DOJ sues Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul over firearm purchase waiting periods

"When a person needs to defend their home, they need to defend it now, not thirty to sixty days from now," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.

By Anthony Gockowski - September 25, 2026

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday against Minnesota and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis over what it calls “unconstitutional restrictions” on firearm purchases.

The lawsuit describes how the state’s “permit to purchase and waiting period regulatory scheme violates the Second Amendment for the more than ninety percent of Minnesota citizens who do not have a carry permit.”

According to the lawsuit, those who wish to purchase a gun for the defense of their homes — and not for public carry — must wait until 30 days after a transferee report is submitted to their local police chief or sheriff.

“Thus, state law effectively creates a 30-day waiting period for Minnesotans, even if a person desires to use a firearm solely for defense of his or her home,” the lawsuit says.

Alternatively, Minnesotans can apply for a permit to purchase, which police have up to 30 days to approve or deny.

“Regardless of whether a Minnesota citizen uses the Minnesota Permit to Purchase process or the Transferee Report process, that person is required to wait up to thirty days to be allowed to purchase a firearm,” the lawsuit says.

Minnesotans with a permit to carry aren’t subject to these requirements. However, the lawsuit notes that the “vast majority of people in the State (over 93 percent) have not obtained a Carry Permit.”

The complaint also alleges that “waiting periods for approvals from chiefs of police in St. Paul and Minneapolis commonly exceed the statutory limit of 30 days,” with some citizens being forced to wait nearly 60 days.

“The Supreme Court held that the home is where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. When a person needs to defend their home, they need to defend it now, not thirty to sixty days from now,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

“Law-abiding citizens do not need government permission to purchase a firearm, and forcing a citizen who has already passed a background check to wait up to sixty days to obtain a firearm is intolerable under the Constitution.”

https://alphanews.org/doj-sues-minnesota-minneapolis-and-st-paul-over-firearm-purchase-waiting-periods/

Russian President Vladimir Putin Reacts to Call for Trilateral Negotiations – Transcript

September 26, 2026 | Sundance1/3Very interesting read.

Again yesterday, western media were running articles with soundbites and interpretations from a press conference in St Petersburg, Russia, given by Vladimir Putin.

When there are significant consequences within words, it is always the best option to review the source of the words spoken and not the interpretation of them by western media. Below you will find the direct transcription of Putin’s remarks without filtered opinion.

[TRANSCRIPT] – Question: Mr President, you said earlier that the trilateral format negotiations of Russia, the United States and Ukraine could resume after the State Duma elections. The elections have concluded. Where and when could a new round of negotiations take place?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: As is well known, the Ukrainian side broke off the negotiations that were held in Istanbul. But now – or rather, even before the elections, about 10 days or a couple of weeks ago – it declared its readiness to resume these negotiations. Indeed, we said that negotiations are unlikely to be held before the State Duma elections, and that we will be ready to resume these contacts following them.

However, the recent developments are also well known to everyone. On the night of September 20, that is, on the main voting day, a massive strike was launched against Moscow. More than 1,600 drones entered the area near Moscow. This is the first point.

Second. Strikes were carried out on polling stations. In one location, the polling station was located in a school; the school was virtually destroyed by the strike. Attacks began on the residential homes of the chairpersons of territorial election commissions. In one case, the chairperson of a territorial commission, her husband and her child were injured. In another case, it unfortunately resulted in tragedy, and, as you know, the chair of the territorial election commission was killed as her home was the target of the strike.

In addition, as we are currently in St Petersburg, I think everyone remembers the St Petersburg International Economic Forum being held, when the Ukrainian authorities targeted St Petersburg, hitting the so-called coal harbor in the port and setting it on fire. Who did they want to scare, us or our guests? Those who work with Russia are unlikely to be scared of anything or run away. And no one did. We held that forum to the end.

Then, starting in June, they began targeting our oil refineries. As is also well known, in June they announced the start of a forty‑day operation. Well, this led to certain losses on our part.

In addition, they tried to organize a naval blockade of our Black Sea coast. They damaged over 100 ships, 100 vessels, including both Russian ones and those flying foreign flags. Yes, we have restored all of this. But these are active operations that…

After that, they started targeting civilian facilities such as Wildberries or Ozon storage facilities. What is this? What’s the point? Nevertheless, it has been done.

