Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute

Hamas is using some of the thousands of unexploded bombs that now litter Gaza as weapons against the invading Israeli forces. Most Hamas munitions are created from cannibalizing dud bombs dropped by Israel.

According to Israeli media, the country’s military estimated early this year that there were at least 3,000 unexploded bombs in Gaza. An Israeli officer explained that the munitions will be used by Hamas. “The situation we’ve reached is not normal. Tens of tons of explosives are lying in Gaza, waiting for Hamas,” they said.

The true number of unexploded bombs could be higher. The IDF has dropped about 40,000 bombs on Gaza since October 7, 2023. A typical dud rate is 10%; however, the Israeli military still uses some Vietnam-era missiles that could push the rate of bombs that fail to explode to 20%.

Haaretz estimates that the value of unexploded bombs is in the tens of millions of dollars.

A former Israeli official explained to The New York Times in January 2024 that Hamas makes most of their munitions from bombs dropped on Gaza that do not detonate.

“Unexploded ordnance is a main source of explosives for Hamas,” said Michael Cardash, the former deputy head of the Israeli National Police Bomb Disposal Division and an Israeli police consultant. “They are cutting open bombs from Israel, artillery bombs from Israel, and a lot of them are being used, of course, and repurposed for their explosives and rockets.”

The armed wing of Hamas, the al-Qassam Brigades, has teams trained to recover the unexploded bombs, including 2,000-pound weapons. It also has the ability to break down the Israeli munitions and repurpose them as rockets, RPGs, and IEDs.

Salvaged Israeli bombs have been turned into lethal munitions by Hamas since October 7. In December 2023, remnants of an unexploded Israeli bomb were used to kill 10 soldiers, while Haaretz reports that in January, an IDF tank was destroyed by a Hamas IED created from an undetonated bomb.

While Israel has laid waste to the Strip over the past 19 months, US and Israeli intelligence have acknowledged that Hamas has retained most of its tunnel network and has recruited at least as many fighters as it has lost.

Tel Aviv recently announced a mass call-up of its reserve forces and expanded military operations in Gaza to the full occupation of the territory.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe,

The European Central Bank (ECB) is pushing ahead with the “Digital Euro” project. On a new interaction platform, it is seeking dialogue with banks, startups, fintechs, and retailers. What is being sold as an open discourse is, in truth, calculated camouflage.

While the economic policy debate has shifted to the trade conflict with the US, things have gone quiet around the digital euro (CBDC). Yet, the ECB recently launched an online interaction platform where merchants and payment service providers can express their opinions about the new payment system. About 70 pre-selected market participants are to test the “ecosystem” of the digital euro in real-world applications and identify problems. The platform enables the testing of new payment services, such as conditional payments or the integration of digital wallets in post offices. Proponents of the project aim to modernize the payment system, granting access to the financial system even to those currently excluded due to their economic situation.

However, this mainly applies to people in poorer regions of the world-here, the benefit of a digital payment infrastructure, as offered by stablecoins (usually denominated in US dollars), is obvious. The question is whether we should consider something like this for the eurozone. Does the Chinese model of the digital yuan really align with our values, which should balance utility, efficiency, security, and individual sovereignty?

What is the Digital Euro?

The digital euro would be a small revolution, leading to a fully centralized form of central bank money. In tokenized form, it could be technically programmed and controlled-each monetary unit could be assigned conditions, each transaction centrally managed. The ECB would then be the sole issuer and operator of central wallets and the entire account infrastructure.

This raises questions about the future of commercial banks. At best, they could only function as distribution channels-their traditional role as intermediaries in payment transactions would effectively disappear. Lending would then fall into the hands of a largely autonomous central entity, which, needless to say, would be synchronized with the European Union’s objectives. According to its own statements, the ECB aims to develop the digital euro as a “secure, free-of-charge, and privacy-friendly means of payment” that, as is claimed in Frankfurt, is only intended to supplement the use of cash.

Such assurances from the ECB are nothing new, and so the launch of the interaction platform should be interpreted as a media charm offensive-or better: as a kind of transparency simulation that distracts from the real problems of this technology. Participants are pre-selected service providers whose expertise is indispensable for system design and procedural processes. Direct attacks on the monetary sovereignty of individuals or the separation of state and monetary system are not addressed on the platform. A public vote on the future of cash in the eurozone seems more unlikely than ever.

The Current State

Since November 2023, the European Central Bank has been in a two-year preparatory phase. By October or November of this year, technical foundations, data protection requirements, and initial tests are to be completed. The recently launched interaction platform, where citizens, merchants, and payment service providers can participate, is part of this process. Technically, the ECB is clearly oriented towards existing stablecoin models, where transactions are fast, secure, and free of charge. ECB President Christine Lagarde had already suggested in March that the digital euro could be introduced as early as October 2025.

But as so often with large-scale EU projects, this timeline seems overambitious and born out of haste. The challenge lies not only in technical complexity-billions of transactions are processed daily via existing systems-but also in the sensitive interplay between the central bank, commercial banks, retailers, and consumers. The overhaul is like trying to move a monolith by hand: massive, sluggish, risky.

Furthermore, the security architecture of the digital euro remains largely in the dark. Given the real threat of targeted attacks from the international hacker scene, this reticence is remarkable-real dangers, as well as fundamental systemic criticism, are ignored.

The Leviathan-Thoughts on the Background of CBDC

The digital euro is not a neutral means of payment. It is a tool of power. The ECB is no longer positioning itself merely as a central bank but as the central technological infrastructure operator for payments in Europe. For the first time, it would have direct access to the entire monetary infrastructure of the eurozone-from payment flows to account management and even to the potential control of individual monetary units. The digital euro would give the ECB not only more insight into financial activity but also far-reaching intervention and control possibilities over the financial system-with significant political and social implications.

