This is what 30% of Americans support:

President Donald Trump claimed last week that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to avoid striking energy infrastructure targets, but on Sunday morning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy proudly boasted about striking “one of Russia’s key oil industry facilities,” leading critics to condemn Trump for “just another lie to manipulate markets.”

BBC reported that Ukraine launched its “largest” drone attack on the Moscow region since Russia’s 2022 invasion, killing at least two people and injuring 20 others. Moscow’s “main oil refinery” was among the targets struck.

“It appears that Trump’s claim last week that he negotiated a deal between Putin and Zelenskyy to stop bombing energy infrastructure was just another lie to manipulate markets,” wrote MeidasTouch Editor-in-Chief Ron Filipkowski Sunday morning in a social media post on X. “Every hour of every day, Trump lies about everything.”

Trump’s big fix for fuel crisis unravels as experts point to basic math: ‘Head scratcher’ Story by David Edwards Energy experts found that the first shipment of Russian diesel President Donald Trump touted as a price fix would keep the United States supplied for only a matter of hours.

Trump announced the deal Friday on Truth Social after a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He wrote that Russia would “immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace.”

Javier Blas, Bloomberg’s energy and commodities columnist, wrote on X that 300,000 tons is equivalent to only 2.2 million barrels, according to The New Republic.

He said the commitments were too small to make a “meaningful impact” on the surge in diesel prices.

“According to the BBC, the U.S. uses roughly 3.6 million barrels of diesel fuel per day, which works out to 491,000 metric tons. So… 300,000 tons of diesel is about 14-15 hours’ worth of U.S. supply,” immigration policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X.

“I’m doing you a big favor, Donald.”

“Oh, thank you, thank you Mr.  Putin. Does that mean I can build a Trump Tower Moscow? Please. Please.”

“Only if you keep helping me in this war, Donald. So far, you’ve been a good boy, which is why I helped get you elected. But I expect more from you.”

“And you will get more, sir. I promise. Oh, and a casino, too?”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

 

The FDA may allow some toxic chemicals in food without a safety review. Experts are alarmed
Tom Perkins — The Guardian
Regulator looks to expand loophole to allow dangerous compounds in food as long as they’re not carcinogenic

(But no vaccinations allowed).

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to expand a controversial loophole that lets some of the world’s most toxic chemicals be added directly to food without a safety review.

(But no vaccinations allowed.)

The “threshold of regulation” (TOR) exemption currently allows dangerous compounds to be used without review in food contact materials, such as packaging or processing equipment, if they are not carcinogenic and are added at levels below 0.5 parts per billion (ppb).

But campaigners say many chemicals, especially hormone disruptors linked to brain damage and reproductive harm in children, are considered dangerous at levels far below 0.5ppb.

Even in its limited form, the loophole has already raised alarm. One TOR exemption that allows the rocket fuel chemical perchlorate to be used in grain bags dramatically increased the amount of the compound found in kids’ cereal, which advocates say could cause brain damage.

(But no vaccinations allowed)

The new proposed TOR expansion would allow companies to use the chemicals as an ingredient added directly to food, as flavorings, preservatives, emulsifiers, processing aids, enzymes, stabilizers and binders, and for myriad other uses, in ultra-processing.

The revelation comes after Robert F Kennedy Jr and the FDA claimed victory and declared “promises kept” in August for “closing” a different controversial regulatory loophole called “generally regarded as safe” (Gras), which over the decades was used to send ingredients to the market that campaigners said could sicken, injure or kill people.

(But no vaccinations allowed)

But Kennedy and the FDA did not mention in their public relations material that the proposed Gras rule submitted quietly to the Federal Register includes the TOR expansion, which public health advocates warn will also send alarming levels of toxic chemicals to grocery store shelves. Some advocates have accused Kennedy of deception.

(But no vaccinations allowed)

Whew! Thank goodness our kids will not be subject to disease-preventing vaccinations. We’d much rather they ingest “the world’s most toxic chemicals” that are “linked to brain damage and reproductive harm in children.”

Thank you, Republican Party, for protecting our children.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

 

 

See, it’s like this: We power companies in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia don’t expect hurricanes, so we have no reason to bury or otherwise protect our power lines.

In the unlikely event a hurricane ever strikes us, it’s cheaper to leave millions without electricity for a while, then send crews out to fix the lines again.

We don’t really care about the inconvenience and damage our customers have from the lack of electricity. Hey, they’re stuck with us, so why worry? Let the insurance companies worry (Anyway, they just can raise their rates)

=============///===============

More than 860,000 without power: 10/10/2026
Isaias has left more than 860,000 people without electricity as it moves inland across the southeast. Here’s the latest breakdown of the worst-affected states, according to poweroutage.us: Florida: 436,745; Alabama: 316,366; Georgia: 87,334.