After that, we started responding to each item. Well, it appears that the retaliatory actions by the Russian Armed Forces have been so sensitive and devastating for the enemy that they are now once again actively raising the issue of a ceasefire across several areas, as they themselves put it: the energy sector (that is, they are now ready to stop attacking our oil refineries), and the air sector (a mutual ceasefire). In particular, we see that they want us to stop the strikes by Geran drones – modern Gerans – against which, there are no countermeasures or an antidote, at least now, and to lift the blockade of their Black Sea coast. However, they are the ones who started it all. They started it on every single point.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/09/26/russian-president-vladimir-putin-reacts-to-call-for-trilateral-negotiations-transcript/

>>25079438

2/3

What is this, child’s play? Is this some kind of a children’s game? In other words, they must feel the retaliatory blows from Russia and understand that no provocations and no escalation of the situation will bring about the desired result for them. They are only making the situation worse for themselves.

Therefore, all these actions aimed at so‑called reconciliation, and the proposal to resume negotiations, they are all on the table, all this is possible. But after everything they have done, we will think twice about what we need to do in response. And in any case, we will make all decisions in this area, including those regarding the possible resumption of the negotiation process, based on the interests of the Russian Federation.

Question: Regrettably, we have grown used to the wave of Russophobia from Europe. The other day, Estonian Defense Minister Martin Herem stated that they would kill every Russian who crossed the border, and – hear this! – if the Russians don’t attack first, it’s best for Estonians to do this. This is crazy. But this has been said by the defense minister of a neighboring country, a NATO member state. How should we react to this?

Vladimir Putin: This is certainly a provocation and a deliberate attempt by European countries to aggravate the situation. Many in Europe say that they are expecting an attack by the Russian Federation and so must prepare for hostilities, for a war with Russia.

I would like to emphasize once again that we are not preparing for hostilities with Europe. We have no such plans, no reasons and, most importantly, no real motives for aggravating the situation with Europe, regardless of what is being said, including by the Baltic states.

We know that the rights of Russian speakers are being violated there, but we know how to react to this, and we have developed a certain approach to this matter. We are responding in the humanitarian sphere, based on international law. The idea of “non-citizenship” has been invented in the Baltic countries. It is not about citizens, foreigners or persons with dual nationality, but about “non-citizens.” This is nonsense. However, this nonsense has become a fact of international life over many years.

We will continue fighting for the rights of our compatriots, but we will do this in accordance with international law. We have never intended to use, never used and will never use any other instruments.

There is only one explanation for the attempts by certain aggressive circles to aggravate the situation: they want to continue using Ukraine and Ukrainians as cannon fodder and a tool in the fight against Russia, seeking to prevent our further development, to hinder it, to slow down Russia’s advancement.

To be able to continue investing in this absolutely aggressive behavior and to explain to their citizens why they are doing this, they are trying to dupe the citizens of European countries with the idea that Russia is allegedly planning to attack someone. This is complete nonsense, just like that person’s ravings about… What did he say they would do?

Remark: He said that they themselves should attack and that they will kill all Russians.

Vladimir Putin: It is what we in Russia describe with the phrase “The circus has left, but the clowns have stayed.” This is political clownery

I believe that the population of Estonia is 1.3 million or slightly more.The Russian army alone, not to mention the population of the Russian Federation, is 1.535 million. Estonia’s population is 1.3 million, which includes babies and senior citizens.It is clear that this is complete nonsense. Regrettably, this is the kind of people we have to deal with in modern-day Western Europe.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/09/26/russian-president-vladimir-putin-reacts-to-call-for-trilateral-negotiations-transcript/

>>25079441

3/3

Question:As is known, negotiations between the President of China and the President of the United States are currently underway in the United States. What do you think about this?Are you jealous? Are you planning to attend the APEC summit in China, where a trilateral meeting can be held?

Vladimir Putin: Jealousy is something from a completely different sphere, the sphere of a human nature, relations between a man and a woman.I do not think such categories are applicable in international politics. We welcome the negotiations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

Why? Because these are the two largest economies in the world, and depending on the outcome of their negotiations on the contentious issues, the controversial issues stemming from the US-imposed illegitimate sanctions, and what kind of agreements are reached, this will affect the entire global economy, including our economy.

Yes, our relations with the United States have almost been reduced to zero. But our trade turnover with the People’s Republic of China is US$240 billion. That’s a decent amount. And our trade keeps growing.

Furthermore, we have a very important sphere for further development, both for us and for the People’s Republic of China.And, of course, the overall development of international economic relations is of great importance. Therefore, we welcome any positive agreements between China and the United States.

Remark: What about the APEC summit?

Vladimir Putin: Oh, the APEC summit. We still need to make a final decision. Everything will depend on the situation in the country, in our country. When deciding whether or not to participate in an international event, I always take into account the situation unfolding within the Russian Federation.

But overall, this is a major and serious event, and I have received an invitation. I believe it will be useful to work on such a platform. I have told President Xi Jinping about this. I am inclined to take part in that event. However, as I have said, this will ultimately depend on the situation in Russia.

Chairman Xi has invited President Putin to attend the APEC summit in Beijing in November. It appears Putin is going. That will put Putin and Trump together at the APEC summit with Xi one month ahead of the G20 in Doral, Miami.

Zelenskyy will not be attending the APEC summit. Ukraine is never invited.

That said, despite having no association with the G20 assembly, Zelenskyy has been invited in recent years in some kind of weird political effort to show global support – or something.However, honestly, no-one has ever explained the factual reason for any of Zelenskyy’s summit appearances (G7, G20, NATO etc). Ukraine is not in the EU, Ukraine is not in NATO, and Ukraine is not a large economy.

If President Trump invites Zelenskyy to the G20, it’s worth remembering that President Trump has also invited President Putin to attend the G20 in Miami.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/09/26/russian-president-vladimir-putin-reacts-to-call-for-trilateral-negotiations-transcript/

Trump preparing to bomb Iran after midterms – WSJ

The US president has reportedly rejected Tehran’s seven-day ceasefire proposal and is skeptical that it will meet his demands

Published 26 Sep, 2026 03:

US President Donald Trump has rejected Iran’s latest ceasefire proposal and told aides that he expects to resume bombing the Islamic Republic after the November midterm election, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing US officials.

Trump is privately skeptical that Tehran will agree to his terms despite publicly predicting that Iran will seek a deal following the November 3 election, according to the newspaper.Officials cautioned, however, that his position could change over the coming weeks and could be affected by the election results.

The report comes after Tehran offered a seven-day roadmap to end the hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and restart negotiations over its nuclear program. In return, the US would lift its naval blockade, ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports, and release some frozen Iranian assets.

According to the WSJ, Trump has rejected the proposal and the administration has informed Iran and regional mediators thathe has no intention of lifting the maritime blockade. A US official nevertheless said negotiations through mediators are continuing.

Trump is reportedly reluctant to return to major combat operations, in part because his administration wants to preserve munitions for other potential conflicts. The extent of any new strikes under consideration remains unclear.

The president has alternated between threats of major escalation and diplomatic overtures during the nearly seven-month conflict. Officials told Axios that the US is maintaining its regional military presence in preparation for a potential return to major combat operations.

At the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he faces a “big decision” over whether to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic if negotiations fail. He has denied that his decisions on Iran are being driven by the election, despite predicting that Tehran will strike a deal “right after” the midterms.

Tehran has disputed Trump’s suggestion that it is deliberately delaying an agreement. President Masoud Pezeshkian said this week that Iran wants the US to return to the June ceasefire framework whenever it is genuinely ready for peace. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said it would be better to reach an agreement before the election.

The June memorandum of understanding provided for gradual sanctions relief and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz while the two sides negotiate outstanding issues,but collapsed amid renewed hostilities and disputes over shipping through the strategic waterway.

https://www.rt.com/news/646264-trump-renew-iran-bombing/

Ukraine’s biggest steelmaker halts production

Russian strikes have reportedly brought production at the country’s three largest plants to a halt

Published 26 Sep, 2026 15:50

Ukraine’s largest steel producer, ArcelorMittal Krivoy Rog, has halted productionafter repeated Russian missile strikes caused extensive damage to the plant, the company announced on Friday.

The Russian Defense Ministry has said that Moscow is targeting Ukrainian military and defense-related facilities and supporting infrastructure in response to Kiev’s escalating long-range attacks on Russian energy and industrial sites.

The steelworks, located in the central Ukrainian city of Krivoy Rog,also includes iron ore mining operations. Before the escalation of the conflict in 2022, it produced 4.9 million tons of steel annually.

ArcelorMittal said the facility had been hit four times over the past five weeks, most recently on September 21. The strikes caused extensive damage to production facilities, leaving the company unable to restart operations “in a safe and sustainable manner.”

CEO Mauro Longobardo said the companywould focuson preserving the plant’s infrastructure so production could eventually resume. ArcelorMittalexpects to take a charge of around $1 billion due to the reduced value of the facility and its equipment.