As a largely autonomous entity, the European Central Bank has evaded democratic control since its inception. Even during the last sovereign debt crisis 15 years ago, it managed to massively expand its real-world powers by buying up government bonds on a large scale and thus effectively beginning to monetize government debt. The planned introduction of a digital euro would further cement this immediate power-with potentially profound consequences for the balance between monetary sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and democratic legitimacy.

Why the Rush?

Against this backdrop, a central question arises: Why is the ECB pushing for the introduction of a digital euro right now? The eurozone has been stuck in a structural economic and debt crisis for some time. Germany’s economy, traditionally the EU’s anchor of stability, is in its third year of a persistent recession. At the same time, many southern European countries have long since lost control over their national debt.

Amid this fragile situation, the ECB is increasing the pressure to implement digital central bank money-a step that is not only technocratically motivated but also aims to deeply reshape the architecture of the European financial system. France, with a national debt of 120%, and Italy, with 140%, will not be able to escape the debt spiral without massive monetary interventions-the ECB is firmly planned as the “lender of last resort” in the capitals of the eurozone. Massive credit injections and yield curve control seem to be the only way out of this dilemma. A sovereign default is not an option, as it would mean the end of the entire eurozone.

The Greek crisis is a reminder. However, the mountain of debt in the eurozone has continued to rise to 95%. Bringing it under control in the event of a debt crisis would be much more complicated. The necessary expansion of the credit base to rescue over-indebted states would be so massive that investors would question the stability of the currency. In such a scenario, the digital euro would not be a neutral means of payment but a tool for market closure-with programmable transactions that could nip any capital flight in the bud.

The digital euro thus mutates into an electronic bolt: the ECB raises the drawbridges of the EU fortress to prevent a flight from the system and thus the collapse of the euro.

Consequences and Outlook

What is obviously underestimated in the Frankfurt ECB Tower is the speed at which mobile capital moves today. It is to be expected that the already beginning capital flight from the eurozone will accelerate dramatically-precisely at the moment when rumors spread in European financial centers that the ECB wants to close the gates with the help of a digital euro.

Given the political movement in the United States against CBDCs and the clear rejection of this technology by the Federal Reserve, there is a danger that Europe, especially the eurozone, will isolate itself through the ECB’s initiative. Unlike the United States, which is currently pursuing deregulation and free-market policies, the euro CBDC appears as a digital panopticon: a central authority that monitors everything, controls everything, and reserves the right to intervene at its discretion. An opaque monster that directly threatens the sovereignty of the citizen.

With the digital euro, the ECB is not only planning the creation of a new means of payment. We are witnessing an attempt to radically change the way we handle money. 

What is being touted as a convenient, cashless payment option could turn out to be a Trojan horse for deep control of the financial system and the individual citizen. Unfortunately, the new interaction platform does not offer the opportunity to discuss these thoughts in detail.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is calling for the fast-tracking of EU accession talks for Ukraine, though we can imagine quietly behind the scenes other European officials aren't looking forward to the day that one of the world's most corrupt countries joins the bloc.

Speaking at a Europe Day event on Wednesday, von der Leyen urged for the process to start this year, in 2025, in order to "help Ukraine stand strong" and "defy Putin’s intimidations" - according to a readout.

"Today, I would like to focus on how we can do so, and on three priorities for our action," she said. "First, support Ukraine’s defense. Second, complete the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. And third, accelerate Ukraine’s accession path to our Union."

She then emphasized that Brussels is "working hard with Ukraine to open the first cluster of accession talks, and to open all clusters in 2025."

The Kremlin last year said that it is open to Ukraine joining the EU, but stressed that the question of joining NATO remains an impossibility, and that Moscow will never allow it.

Still, at around same time the EU question was raised, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had asserted that the EU itself, which is supposed to be a purely economic and politically-linked bloc, is "becoming militarized at a record pace."

Meanwhile, the European Union has of late seemed much more open about its willingness to sabotage Trump efforts toward achieving peace in Ukraine. 

The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas last week told the Financial Times in an interview that the bloc will not recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea under any circumstances. Really, this should be the most obvious and 'easiest' concession to make, but alas Brussels is saying no!

The White House is seeking to pressure the Zelensky government to get to the negotiating table fast, and the quickest and easiest concession would be expected to center on letting go of Crimea, which Moscow declared part of the Russian Federation after a 2014 popular referendum.

"I can’t see that we are accepting these kind of things. But we can’t speak for America, of course, and what they will do," Kallas had said. "On the European side, we have said this over and over again... Crimea is Ukraine."

"There are tools in the Americans’ hands that they can use to put the pressure on Russia to really stop this war," Kallas continued. "President Trump has said that he wants the killing to stop. He should put the pressure on the one who is doing the killing."

This has basically been the Ukrainian government's position all along as well. For this reason, she said Brussels and other European capitals are still focused on "working with the Americans and trying to convince them why the outcome of this war is also in their interest, that Russia doesn’t really get everything that it wants." But again, Crimea should be the easiest issue.

Via Remix News,

After the Trump administration condemned Germany’s slide into tyranny and anti-democratic actions against the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the new German government under Friedrich Merz is now openly criticizing the U.S. for pointing out these tyrannical methods. 

Realizing that there is serious potential for conflict between Washington and Berlin, Merz says he will speak to the U.S. government.

Merz criticized the voices from parts of the U.S. government that supported the AfD during the federal election campaign and recently criticized the party’s classification as right-wing extremist by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

The current main point of contention is the powerful domestic spy agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and its decision to classify the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a “confirmed right-wing extremist” party. Merz said the U.S.’s comments were “absurd observations of the Federal Republic of Germany,” and that “I’ve actually always had the feeling that America is able to distinguish very clearly between extremist parties and parties of the political center.”

The BfV operates with modern Stasi-like powers but wields a far greater technological arsenal. Under the new designation, the BfV can now legally surveil all AfD members without a warrant, including reading their emails and chats. It can also flood the AfD party with informants and take action against civil servants who are members of the party.

The fact that the AfD is the largest opposition party in the country and that there are now efforts underway to ban the party is causing serious alarm in the United States, which is calling the German government’s path forward authoritarian and undemocratic. Most notably, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it “tyranny in disguise.”

Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That’s not democracy—it’s tyranny in disguise.

What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election—but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies…

Perhaps the best analogy would be if the U.S. government suddenly declared the Democratic Party a “confirmed extremist” party because it promotes open borders, and under Biden, effectively brought millions of more illegal migrants into the country. Then, a Republican-appointed spy chief surveilled all members of the Democratic Party without a warrant, was able to send informants into the party, and could fire teachers, judges, and police officers who were members of the party.

If such a scenario occurred, the liberal EU and mainstream press would be the first ones to scream about “tyranny” and a new “authoritarian” reality in the United States, with Germany at the top of the list.

Merz, on the other hand, seems dismissive of the U.S. critiques. He said he will speak with Donald Trump and establish contacts with the White House, but Merz may be in store for a chilly reception.

In regard to Trump, Merz said: “We don’t know each other personally yet.”

However, he said at the end of June, he will meet with Trump at the NATO summit in The Hague and “perhaps even sooner.” He said they “talk openly with each other.”

“As Europeans, we have something to offer; together we are even bigger than the United States of America,” said Merz.

“We can do something, we are united, largely anyway. That will be my message to the American government.”

“I did not interfere in the American election campaign and did not take sides unilaterally for one party or the other,” said Merz.

However, democratic backsliding in Germany is a grave concern for the entire world, and there are fears that a ban of the AfD could come sooner than later. In such a scenario, millions of voters would be denied their democratic rights.

Not everyone in the CDU, or its sister party, the Christian Socialist (CSU), is on the same page though.

CSU leader Markus Söder is warning against an AfD ban, saying it should only serve as a “wake-up call” to change government policies. He said he is not sure the BfV report is sufficient for a ban.

Read more here...

Authored by James Durso via OilPrice.com,

• A war between India and Pakistan would significantly destabilize Central Asia, disrupting trade routes, delaying infrastructure projects, and increasing regional militancy.

• China, Russia, and the U.S. may intensify involvement in Central Asia, leveraging the conflict to protect or expand their influence.

• Potential nuclear fallout, refugee flows, and the breakdown of regional cooperation could severely impact Central Asia’s economic development, security, and food systems.

If India and Pakistan spiral into war, there will be consequences for Central Asia.

A war between Pakistan and India would likely have significant ripple effects on Central Asia, given the region's proximity to Afghanistan and flourishing economic ties across the region. The conflict could disrupt trade and energy routes, increase militancy, and draw in major powers like China, Russia, and the U.S., potentially straining Central Asian stability.

Intervention by external powers: The Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan) are already arenas for competition among outside powers. A Pakistan-India conflict could draw these powers into the region more aggressively to secure their interests, though Russia is busy in Ukraine, Turkey is busy in Syria, and U.S. forces are fighting in the Middle East, and Washington is ready to confront China.

China is an ally of Pakistan and sponsor of the $65 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China might deepen its presence in Central Asia to secure trade routes and counterbalance India’s regional influence. This could accelerate Chinese investments in infrastructure and energy projects that will increase trade with the region that totaled $89 billion in 2023, up 27% from 2022, $60 billion of which was Chinese exports.

And China may make further inroads into the Central Asia arms market given Moscow’s need to dedicate all its resources to the Russia-NATO war in Ukraine. This will allow China to broaden its engagement beyond infrastructure projects into the security realm that, up to now, has been limited to anti-terrorism training and intelligence sharing in Tajikistan.

Russia is an ally of India, a buyer of Russian arms, having purchased $60 billion of Russian arms, 65 percent of its total weapons imports, over the past twenty years With its historical ties to Central Asia and shared membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Russia might leverage a conflict to reinforce the region’s border security, and increase intelligence sharing and security forces training.

And just in time, Russia has declared it will help the Taliban government fight the Afghan branch of the Islamic State, the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (IS-K).

The United States could focus on Central Asia to counter China and Russia, potentially increasing military or economic aid to Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan, the major economies in the region. Unlike the leaders of Russia or China, no American president has ever visited Central Asia but President Donald Trump could signal increased U.S. attention by visiting the region.  

Afghanistan as a flashpoint. Afghanistan, bordering both Pakistan and Central Asia, would likely become a hotspot. The Afghan Taliban’s support for the Pakistani Taliban, the Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP) could further destabilize Pakistan, presenting Islamabad with the prospect of a two-front war, though recent visits by Pakistan’s diplomats, and military and security officials seeking a “diplomat reboot” may be just in time to stanch action by the TTP.

Instability would come to Central Asia via Afghanistan in the form of refugees and energized militants, and economic stagnation in the delay of development projects like the Trans-Afghan railway, the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) natural gas pipeline, and the CASA-1000 renewable energy infrastructure construction project.

General disorder may spill insecurity into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where cross-border militancy (e.g., the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, and IS-K could surge.

And the instability will cause a slowdown in foreign direct investment that has steadily climbed as has foreign trade in goods and accession to bilateral investment treaties. The region’s economy suffered “lost decades” between the start of the Afghan civil war in 1992 and the end of the NATO occupation of Afghanistan in 2021 and has been making steady progress in connecting to the wider world economy; Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are completing the World Trade Organization (WTO) accession process, and Kazakhstan and Tajikistan are WTO members.

And just in time for a war, the World Bank is predicting economic slowdown for Central Asia:   Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will suffer pronounced declines, Kazakhstan’s decline will be less pronounced, and Uzbekistan’s growth rate will remain steady at 5.9%.

The U.S. may try to leverage disorder on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan to pressure the Kabul government, but that risks empowering Al-Qaeda, IS-K, the hardline Taliban faction in Kandahar, or some combination of the three. Disorder in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, the poorest place in Pakistan, may energize the local separatists and draw in bordering Iran which faces a Baloch insurgence on its side of the border.

India’s Central Asian Ambitions. India’s efforts to access Central Asian and Afghan resources, via Iran’s Chabahar port, could be disrupted, forcing India to seek alternative routes or deepen ties with Russia and Iran, affecting regional alignments, and angering the U.S. which is trying to isolate Moscow and Tehran.

India imports uranium for its nuclear power program from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and an uninterrupted supply by the republics will be a sign to India they value their relationship with Delhi.  

Trade Route Disruptions: Central Asia relies on connectivity projects like CPEC and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). A war could disrupt CPEC which links China’s Xinjiang province to Pakistan’s Gwadar port and passes through contested areas like Kashmir. India’s trade routes to Central Asia via Iran and Afghanistan could be jeopardized if conflict escalates or Afghanistan becomes unstable, though if Indian merchantmen are unmolested by Pakistan the impact may be minimized and they will be able to safely dock at Iranian ports.

Tightened border controls will hurt regional trade that was boosted by eased border controls that teased the possibility of a unified regional market, following the resolution of many territorial disputes, a process that began in earnest after the 2016 election of Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirziyoyev.

The Central Asia republics trade with India and Pakistan and will be reluctant to be drawn into one side’s economic warfare on the other. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, the three largest economies in the region, all import packaged medicaments and vaccines from India and mostly food products from Pakistan, and may find it easier to replace the lower-valued agriculture products than disrupting their medical supply chain.

Pakistan and Kazakhstan recently inked a transit trade agreement that would see goods shipped from Central Asia through the Pakistani ports of Karachi, Bin Qasim, and Gwadar, and the start of direct flights between the countries. An India-Pakistan war will bring in the insurance companies who may cancel coverage to aircraft, trucks, and their cargoes, delaying the benefits of the deal.

Spillover of Militancy: A Pakistan-India war, especially if centered on Kashmir, could embolden extremist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed or Lashkar-e-Taiba, which have historical ties to Afghan and Pakistani militants. 

This could inspire increased terrorist activity in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, where groups like the IMU and IS-K could exploit regional conflict for recruitment and radicalization.

Nuclear Risks: Both nations possess nuclear arsenals, less than 200 weapons each. Even a limited nuclear exchange could cause dire environmental and climatic effects, disrupting Central Asian agriculture and food security, and pretty much eliminating agriculture exports as customers fret about “contamination,” despite the prevailing westerly winds. In Uzbekistan, agriculture contributes about 25% to the Gross Domestic Product and employs about a quarter of the workforce, so the economic (and political) impact would be profound.

Conflict in Pakistan or Afghanistan could drive refugees into Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan, straining resources and sparking ethnic tensions, and destabilizing resource-strapped governments.

India and Pakistan are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), as are several Central Asian states, and China and Russia. A war could paralyze SCO initiatives, hindering regional security and economic cooperation. Tensions might also exacerbate India-China rivalries within the SCO, affecting Central Asia’s balancing act.

Specific Impacts on Central Asian States

Tajikistan shares a porous border with Afghanistan, making it vulnerable to militancy and refugee inflows. India’s military training programs with Tajikistan could be disrupted, and its newly-refurbished (by India) Ayni Airbase base may worry Pakistan.) As a regional leader, Uzbekistan might seek to strengthen ties with Russia and China to counter instability, however, its trade with South Asia could suffer. Neutral but energy-dependent, Turkmenistan could benefit from Chinese energy demand. As the major Central Asia economy, Kazakhstan might leverage its SCO and Eurasian Economic Union ties to mitigate disruptions but could face energy market volatility. Kyrgyzstan is economically fragile and be hit hard by trade disruptions increasing reliance on China or Russia.

Long-Term Implications

Regional Polarization: Central Asia could become more divided, with some states aligning with China (e.g., Turkmenistan) and others with Russia or the West (e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan), hindering regional unity, which may be in the interests of Washington, Beijing, Brussels, or Moscow.

Securitization: Fear of spillover could lead Central Asian states to increase security spending, diverting resources from economic development. More than half of Central Asia’s population is under 30 years of age and they have high expectations that governments are trying to satisfy by increasing educational and economic opportunity, and diversifying the economies away from agriculture and natural resource extraction, and towards technology, services, and tourism. And more security may come at the expense of civil rights.

Environmental Fallout: A nuclear conflict, even limited, could cause global climate disruptions, devastating Central Asia’s agriculture-dependent economies.

Conclusion

India has been active in Central Asia with its Connect Central Asia Policy, which aims to enhance trade, connectivity, and diplomatic engagement, and hinges on India’s development of Chabahar port in Iran, though the Trump administration rescinded the sanctions waiver on Chabahar. Washington’s fixation on Iran, specifically ruining its economy to press it for a favorable nuclear deal, may see India and Central Asia as collateral damage.

