Post

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1161033556522672129

More from @TheLastRefuge2

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Jun 9

1. At sporadic times of inconsequential normalcy, on the streets of Russia you will see two distinct types of people asked for identification, Asians and middle eastern males. When asked why, the average, ordinary grey-person in Russia going about their business, ambivalently has no idea.

Russia is a massive country.

To the southeast they are bordered by China, Mongolia and Asia, they even have a small border with North Korea. To the southwest they have the “stans,” most notably Kazakhstan; this region is the source of most domestic terrorists who attack inside Russia. To the West they have Ukraine and the EU nations.

From the standpoint of Russia, they have Asians on their East, Turks/Arabs on their South and EU supported Nazis on their Western flank.

Keep in mind, despite the breakup of the Soviet Union the muscle memory from World War II is still very much a part of their social compact.

2. Consider Arlington Cemetary for scale. If you were to build an Arlington type cemetery for all the Russians killed in World War II, the 27 million gravesites would envelop a landmass bigger than Washington DC. These realities underpin Russian perspectives.

Russia is drawn into an alignment with China not by desire, but rather by necessity. Most ordinary Russians do not like China, and they would prefer not to purchase Chinese industrial or manufactured goods. Russian President Vladimir Putin is well aware of this, and I believe U.S. President Donald Trump is aware also.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said publicly it should be U.S. policy to support separating the two biggest nuclear powers, China and Russia as a matter of strategic U.S. interest. President Trump said, “I’m going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too,” shortly before his election in November. “I have to un-unite them.”

In a very downplayed statement earlier this year generally hidden/ignored by media, the former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and current Secretary of State -also National Security Advisor- Marco Rubio, said “Ukraine was a proxy war for the United States against Russia.” Despite the U.S. media intentionally hiding the statement, Moscow immediately noticed and affirmed the accuracy.

3. Ukraine launched a covert attack against Russian air force bases last Sunday June 1st. President Trump was not informed of the attack in advance and was unaware it was going to take place. In the aftermath, President Trump and Secretary Rubio stayed quiet.

Three days after the attack, Wednesday, June 4, President Trump held a 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Last week the New York Times received “an eight-page internal F.S.B. planning document” … “that sets priorities for fending off Chinese espionage.”

[…] Ares Leaks, a cybercrime group, obtained the document but did not say how it did so. That makes definitive authentication impossible, but The Times shared the report with six Western intelligence agencies, all of which assessed it to be authentic. The document gives the most detailed behind-the-scenes view to date of Russian counterintelligence’s thinking about China.

[…] Russia has survived years of Western financial sanctions following the invasion, proving wrong the many politicians and experts who predicted the collapse of the country’s economy.

[…] The Russian document describes a “tense and dynamically developing” intelligence battle in the shadows between the two outwardly friendly nations.

[…] Read one way, the F.S.B. document lends credence to the theory that, with the right approach, Russia can be cleaved away from China. The document describes mistrust and suspicion on both sides of the relationship."

nytimes.com/2025/06/07/wor…

Read 4 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

May 29

From the New York trade court ruling:

"...[...] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b)."...

This is one reason why the ruling can be overturned. The Sec 301/302 investigation was completed by the USTR, with extensive citation.

NY Court citation:

cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/file…

USTR Citation 400 pages:

ustr.gov/sites/default/…

The court literally ignored the USTR investigation, AND the Dept of Commerce review and investigation of the same based on the USTR published findings.

This ruling will not pass inspection by a higher court, and as to the motive of the 3-judge panel.... follow the $$$, there are trillions at stake.

This is a ruling to the benefit of the multinationals.

USTR Citations for lengthy review:

ustr.gov/issue-areas/pr…

Read 4 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

May 19

1. The original agreement between Clinton and Obama going back to 2008 was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid.

Obama would be President. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.

John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left in 2013. Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House. The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other.

Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clintons’. That was always the plan running in the background.

2. In 2015 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a check-in meeting; just touching base to firm up the goals and objectives as Hillary began her campaign launch. Podesta left the White House to take up position inside the campaign, and Team Obama would maintain Clinton’s interests as planned without an insider.

All of President Obama’s appointments in after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (tarmac meeting), Deputy AG Sally Yates, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey were all part of that.

This is a key point missed by many. In the last two years of Obama, the cabinet and top-tier members of the administration would align their institutional interests to that of Hillary Clinton.

Technically Hillary had eyes and ears all over the White House at the time, and with Hillary Clinton being a foregone conclusion per the expectations of Washington DC, everyone would fall in line during the transition from Obama to Clinton.

Again, this was the general plan. Obama would show up in 2016 to campaign for Hillary and all would be seamless.

3. The FBI was aware of the plan for transition from Obama to Clinton, hence their role in eliminating the threat later presented by the Clinton, as Secretary of State, laptop scandal and the subsequent issues of classified information.

Remember, Clinton’s motive as Secretary of State was to sell her position for material wealth; that’s why she used a personal email, maintained her own servers, and generally controlled how her activity could be monitored and tracked. [Also, she didn’t fully trust Obama]

The FBI activity was to support, defend and facilitate the Clinton effort. This is again a key to understanding "Russiagate"...

After March 2016 (Super Tuesday) it became obvious Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Trump would be Clinton's opponent.

Using access to the NSA database, the U.S. Govt., specifically "FBI Contractors", began doing political surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign. This intel was then sent to the Clinton team. Clinton would benefit from knowing the communication inside the Trump campaign. All of that intel was in the metadata captured by the NSA and searched by the FBI contractors.

All of this activity was political surveillance, using govt resources to feed the Clinton team the info.

Read 5 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

May 17

1. OK lawyers, hear me out on my plan to address lower court 'nationwide injunctions' (or TROs) and tell me the flaw.

How about, before any lower court can issue a "nationwide" injunction, they have to get permission or approval from the SCOTUS Justice that presides over that region?

2. That singular justice decision (if approved) is then scheduled for a full SCOTUS review every-other-Friday.

[They can work out the communication structure by themselves, even using skype or similar]

Any nationwide injunction issued -hopefully fewer- would be approved by a SCOTUS justice, and then eventually reviewed by the full court.

3. Yes, that means some DEI justices (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan), would likely approve regional injunctions. However, the ruling only applies to that region, not nationally.... Until full court approval.

Yes, in the issue of criminal illegal aliens, it essentially means that some regions would be unsafe as deportation processes would be stalled, while in the other regions the repatriation could continue without the TRO applying.

Read 4 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

May 1

https://twitter.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1917638221510402112

1. Something really weird is going on here....

It didn't just surface with this oddity.

FOR THE RECORD: I have two decades of documented direct connection between Qatar and the CIA.

https://twitter.com/EDSecMcMahon/status/1917638221510402112

2. Here is another QATAR example, of just brutally odd statements that run counter to reality. This time by Steve Witkoff.

theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/2…

3. And it just continues... Note the 7-minute mark with Tucker Carlson, and his recent statements to Megyn Kelly.

Read 7 tweets

TheLastRefuge

@TheLastRefuge2

Apr 30

1. The absolute key to the first quarter GDP result is to remember that ‘imports‘ are a deduction in the economic equation of Gross Domestic Product. The GDP is the valuation of all goods and services produced in the USA *minus* the value of imports.

cc: The insufferable @RandPaul

bea.gov/news/2025/gros…

2. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases the results of the first quarter GDP. The overall economic growth seems low at 0.3% until you look at how U.S. companies responded in February and March to the tariff announcement.

Companies proactively purchased massive amounts of products in advance of the tariffs leading to an overall increase in imports of 41.3%. Which results in a 5.3% deduction to GDP. Every dollar of those imports is a deduction to the GDP equation, giving the false appearance of lower domestic production.

3. There was a massive surge in import goods purchases of 50.9% versus the prior period [Table 1, line 20]. That’s the largest periodic increase in import purchases I have ever seen. Simultaneously, fixed asset investment in equipment for domestic production surged 22.5% [Table 1, line 11].

Put both of these metrics together and what you see are U.S. companies building consumer inventory from overseas (imports) while simultaneously preparing themselves to shift production into the USA.

The massive import purchases are a bridge to cover the time needed to shift the manufacturing from overseas to the USA. This is exactly what we want to see.

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

TheLastRefuge

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @TheLastRefuge2

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!