Major hurricanes that caused power outages
Here are some particularly significant examples from only the past two decades in just three states:

Year Hurricane States experiencing significant outages
2004 Ivan Florida, Alabama
2004 Frances and Jeanne Florida
2005 Dennis Florida, Alabama
2005 Katrina Alabama, Florida
2017 Irma Florida, Georgia, Alabama
2018 Michael Florida, Georgia, Alabama
2020 Sally Alabama, Florida
2020 Zeta Alabama, Georgia
2022 Ian Florida
2023 Idalia Florida, Georgia
2024 Helene Florida, Georgia
2024 Milton Florida

Some particularly dramatic cases:
Hurricane Irma (2017): Approximately 6.7 million Florida electricity customers lost power. Georgia also experienced extensive outages.
Hurricane Michael (2018): Devastated parts of Florida’s Panhandle and southwestern Georgia, destroying substantial electrical infrastructure.
Hurricane Ian (2022): More than 2.5 million Florida customers lost electricity.
Hurricane Helene (2024): Caused widespread outages across Florida and Georgia, with Georgia experiencing particularly severe damage.
Hurricane Milton (2024): Left millions of Florida customers without electricity. U.S. Energy Information Administration

Which state is most vulnerable?
Florida: Hurricane-related outages are a recurring problem, particularly along the Gulf Coast. Some years bring multiple major storms; other years bring none.
Georgia: Direct hurricane strikes are relatively uncommon, but hurricanes moving inland from Florida can cause widespread outages. Helene demonstrated that Georgia’s inland location does not guarantee protection.
Alabama: The Gulf Coast, particularly around Mobile and Baldwin counties, is vulnerable to hurricanes. Inland areas can also lose electricity from damaging winds and fallen trees.

The Energy Information Administration reports that hurricanes were a major reason Americans experienced unusually long electricity interruptions in 2024. U.S. Energy Information Administration

Never mind about Texas, Louisiana, the East Coast and outer islands. They never get hit, so why prepare?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Not one person in 1,000 knows this. You can be the one. In the next 3 minutes, you can learn how the Fed misleads you about inflation and interest rates.

The Wrong Cure for Inflation

Traditional anti-inflation policy often attempts to reduce demand. Higher interest rates, spending cuts, and tax increases can make borrowing and purchasing more expensive.

If enough people are prevented from buying homes, cars, medical care, or other goods and services, demand/price pressures may decline.

Here’s the prevailing logic:
1. Prices are rising because current demand exceeds supply.
2. The Fed’s cure is to raise another price—the price of money—which raises the cost of buying things until enough people no longer can afford them.
3. Their reduced buying then reduces demand, which supposedly reduces inflation.
4. Thus, the Fed deliberately increases costs in order to reduce cost increases.
5. Further, by increasing the cost of expanding production, the Fed helps perpetuate the inflation-causing shortages they are supposed to be fighting.

Get it? Actually, we don’t get it. And you shouldn’t like it.

Because interest is not included in the official consumer-price inflation, the Fed can reduce measured inflation while households’ cost of acquiring the same goods and services rises because of higher financing costs. In short, official inflation can go down while your costs go up.

Example: Suppose the price of a house remains at $400,000. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) may say its price hasn’t risen. But if mortgage rates jump from 3% to 7%, the monthly payment required to buy that same house rises enormously.

To the buyer, that’s not an academic distinction. Housing became more expensive. But the Fed would claim there was no inflation.

Similarly with a financed car. If the sticker price stops rising but the auto loan becomes much more expensive, official inflation can improve while the purchaser’s total cost worsens.

That suggests three different concepts that routinely get blurred together:

1. 1. Price inflation — the measured change in the prices included in an index such as CPI.
2. 2. Financing cost — what interest adds to the cost of acquiring something.
3. 3. Affordability — what the purchaser actually can afford after considering price, financing, income, taxes, etc.

The Fed principally targets the first by deliberately manipulating the second, thereby affecting the third. The Fed reduces measured inflation by making things less affordable.

If raising prices to lower prices isn’t  enough misleading irony, consider this: Suppose higher rates make a $400,000 house so expensive to finance that many potential buyers disappear. Eventually the seller cuts the price to $380,000.

Official statistics see downward pressure on the house price. The prospective homeowner may say: “They knocked $20,000 off the house and added $200,000 to my lifetime interest payments.”

The exact numbers depend on the mortgage, of course, but that’s the conceptual problem. The Fed’s mandate concerns price stability, not affordability stability.

Those are not the same thing. And if our real concern about inflation is ultimately that people have difficulty affording what they need, then deliberately reducing affordability to improve an inflation statistic deserves considerably more scrutiny than it usually receives.

If there are too few houses, one “solution” is to make mortgages so expensive that fewer families can buy houses. Another is to increase the housing supply via tax incentives, and other federal  rewards.

If energy is scarce, one “solution” is to suppress economic activity (force a recession) until energy demand falls. Another is to increase energy availability and efficiency, again, via tax  incentives, overseas purchases and other devices.

If medical services are scarce, one “solution” is to make medical care unaffordable for more people. Another is to produce more medical care by helping to fund medical education, hospital construction, medical R&D, etc..

The second approach grows the economy. The first just renames shortages, inflations and recessions.

Pretending to address inflation by making things less affordable and less available is the ultimate treachery.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell