Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Ketanji Brown Jackson Stops Just Short of Saying the Supreme Court Is Breathtakingly Full of Shit. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”
by Madiba K. Dennie
Balls and Strikes
August 22, 2025
https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/nih- ... alvinball/

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissenting opinion yesterday that did not mince words about the Supreme Court’s eager facilitation of the Trump administration’s discriminatory agenda. It was not the first time she has done so. And it will probably not be the last.

National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is a case about the cancellation of $783 million in federal grants to universities, hospitals, and labs—staggering cuts that threaten life-saving scientific inquiry into subjects like heart disease, suicide prevention, and HIV transmission. In response to Trump’s various executive orders targeting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “gender ideology,” NIH took a look at its funding recipients and decided that medical research that costs nearly $800 million (and is probably worth a lot more over the long term) could not go forward.

In July, a federal district court decided that the terminations demonstrated “an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues” and “pervasive racial discrimination.” The court ordered the government to restore the funds, and to stop enforcing NIH’s internal guidance documents for determining compliance with Trump’s executive orders while the case is pending. The government then filed an emergency petition to lift the order.

Late Thursday afternoon, the Court gave the government most of what it wanted, reinstituting the cuts that the lower court had blocked. NIH v. APHA has five mishmashed opinions, but the upshot of the Court’s decision limits the district court’s jurisdiction to lawsuits about the guidance on funding cuts, but not the actual cuts. Challenges to the grant terminations, the Court decided, themselves must be heard in the Court of Federal Claims instead.

In a dissent that no other justice joined, Jackson explained the impact of the Court’s decision, which (and this is a technical term) puts lives in jeopardy for no goddamn reason. By separating review of the grant termination policy from review of the grant terminations, she wrote, the Court created a two-track system that “neither coheres legally nor operates practically,” and that literally no one asked for. “Neither party to the case suggested this convoluted procedural outcome, and no prior court has held that the law requires it,” she said.

It also is not immediately clear what, if anything, grant recipients can do to get their funding back: At best, Jackson says, the Court’s scheme for judicial review is “deeply inefficient.” At worst, it is “likely impotent.”

The real-world consequences are dire. The Court never actually details how people whose funding grants are terminated can get relief, and in the meantime, the disruptions to that funding will stop critical research from taking place. “Make no mistake,” Jackson said, “the forward march of scientific discovery will not only be halted—it will be reversed.”

The most important observation in Jackson’s dissent is that, although the Court’s decision is remarkable in the harm it will inflict, other aspects of the decision are painfully familiar: Instead of “hunkering down” to preserve whatever remains of the rule of law, she writes, the Court regularly opts to make “preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible.”

In Jackson’s view, this is “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist.” Calvinball refers to the made-up game played by Calvin and Hobbes, a boy and his imaginary tiger friend who are the titular characters in Bill Watterson’s long-running comic strip. Calvinball famously has only one rule: “There are no fixed rules.” Here, Jackson wrote the Court seems to have two: “That one, and this Administration always wins.”

Jackson’s dissent is not a mere disagreement with a colleague’s judgment. She is demonstrating that what her colleagues are doing isn’t even judging; laws have little to no bearing on the outcome of their decisions, which are determined instead by Republican policy goals. For a long time, members of the public and the coordinate branches of government have accepted the Supreme Court’s rulings because they assumed, from the outside looking in, that it is a legitimate body to be taken seriously. Jackson is showing why it is not.

[admin]

Nobel Prize Committee Drops SURPRISE TRUMP BOMB
Occupy Democrats
Aug 26, 2025

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee just dropped a major Trump revelation — and it’s stirring controversy all over the world!



Transcript

It is with great irony that I can
introduce this breaking story with the
Nobel Peace Prize Committee just dropped
a massive bombshell on Donald Trump's
dream of capturing the prize he covets
the most. And I have all the satisfying
details for you next. There is nothing
the Donald loves more than bright shiny
objects that glorify his very existence.
And a ritual has erupted by those who
are paying attention and feel compelled
to woo the man's favor with bling. The
country of Qatar set the bar very high
by kissing us but with a luxury
jetliner. Tim Cook of Apple with no
shame kissed the ring with whatever this
is in 24 karat gold. And just today the
US Marshall service director was giddy
to give Trump a fake badge.
This badge comes with this little item
right here
which is a handcuff key. Mr. president.
But really, nothing speaks more to
Trump's affinity for shiny objects than
his remodel of the Oval Office. It now
has more bling than the Liberace Museum
in Las Vegas. And we just don't know
what has devalued 16 Pennsylvania Avenue
more, the Washington DC gunshots or his
golden shower of goddess. But there
remains one piece of bling that he's
desperate to add to his collection. And
of course, it's the Nobel Peace Prize.
In just a minute, I'll share how Trump's
desperation just went to the next level
over what's been leaked about the
committee that will decide his fate. But
first, you got to see this trending clip
from an Indian news channel that
perfectly mocks Trump asking for the
prize.