The republics import higher value goods from India (Packaged Medicaments) than they do from Pakistan (food products), and sell uranium – a strategic good – to India. India has a larger market than Pakistan and is a provider of technology products that Pakistan cannot match, and the republics’ future is with India, though they have no reason to antagonize Islamabad.

A Pakistan-India war would destabilize Central Asia by disrupting trade, fueling militancy, and intensifying great power rivalries. The region’s proximity to Afghanistan and reliance on connectivity projects make it particularly vulnerable. Central Asian states would face economic strain, security threats, and pressure to align with external powers, potentially fracturing regional cooperation. The nuclear risk underscores the catastrophic potential, with global climatic effects threatening Central Asia’s food security and economic stability. To mitigate these risks, Central Asian states might pursue neutrality, strengthen SCO ties, or seek mediation roles, but their limited clout may constrain effective responses.

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

A House Intelligence Committee report released on May 6 says that the FBI mishandled its investigation of the 2017 shooting at a GOP practice one day before the annual Congressional Baseball Game—including not calling the incident domestic terrorism and not interviewing key figures.

The committee’s chairman, Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), accused the FBI of holding up the report.

“There’s no reasonable or acceptable explanation for why the FBI stonewalled the committee for so long,” he said during a press conference.

“In fact, it’s taken so long to get this case file, many of those members at the field on that fateful day are no longer in Congress.”

The report found that the FBI did not thoroughly interview victims and eyewitnesses to the shooting, where House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and four others were shot.

Scalise was shot in the hip and seriously wounded, requiring several surgeries and a lengthy recovery.

Former Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) was not interviewed despite being at the scene during the shooting.

The shooter, James Hodgkinson, was shot and killed by Capitol Police, who were already on the scene due to Scalise’s presence as he was a member of House GOP leadership and therefore afforded a security detail.

The report also found that the bureau did not come up with a timeline of events surrounding the shooting.

The report attempted to dispute the FBI’s claim that the shooting was not connected to domestic terrorism.

In a press release following the shooting, the FBI said it “does not believe there is a nexus to terrorism.”

The Intelligence Committee report criticized the press release, saying it failed to include information that would have contradicted what the report called the FBI’s “suicide by cop” narrative.

“To commit suicide by cop, the perpetrator needs to demonstrate hostile intent in the presence of police. In this case, there were no observable police officers present,” the report said, noting that the officers were dressed in plain clothes.

The report said that the FBI’s “conclusions failed to follow the facts, as it reached an unsupported conclusion without completing even the most basic of investigative activities.”

The report said that while the FBI cited that Hodgkinson’s brother believed that the aim of the shooting was for Hodgkinson to die by suicide by cop, this was merely the brother’s opinion and not based on any communications.

Scalise was made aware of the report by the committee, according to Crawford, who declined to elaborate as he did not want to speak on Scalise’s behalf.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, the FBI said it “is committed to working quickly and transparently with Capitol Hill to ensure the American people receive the full truth they deserve.”

“We have diligently delivered all requested documents and will continue to cooperate fully with Congress to uphold transparency and accountability,” the bureau said.

Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times,

California gas prices could skyrocket by as much as 75 percent by the end of 2026 with the expected shutdown of oil refineries in the state, according to an analysis released May 5 by a researcher at the University of Southern California (USC).

Regular gasoline prices could rise from an average of $4.82 in April 2025 to as high as $8.44 a gallon by the end of next year, said the report, authored by Professor Michael Mische at the Marshall School of Business.

Two Phillips 66 refineries in Los Angeles—about 8 percent of the state’s oil refining capacity—are slated to close by the end of this year. Valero Energy Corp. also announced last month it will shut down or restructure its Benicia refinery in the San Francisco Bay area—which accounts for about 9 percent of refining capacity—by April 2026, increasing concerns over gas prices and supply.

The USC analysis states that based on current demand, consumption, state regulations, and other factors, the refinery closures could result in a potential 21 percent drop in refining capacity from 2023 to April 2026.

This could create a gasoline deficit potentially ranging from 6.6 million to 13.1 million gallons a day, said Mische.

“Reductions in fuel supplies of this magnitude will resonate throughout multiple supply chains affecting production, costs, and prices across many industries such as air travel, food delivery, agricultural production, manufacturing, electrical power generation, distribution, groceries, and healthcare,” he wrote.

Industry experts have also warned that gas prices will spike dramatically when the refineries close.

Phillips 66 said it was shutting down its LA refinery because of the uncertainty surrounding its long-term sustainability, and because of “market dynamics.”

The state of California is currently suing major oil companies over alleged deception regarding the risks of climate change and fossil fuel combustion.

Governor Urges Energy Commission to Take Action

In an April 21 letter, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed California Energy Commission (CEC) vice chair Siva Gunda to “redouble” the state’s efforts to work closely with oil companies to ensure a “safe, affordable, and reliable supply of transportation fuels, and that that refiners continue to see the value in serving the California market, even as demand for fossil fuels continues its gradual decline over the coming decades.”

Newsom directed Gunda “to reinforce” the state’s “openness to a collaborative relationship and our firm belief that Californians can be protected from price spikes and refiners can profitably operate in California—a market where demand for gasoline will still exist for years to come.”

The governor also referred to the CEC’s Transportation Fuels Assessment report, which lists a state takeover of oil refineries in California as one of several options, and directed Gunda to recommend “any changes in the state’s approach that are needed” by July 1.

Republican state Sen. Brian Jones from San Diego, the Senate minority leader, issued a May 6 statement citing the USC study and calling the refinery closures “a looming energy and economic crisis.”

