”

Kash Patel, Director of the FBI, is also rumored to be thinking of throwing in the towel — but also seeks to put the AG to the curb.

What does this all mean? “Could you imagine you’re Dan Bongino?” asks the host of The Quartering podcast. “And you’re worth like . . . 200 million dollars. You know. F**k it. Just quit…. All he has to do is quit and say ‘I did the best I could; the Deep State is still real.’ You know. That kind of stuff. And then . . . 99% of people will forgive him. I guarantee you that fact.” The podcaster’s belief? The one that quits first will have the least mess on them.

Seems about right.

But nothing has happened yet, and Trump Again/Off-Again Bill Mitchell thinks a whole lot of folks are speculating, not reporting:

Uh, we know who.

Oh, wasn’t it odd to see Ms. Loomer’s put-down of AG Bondi as “Blondi” carry over into the news reports without correction?

“The year 2024 was transformative for both President Javier Milei and Argentina,” wrote Alejandro Werner in January. “After just one year in office, Milei has achieved significant milestones: eliminating the fiscal deficit, bringing inflation to moderate levels (see figure 1 [above]), reducing the gap between the official and the parallel exchange rate (a free but illiquid market), and implementing the most ambitious liberalization and deregulation program Argentina has seen this century.”

As we Americans endure information-free debates about our president’s reforms and bills — at least one being “Big” and “Beautiful,” according to presidential ballyhoo — it’s worth remembering that in South America one politician is making significant changes indeed.

“The upcoming mid-term elections in October will be a test of his political strength, so the first challenge is securing a strong performance in these elections,” Werner’s article for the Peterson Institute for International Economics goes on. “With half of the seats in the lower house of Argentina’s Congress and a third of the Senate up for renewal, the stakes are high. Currently, Milei’s political party, La Libertad Avanza, has minimal representation in Congress. A favorable mid-term outcome, buoyed by Milei’s consistent approval ratings, could cement his party as the dominant political force ahead of the 2027 presidential elections.” So note: Milei has accomplished a lot more than Trump with much more opposition than Trump has within his own government, with his own political party boasting of majorities in both the House and the Senate.

The view from Cato Institute is worth considering: “Argentine President Javier Milei has lowered inflation, drastically reduced government spending, and dismantled large parts of the federal bureaucracy,” explains Ian Vasquez for Cato. “But one of the most far-reaching efforts by his administration has been its deregulation push. . . .”

This push may remind Americans of Trump’s first term, and perhaps also of DOGE, but Milei has been much more successful.

Since coming to power, Milei has made wide-ranging cuts to Argentina’s bureaucracy. In his first year, he reduced the number of ministries from 18 to 8 (eliminating some and merging others), fired 37,000 public employees, and abolished about 100 secretariats and subsecretariats in addition to more than 200 lower-level bureaucratic departments.

The president has also aggressively pursued deregulation. Using a conservative methodology, my colleague Guillermina Sutter Schneider and I calculated that during Milei’s first year in office, he implemented about two deregulations per day. Roughly half of the measures eliminated regulations altogether, while the rest modified existing regulations in a generally market-oriented direction.

Milei has implemented these reforms legally and constitutionally, and they have resulted mainly from two broad measures. First, Milei began his administration by issuing an emergency “megadecree” that consisted of 366 articles. Emergency decrees are consistent with Argentine law if they meet certain conditions. They are also reviewable by Congress, which has the right to reject the orders within a specified period of time. Since the legislature did not object, most of the deregulations in the megadecree went into effect.

“Deregulation in Argentina: Milei Takes “Deep Chainsaw” to Bureaucracy and Red Tape,” Spring 2025.

A request for more information from Grok, this morning, elicited an important context from the AI:

Milei’s deregulation is driven by a consistent libertarian ideology aiming to dismantle the state, while Trump’s ismore pragmatic, focusing on economic competitiveness and political appeal, often paired with protectionistpolicies that contradict free-market principles.

If your general impression is that Trump’s much less impressive than Milei in curbing government bloat, Grok concurs: “Trump’s rhetoric suggests continued deregulation, but specific actions in 2025 are less documented, with DOGE’s efforts described as ‘meager’ compared to Milei’s.”

One often heard the opinion, as recently as a year ago — sometimes as a whisper, sometimes as a boast of savvy opinion or special knowledge, or even daring prophecy — that Michelle Obama was the Democrats’ secret weapon, the most likely next “sure thing” candidate for the presidency.

Is anyone saying it now?

Michelle Obama’s candidacy is off the table. Comb through X — you’ll see almost no one thumping for Mrs. Obama.

Of course, it was never really on. She always denied any interest in it. But that did not prevent the sages of our age from repeating the notion. Until the election, Senator Ted Cruz talked up Michelle Obama as a potential unkillable candidate on his podcast, and historian Brion McClanahan did the same on his.

Now? Crickets.

But what made the savvy sages of our time drop the issue?

There are probably two issues:

I. The general collapse of Democratic Party cultural cachet after the debacle that was the Kamala Harris campaign. The Democrats have great trouble reaching a majority of Americans right now. It is the party’s issues. Michelle Obama would not solve this problem. (Or would she?)

II. The fizzle that was (or at least yawns induced by) “IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson.” It is not doing well on YouTube, and not creating much buzz outside of a narrow fan base. Or so it appears to those outside the fan base. Apple and Spotify say the podcast is a success.

But if success it be, Michelle Obama’s enduring popularity does not seem to be remotely political. This may reflect her own non-political outlook on life.

Almost certainly the lack of Michelle O. buzz has nothing to do with this:

Today’s “Thought” (see below) features Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett dismissing fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. This passage from Justice Barrett’s write-up of the Trump v. CASA decision has been shared a great on social media since it came down yesterday.

The whole passage is worth reading (see links here), and may demonstrate some tension on the court. In social media, much has been made about the . . . sportive . . . or political . . . or even “catfight” . . . element of it all, or as a sign that Jackson is a “DEI hire” etc. But the actual decision is of no small moment, and worth reading.

The Epoch Times offers “five takeaways,” with the summary in the blurb: “By limiting the ability of judges to issue universal blocks, the court’s ruling is expected to affect other cases contesting Trump administration policies.”

ONE: Nationwide Injunctions Not Consistent With Nation’s History

“The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” Barrett said. “Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.”

TWO: Broad Relief Still Possible

A key aspect of Barrett’s opinion indicated that broad relief was not necessarily bad but depended on who the plaintiffs in particular cases were. Courts, she said, could issue orders designed to provide “complete” relief for the parties before the court rather than other individuals in similar situations.

THREE: Unclear How Birthright Citizenship Issue Will Play Out

“No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett said. “But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.”

Note that this quoted passage follows immediately after the oft-shared swipe at Justice Jackson.

FOUR: Dissenters Say Constitutional Rights in Danger

Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who penned her own dissent, expressed their disagreement with Barrett and her majority opinion colleagues.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor said. She added that while birthright citizenship might be under threat today, “tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

Because the majority decision limited relief to parties before the court, it rendered “constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit,” Sotomayor said.

Jackson, meanwhile, described the majority’s decision as “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Her separate dissent suggested that Barrett had focused too much on history and not enough on broader and more basic principles, like whether the judiciary can stop unlawful behavior.

FIVE: Majority Has Strong Words for Jackson

In multiple portions of Barrett’s majority opinion, she and her fellow justices leveled criticisms of Jackson’s dissent.

At one point, Barrett said that Jackson’s position was “difficult to pin down.” After briefly discussing Jackson’s dissent, Barrett adds that the majority “will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”

The Epoch Times article ends with Barrett’s most generalized critique of Jackson’s dissent, where she says that Ketanji Brown Jackson’s position “would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”

And this might be the biggest ideological takeaway. Progressives (which are what Jackson and fellow justices Sotomayor and Kagan most obviously are) have relied heavily on court rulings to advance their political agenda. They tend not to win on their issues through majority vote of the people. For good or ill, many of the major “progressive” achievements, such as regarding de-segregation and abortion, were achieved largely on the basis of key Supreme Court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

More recently, Democrats have relied heavily on injunctions of the lesser federal courts to “stop Trump.”

The ruling in Trump v. CASA limits this tactic somewhat.

From early on, blood clotting has been rumored to be associated with COVID and its treatments [“vaccines”]:

The entry for “clot shot” in the Urban Dictionary is amusing:

Slangsphere.com has advice:

But is it really the case that rumors of clotting are merely that, mere rumors? An efflorescence of dark humor in a trying time? Dr. John Campbell has been following the story, and interviewing doctors, scientists, and embalmers:

In this repeat interview with Major Tom Haviland, who has spoken to and polled embalmers at morticians’ conventions, we learn that while the stories told and evidence collected by embalmers working on dead bodies (preparing them for internment) are alarming, scientists and government funders have shown remarkable restraint in following up on clues.

The clots being found after the rollout of the various “vaccines” are not just small, easy to tear. They are large, “tough and rubbery.”

However, the mainstream of the medical profession takes pains to debunk these stories every now and then, dismissing them as tall tales, or as almost anodyne, quite common before and after the pandemic, contrary to the testimony of Haviland.

Note that Haviland and Campbell are not talking about microclotting. Nor is Haviland referring to “chicken fat clots,” which are small, yellow, and have been observed for a very long time. Haviland is on track of an even more alarming trend, which features clots of sometimes gruesome length.

Be careful in choosing an emoji to accompany your “clot shot” epithet.