If only Donald Trump was president in
the 20th century. So much could have
been avoided. The First World War, the
Second World War, the nuclear arms race,
the Cold War, Trump could have prevented
all of it. We know that all politicians
are full of themselves. They can be
arrogant and boastful. But Trump is one
step ahead. He is shamelessly full of
himself. And we saw an example of that
yesterday. The White House openly
demanded a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald
Trump. Listen to this.

[Karolyn Leavitt] The president has
now ended conflicts between Thailand and
Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo,
and Egypt and Ethiopia. This means
President Trump has brokered on average
about one peace deal or ceasefire per
month during his six months in office.
It's well past time that President Trump
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

I think she missed a few there like Tom
and Jerry, Harry Potter and Voldemort,
Batman and the Joker, and Luke Skywalker
and Darth Vader. If you're going to make
fake claims, might as well go all in.
It's been a hallmark of Donald Trump. He
claims credit for everything. What's
worse, he wants global recognition for
it. In other words, he wants the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Now, just to be clear, a
lot of unworthy people have have
received this prize. A lot of unworthy
people have also been nominated for it,
but none of them asked for it. I mean,
this is not a reality TV contest. It's
not like you can send an SMS to Norway
nominating Donald Trump. And speaking of
Norway, where the Peace Prize Committee
is located, the Washington Post is
reporting that Trump should not be
clearing a space amongst his goldplated
clutter for their medal with a headline
that reads, "Trump badly wants a Nobel
Peace Prize. Most on the committee
oppose him."

President Donald Trump has
long quested after a Nobel Peace Prize,
a distinction that would put him in a
vaunted and exclusive club. But unlike a
US presidential campaign, winning a
Nobel Peace Prize depends on an
electorate of five. And Trump may not
have a majority. Trump's desire for a
Nobel has been a through-current of both
of his terms, but his effort has
escalated in recent months. He has mused
aloud that the peace deal in Ukraine
that he worked on in recent weeks might
be one key to the prize, but at least
three of the five Norwegian deciders
have criticized Trump publicly, making
his path to winning their votes far from
clear.

Trump's campaign has ranged from public
comments with fellow world leaders to a
private push with Norwegian Finance
Minister Yen Stolenberg, who built
strong ties to the US president as
NATO's Secretary General and whose
Norwegian Labor Party has a say in the
appointment of members to the Norwegian
Nobel Committee. And he has taken credit
for ending an ever-increasing roster of
conflicts. Last week's tally started at
six and by Friday was 10. If you think
about pre-wars, Trump said. "But he will
need to win over committee members who
for now at least appear skeptical." The
chairman of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee, Jorgen Vatna Frightens,
decried in December the erosion of
freedom of expression even in democratic
nations, calling out Trump by name.
Trump launched more than 100 verbal
attacks on the media during his election
campaign, said Fridens, 40, who has also
served as the head of Penn Norway, a
group that promotes freedom of
expression. In a nation where just 7% of
people said they would vote for Trump
over former Vice President Kamala Harris
in a poll conducted by Novice in
October, skepticism of the US president
is a mainstream view. Some members of
the Nobel committee make no secret that
they feel similarly.

After just over 100 days as president,
Trump is well underway in dismantling
American democracy, and he is doing
everything he can to tear down the
liberal and rules-based world order,
wrote Kristen Cleé, a former
center-right Norwegian education
minister and another of the five
committee members in May. A third member
of the committee and thus potentially
the lock on a Trump skeptic majority
posted several messages critical of the
president during his first term. In a
photo on Facebook posted the day before
the 2020 election. The committee member
Grie Larson was wearing a red "Make human
rights great again" baseball hat. Larson,
a former center-left politician, also
wrote in a 2017 Twitter post that Trump
is putting millions of lives at risk,
criticizing a decision to reduce US
foreign aid. It's rather unusual for a
candidate to talk like that, said Nina
Greger, the director of the Peace
Research Institute Oslo, a group that
researches international peace efforts
and creates an annual list of potential
recipients of that year's award. While
maybe the White House could brand
President Trump as a peacemaker chief if
you want, remember that genuine peace is
measured over time and it rarely rests
on one leader alone. Greger said the
fact that Trump has challenged and even
undermined international cooperation,
which is one of the areas that the
Alfred Nobel will focuses on, makes it a
little bit maybe unlikely.

Those were
the highlights. And here's another look
at the article if you'd like to read the
full piece by Michael Birbaum.

Trump's
obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize has
always been more about ego than peace.
He has coddled dictators, bullied
allies, and turned diplomacy into a
self-promotional circus. He has not
fostered global unity. And the very idea
that this man could be honored alongside
the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.,
Nelson Mandela, and this guy is
laughable, and the committee knows it.
But what's really telling is the
desperation. The prize isn't something
that Trump can buy, bully, or bluff
into, and the committee is immune to his
ways, and that eats at him. In the end,
the snub will be more than rejection. It
will be a reminder that he's not highly
regarded around the world. And that
goldplated garbage facade of his, it's
symbolic of the fact that he will be
remembered not as a statesman, but as a
con man. I'm Dan. Thanks for watching.
Please leave your thoughts with a
comment below, and let's continue to
occupy democracy together.

[admin]

MAXWELL INTERVIEW
by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Released: 8/22/25
viewtopic.php?f=206&t=4594&start=800#p41365

10 TODD BLANCHE: Let's just go a few more
11 minutes and take a break, I know it's after lunch.
12 So do you -- we talked several hours ago
13 about your father and his business a little bit.
14 After your father passed, do you know
15 whether Mr. Epstein was involved in your family
16 business, that you know of?
17 GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Absolutely not, in any
18 respect. First of all, there was no family business
19 left. Start with that problem. And the second one
20 is, my family didn't like him very much. And they
21 were busy dealing with their own problems and there
22 was no relationship whatsoever.
23 Oh, I mean, he -- my mum and he got along
24 quite well. That was it. But that was -- she's an
25 old lady and, you know, he was nice to her.
Page 164
1 TODD BLANCHE: We're repeat -- we're now
2 being a little repetitive, but you're confident that
3 before you met Mr. Epstein, he didn't know your
4 father, and so there's no -- he wouldn't have done
5 business with your father's companies in the '80s
6 either.
7 GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Absolutely not. I'm a
8 hundred percent sure of that. I never met him. I
9 never saw him. I never heard his name. No.
10 Nothing.

According to former Israeli military intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe, who I first interviewed in December 2019, Epstein’s affiliation with Israeli intelligence dated back at least to the mid-1980s, when Ben-Menashe was personally introduced to Epstein by Robert Maxwell. Per Ben-Menashe, Maxwell introduced Epstein as having been approved by the "higher ups" in the Israeli intelligence network where Ben-Menashe and Maxwell were both operating. The introduction reportedly occurred at Maxwell’s offices in London.85

During this period, Ben-Menashe has stated that he believes one of these "higher ups" was Ehud Barak, the future Prime Minister of Israel who was head of the Israeli military intelligence directorate AMAN from 1983 to 1985. Ben-Menashe could not recall the exact date of his introduction to Epstein, but stated that it occurred within that 1983-1985 period in which Barak held this post. Barak would later become infamous for his close proximity, not only to Epstein, but his sex trafficking/sex blackmail operation, which is discussed in the next chapter.

In a September 2019 interview with journalist and former CBS News producer Zev Shalev, he stated "he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our group.… I’m not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team from Israel, we were doing what we were doing."86

Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others revealed that Maxwell, Davies, and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time period. Ben-Menashe was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone else he knew at the time, but did confirm that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in which he, Davies, and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel’s behalf.

After the initial introduction, Ben-Menashe would witness Epstein at Maxwell’s offices on several occasions, stating that Epstein was "frequently present" at that location. Ben-Menashe stated specifically that Epstein "used to be in [Robert Maxwell’s] office [in London] quite often" and would arrive there between trips to and from Israel.87 Ben-Menashe also asserted that Ghislaine Maxwell accompanied her father so frequently that she was involved in his intelligence-related activities to some extent. However, he stopped short of saying how involved she was or what she had specifically been involved in prior to her father’s death. Ghislaine’s early life and her relationship with her father is detailed in Chapter 15.

Aside from Ben-Menashe’s claims, there are also statements made by Steven Hoffenberg that, during the late 1980s, Epstein had boasted of his ties to Israel’s intelligence services, claiming that it had been Ghislaine Maxwell who had made the introduction.88 Furthemore, Zev Shalev reported that another well-placed and independent source, who has remained anonymous, had corroborated Ben-Menashe’s assertions that Epstein had been an intelligence asset for Israel.89

Close ties to Israel’s government later in his life can also be seen in an odd visit Epstein made to Israel in 2008. The visit was odd partly due to the timing, as it took place during the course of his trial and just a few months before he was sentenced to prison in June 2008. In April of that year, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that Epstein was staying at the Tel Aviv Hilton and quoted an Epstein spokesman as saying that he was "spending Passover, meeting with Israeli research scientists, and taking a tour of military bases."90 Access to military bases is certainly not something easily obtained by tourists to Israel, even very wealthy ones, again suggesting that Epstein had long-standing connections to Israel’s national security apparatus, along with his "friendship" to Ehud Barak.

-- One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey, by Whitney Webb