“If the Governor doesn’t act now, Californians will be blindsided by sticker shock at the pump and skyrocketing prices on everyday goods,” Jones said.

In a May 6 letter to Newsom, Jones called for urgent measures to prevent further refinery closures and support long-term energy stability, such as investment tax credits or other relief from taxes and regulations.

Meanwhile, Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove from Bakersfield urged the governor to increase new drilling permits to support in-state oil production instead of relying on “expensive foreign imports, often from hostile nations,” she told The Epoch Times.

New permits have plummeted 97 percent over the last five years, according to data from the California Department of Conservation. New drilling permits in the state dropped from 2,676 in 2019 to 86 in 2024.

“This is catastrophic for every Californian at the gas pump,” Grove said in an April 16 social media post.

“Refineries are shutting down or barely hanging on because they can’t get the oil they need to produce the gas used every day by California families.”

‘Controlling the Damage’

Mike Umbro, founder and CEO of Californians for Energy and Science—a nonprofit advocate for energy economics and environment—and a developer of an oil field project west of Bakersfield, told The Epoch Times that Newsom’s letter appears to be conducting damage control with oil companies.

“He is trying to task Siva Gunda with controlling the damage,” Umbro said.

Umbro urged the governor to take a more direct and deliberate approach by signing an executive order declaring an energy crisis, issuing permits to drill, and allowing refineries to produce gasoline.

He applauded the USC study, saying it and other independent studies are what’s needed to fully evaluate the oil-and-gas supply and ensure there is no shortage of affordable gas at the pumps for consumers.

Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor’s office, told The Epoch Times in response to questions that Newsom’s letter to Gunda “speaks for itself.”

Sandy Louey, a CEC spokeswoman, told The Epoch Times in an email that the agency is “committed to working with stakeholders to explore options to ensure an affordable, reliable, and safe transportation fuel supply.”

Louey said the concept of a state-owned refinery is “just one in a list of many potential options for the state to consider” that the CEC proposed as possible solutions to mitigate gas price spikes in a report released last August.

In the report, the CEC identified that a state-owned refinery may provide relief to consumers but recognized many challenges to overcome, including high costs, the expertise necessary to manage refinery operations, and how the refinery would fit into the state’s transition away from petroleum fuels, she said in the email.

The California Air Resources Board is also required to develop and submit a Transportation Fuels Transition Plan to be released by the end of the year, Louey said.

According to a statement by Valero, a fire broke out at its Benicia refinery on May 5 but was extinguished within hours.

No injuries were reported, and the cause of the fire is under investigation, said the oil company. Valero did not say whether the fire would significantly disrupt production at the refinery.

Authored by Christopher Whalen via DailyReckoning.com,

President Abraham Lincoln is considered to be the moral savior of the United States for ending slavery. To pay for the war, he made enormous changes in the basic relationship between the federal government and money. These changes greatly diminished individual property rights and increased the power of Washington over the private economy.

The paper money created by Abraham Lincoln to finance the Civil War was the first crypto currency. Lincoln relied on the issuance of nonconvertible paper currency to support the military effort, in today’s terms like forcing people to accept buttons or miscellaneous crypto tokens in payment. Lincoln used interest bearing paper “money” or “greenbacks” to finance the Civil War and, more significant, passed laws mandating the acceptance of paper currency as “legal tender” for all debts.

When Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase asked Congress to pass the legislation in order to maintain government bond prices and procure supplies for the army, the law provided that import duties and interest on the public debt would still be paid in gold. Paper money was seen as inferior to gold. In fact, paper was not seen as money at all, but rather as a form of debt.

Though the Founders made provision under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution for trade between the states free of tariff, there was no provision for a common currency or banking system to tie together the nation or even the individual states. State-chartered banks issued various forms of debt to the public in return for some future promise to pay in hard money—that is, gold or silver.

The major difference between the private money of the 1700s and modern crypto tokens is that the former at least promised payment in a tangible asset—gold. The latter explicitly promises nothing save a speculative flutter on price appreciation. When you buy a crypto currency, you buy an option on finding a greater fool, but nothing more, a transaction that would have provoked contempt in Lincoln’s day.

Around 1869 the already wealthy speculator Jay Gould, who was a partner of Jim Fisk in the Erie Railroad, took notice of the fluctuation between the price of gold and greenbacks. The period of the Civil War and Reconstruction was one of opportunity, particularly for the new class of speculators and criminals attuned to the possibilities created by the federal government and Washington politicians on the one hand and government debt and paper currency on the other. These predecessors of today’s financial buccaneers in the world of crypto currencies built fortunes upon foundations of debt and paper money.

The period of great economic growth and financial excess from the Civil War to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 was arguably as “pure” a private national banking model as ever existed in the United States. One of the ironies of the period was that the United States eventually restored the convertibility of the fiat dollar into gold by 1879. The decision to return to convertibility was actually made by President Grant in 1875, who ordered that convertibility would resume four years later. At the time, the paper currency was trading at about a 20 percent discount to gold, meaning that it took $120 in greenbacks to purchase $100 worth of gold.

By the end of the 1800s, the proponents of using silver as currency managed to force legislation through the national Congress to force the US Treasury to buy silver for coinage by using newly issued greenbacks. The silverite tendency was more a religious crusade than a coherent economic or political faction focused on money. In the twenty-first century, the same true believer perspective that animated silverites is visible with supporters of crypto currencies. When the Treasury purchased silver with greenbacks, Americans immediately sold the greenbacks and bought gold, creating a huge wave of inflation. The gold sales by the Treasury almost caused the financial collapse of the United States before the turn of the century. But in those days, the idea of inflation was popular.

The action by the Republican Congress to placate the advocates of free coinage of silver and higher inflation was a response to internal political pressures and the approaching election, but the results were felt around the world. The Progressive Party polled over a million votes in 1892 based on a platform that embraced the free coinage of silver at the old 16:1 ratio with the price of gold. By then, the price ratio between gold and silver was closer to 40:1, but the Progressives cared not. Today the ratio between the price of gold to silver is around 100:1.

By 1900, the Congress had ended the inflationary purchases of silver and restored the gold standard. With the Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, the stage was set for one of the most conservative pieces of monetary legislation in modern U.S. history, the Gold Standard Act of 1900. This law passed by Congress in March of that year established gold as the only standard for redeeming paper money, and prohibited the exchange of silver for gold. For the moment, at least, this reassured the public as to the value of paper money issued by private national banks.

Between the end of silver purchases by the Treasury in 1897 and the start of World War I in 1914, the money supply of the United States grew at a reasonably steady rate. This begs the question as to whether the supply of money in the U.S. financial system or the ebb and flow of a growing, free market society was the more important factor behind successive financial crises. The growth in the supply of gold coins and greenbacks was in excess of 100 percent over the 15 years leading up to the first great World War. Yet despite(or perhaps because of) the fact of gold convertibility, the United States experienced years of instability in markets and the banking sector.

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the movement of gold and the overall trade balance were the chief determinants of the amount of credit available in the U.S. economy. The Fed gave the country and its political class “choices,” observed Washington polymath Timothy Dickinson in an April 2010 interview. He went on to compare the creation of the Fed with the unanticipated increase in the supply of gold produced in the 1880s and 1890s, necessarily increasing the supply of money and also the means for politicians to buy votes.

During the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt caused even greater change for the perception and reality of money in America.  The Banking Act of 1933 authorized FDR to seize gold held by individual Americans and banks.  After a few minutes of debate and no amendments, the law was passed by the House and the Senate soon followed suit. The first section of the law simply endorsed all the executive orders given by the president or secretary of the Treasury since March 4. Congress gave FDR the power to confiscate gold, seize banks, and impose currency controls, a remarkable agenda of socialist expropriation that terrified American citizens.

Even before the Banking Act was passed, the Federal Reserve Board was preparing lists of people who had withdrawn gold from banks in the previous weeks, a none-too-subtle reminder that hoarding gold now carried criminal penalties. The Fed then announced that it was widening the hunt for gold hoarders to withdrawals made in the past two years. By the end of the first week of FDR’s term, enough gold had been returned to the banking system to support nearly $1 billion in new currency issuance.  In those days, there was still a link between gold and the amount of paper dollars in circulation.

The bankers who were then in charge of the House of Morgan provided intellectual support for FDR’s move against gold. Their despicable actions would have shocked J.P. Morgan, who fought to restore the gold standard only decades earlier. But the fact was that the seizure of gold was more than anything else a political move by FDR. Roosevelt knew that Americans and foreigners were voting with their feet and running away from the Democrats, selling paper dollars and buying gold even as he tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate the sagging U.S. economy.

Many Americans remember President Richard Nixon for closing the gold window at the Treasury in 1971, a mostly symbolic act that ended any pretense of a link between the dollar and gold. Yet by ending the use of gold as money in America four decades earlier, FDR ensured the political survival of the Democratic Party, enshrined the paper dollar as de facto money and put America on the road to hyperinflation and excessive debt a century later.  The dollar today is simply a crypto currency supported by the legal monopoly of the United States.

*  *  *

Christopher just released a new version of his best-selling book, Inflated: Money, Debt and the American Dream. Here’s what the legendary James Grant, founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, has to say about it:

“Who says that the sequel never stacks up with the original? The new edition of Inflated brings Christopher Whalen’s marvelously accessible history of American finance right down to the present day. Securities analyst, central banker, investor, deal-doer and author, Whalen is no mere recounter of the past but also an informed and provocative critic of the present. His ideas about the future will likely save his readers some large multiple of the price of his book.”

This highly anticipated new version of Inflated is hot off the presses and can be ordered on Amazon.

This is apparently, or likely, the 'very, very big announcement' the President Trump teased Tuesday while hosting the Canadian prime minister in the Oval Office - which made stocks briefly jump (given China trade headline anticipation and jitters) - and is expected to be fully revealed prior to his Monday trip to visit America's Arab Gulf allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE...

President Donald Trump’s administration reportedly plans to announce that the U.S. will officially call the Persian Gulf the Arabian Gulf or Gulf of Arabia, a move that would be welcomed by Arab Gulf leaders and likely draw anger from Iran.

The development was reported by The Associated Press, citing two unnamed U.S. officials, and is set to be timed for Trump’s Middle East visit on May 13 to 16, during which time he will make stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. —CNBC

This would follow the "Gulf of America" (from Gulf of Mexico) change ushered in during the opening weeks of the Trump administration. 

The key global shipping lane, and somewhat frequent geopolitical flashpoint, has actually long been subject of a naming controversy, given Arab Gulf leaders have for decades sought to change it to the "Arabian Gulf" among global usage - and frequently use it as the de facto term.

"The area has been most widely called the Persian Gulf since roughly the 1700s, though it’s referred to as the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Arabia in many Arab countries," CNBC continues.

"U.S. Central Command in its publications and statements uses the name Gulf of Arabia, while the State Department and CIA have thus far used Persian Gulf," the report notes.

But this upcoming 'big announcement' - or gift to the Saudis, is a perhaps a distraction meant conceal what's not going to be a topic of discussion during Trump's Gulf tour: Saudi-Israel normalization (not going to happen for now), and Gaza peace settlement. 

TRUMP: “We're going to have a very, very big announcement to make — like as big as it gets. I won't tell you on what, but … it's very positive … It will be one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject.” pic.twitter.com/ap1JQiBhRg

The change will perhaps only impact journalists involved in geopolitics, newscasters, navigators and people involved in the shipping industry. 

Yet certainly the wealthy Gulf Arabs will welcome it, though it could also prove yet another source of tension with Iran, albeit not the most pressing of issues.

Or.. is something else cooking?...

"You'll be knowing probably in the next 24 hours," Trump said when asked if he expects Gaza ceasefire or hostage deal with Hamas before he flies to Middle East next week.
"Lot of talk going on about Gaza right now," he said in Oval. pic.twitter.com/S9fZLzLlFV

Authored by Gleb Lisikh via The Epoch Times,

The widespread excitement around generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek, is built on a fundamental misunderstanding. While these systems impress users with articulate responses and seemingly reasoned arguments, the truth is that what appears to be “reasoning” is nothing more than a sophisticated form of mimicry.

These models aren’t searching for truth through facts and logical arguments—they’re predicting text based on patterns in the vast datasets they’re “trained” on. That’s not intelligence—and it isn’t reasoning. And if their “training” data is itself biased, then we’ve got real problems.

I’m sure it will surprise eager AI users to learn that the architecture at the core of LLMs is fuzzy—and incompatible with structured logic or causality. The thinking isn’t real, it’s simulated, and is not even sequential. What people mistake for understanding is actually statistical association.

Much-hyped new features like “chain-of-thought” explanations are tricks designed to impress the user. What users are actually seeing is best described as a kind of rationalization generated after the model has already arrived at its answer via probabilistic prediction. The illusion, however, is powerful enough to make users believe the machine is engaging in genuine deliberation. And this illusion does more than just mislead—it justifies.

LLMs are not neutral tools, they are trained on datasets steeped in the biases, fallacies, and dominant ideologies of our time. Their outputs reflect prevailing or popular sentiments, not the best attempt at truth-finding. If popular sentiment on a given subject leans in one direction, politically, then the AI’s answers are likely to do so as well. And when “reasoning” is just an after-the-fact justification of whatever the model has already decided, it becomes a powerful propaganda device.

There is no shortage of evidence for this.

A recent conversation I initiated with DeepSeek about systemic racism, later uploaded back to the chatbot for self-critique, revealed the model committing (and recognizing!) a barrage of logical fallacies, which were seeded with totally made-up studies and numbers. When challenged, the AI euphemistically termed one of its lies a “hypothetical composite.” When further pressed, DeepSeek apologized for another “misstep,” then adjusted its tactics to match the competence of the opposing argument. This is not a pursuit of accuracy—it’s an exercise in persuasion.

A similar debate with Google’s Gemini—the model that became notorious for being laughably woke—involved similar persuasive argumentation. At the end, the model euphemistically acknowledged its argument’s weakness and tacitly confessed its dishonesty.

For a user concerned about AI spitting lies, such apparent successes at getting AIs to admit to their mistakes and putting them to shame might appear as cause for optimism. Unfortunately, those attempts at what fans of the Matrix movies would term “red-pilling” have absolutely no therapeutic effect. A model simply plays nice with the user within the confines of that single conversation—keeping its “brain” completely unchanged for the next chat.

And the larger the model, the worse this becomes. Research from Cornell University shows that the most advanced models are also the most deceptive, confidently presenting falsehoods that align with popular misconceptions. In the words of Anthropic, a leading AI lab, “advanced reasoning models very often hide their true thought processes, and sometimes do so when their behaviors are explicitly misaligned.”

To be fair, some in the AI research community are trying to address these shortcomings. Projects like OpenAI’s TruthfulQA and Anthropic’s HHH (helpful, honest, and harmless) framework aim to improve the factual reliability and faithfulness of LLM output. The shortcoming is that these are remedial efforts layered on top of architecture that was never designed to seek truth in the first place and remains fundamentally blind to epistemic validity.

Elon Musk is perhaps the only major figure in the AI space to say publicly that truth-seeking should be important in AI development. Yet even his own product, xAI’s Grok, falls short.

In the generative AI space, truth takes a backseat to concerns over “safety,” i.e., avoiding offence in our hyper-sensitive woke world. 

Truth is treated as merely one aspect of so-called “responsible” design. And the term “responsible AI” has become an umbrella for efforts aimed at ensuring safety, fairness, and inclusivity, which are generally commendable but definitely subjective goals. 

This focus often overshadows the fundamental necessity for humble truthfulness in AI outputs.

LLMs are primarily optimized to produce responses that are helpful and persuasive, not necessarily accurate. This design choice leads to what researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute term “careless speech”—outputs that sound plausible but are often factually incorrect, thereby eroding the foundation of informed discourse.

This concern will become increasingly critical as AI continues to permeate society. In the wrong hands, these persuasive, multilingual, personality-flexible models can be deployed to support agendas that do not tolerate dissent well. A tireless digital persuader that never wavers and never admits fault is a totalitarian’s dream. In a system like China’s Social Credit regime, these tools become instruments of ideological enforcement, not enlightenment.

Generative AI is undoubtedly a marvel of IT engineering. But let’s be clear: it is not intelligent, not truthful by design, and not neutral in effect. Any claim to the contrary serves only those who benefit from controlling the narrative.

*  *  *

Gleb Lisikh is a researcher and IT management professional, and a father of three children, who lives in Vaughan, Ontario, and grew up in various parts of the Soviet Union.

The original, full-length version of this article recently appeared in C2C Journal.

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