Theshutdown follows stoppages at Zaporozhstal and Kamet Steel, both owned by Ukrainian metals giant Metinvest. Together with ArcelorMittal Krivoy Rog,the three plants accounted for about 90% of Ukraine’s steeloutput before Russian strikes brought production to a halt, according to the Financial Times.

“As of today, [Ukraine] doesn’t have a steel industry anymore,” Aleksandr Vodoviz, head of the CEO’s office at Metinvest, told the FT, adding that repairs could take “days, weeks, months, or years.”

The Russian Defense Ministry said this week that it had struck the Krivoy Rog steelworks and other industrial facilities involved in Ukrainian military production. Other recent targets cited by the ministry include drone production and storage sites, power infrastructure, bridges, ports, warehouses, and logistics hubs.

A day before the latest strike on the steelworks,Ukraine launched its largest drone attack on Moscow, killing several people and hitting a major oil refinery.

Russia has condemned strikes on civilians as acts of terrorism, while maintaining that its forces only target military and defense-related facilities.

(Ukraine’s industry is being dismantled by Russia, because of the stupid decisions of Zelensky, leaving them with almost being broke to support the country. Tit for tat from Russia. It’s been reported a majority of Ukraine territory is seriously polluted with deadly chemicals, that are off limits. That’s why Z wants to try to build Patriot missiles, they can’t sustain the countries economy.)

https://www.rt.com/business/646254-ukraine-steel-plant-closure/

Why is the Swiss government opposing stricter neutrality rules?

Bern says it wants to retain security policy flexibility and the ability to adopt non-UN sanctions, as it did against Russia.1/2

Published 26 Sep, 2026 09:24 |

The Swiss government and parliament are urging voters to reject a proposal during an upcoming referendum that would strengthen the country’s neutrality policy by constraining Bern’s ability to impose unilateral sanctions.

The motion is being pushed by pro-sovereignty politicians, who have criticized the government’s decision to largely adopt EU sanctions against Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Under the current system that the Federal Council seeks to preserve, the seven-member ruling body decides on a case-by-case basis whether Switzerland should copy restrictions imposed by other Western nations.

The proposed amendment will be put to a nationwide vote on Sunday, September 27.

Why do sanctions matter?

Switzerland largely aligned itself with the EU sanctions regime targeting Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

As of July, Bern reported freezing 8.5 billion Swiss francs ($10.3 billion) in assets owned by Russian companies and individuals targeted by Brussels and another 6.8 billion francs ($8.2 billion) in funds owned by the Russian Central Bank. The Swiss Federal Council has rejected calls to confiscate the money.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Switzerland of abandoning its traditional neutrality by taking the sanctions path,arguing that it had lost its standing as a “trusted neutral mediator.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance to Swiss Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis personally, when the two met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York in July 2025.

Russia as well as several other non-Western nations reject any sanctions not authorized by the UN as illegal under international law and consider them a form of economic warfare.

What is at stake in Sunday’s vote?

The “Safeguard Swiss neutrality” initiative was launched by the Pro Schweiz (For Switzerland) pro-sovereignty movement and figures associated with the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which strongly backs the proposal.

It would define Switzerland’s neutrality in the Constitution as “perpetual and armed.”Switzerland would be barred from joining or cooperating with military or defense alliances unless it was facing a direct military attack.

The country would also be prohibited from imposing sanctions against belligerent states, with exceptions for measures mandated by the UN and those intended to prevent sanctions circumvention.

A newly-strengthened neutrality policy would be used to “prevent and resolve conflicts” and “to act as a mediator,” if the proposal is passed.

Who is against it?

The Swiss Federal Council argues that the more rigid interpretation would restrict Switzerland’s freedom of action and could weaken its national security. Parliament has also recommended rejecting the initiative.

“Anyone who waits until the crisis is already here before they are willing to cooperate is too late,” Cassis has said.

The government is particularly opposed to surrendering its ability to decide whether to adopt sanctions.

“Neutrality does not require an automatic response,” the councillor said. “It requires us to take responsibility and weigh up our interests.”

https://www.rt.com/news/646189-swiss-neutrality-reform-referendum/

Why is the Swiss government opposing stricter neutrality rules?

Bern says it wants to retain security policy flexibility and the ability to adopt non-UN sanctions, as it did against Russia.1/2

Published 26 Sep, 2026 09:24 |

The Swiss government and parliament are urging voters to reject a proposal during an upcoming referendum that would strengthen the country’s neutrality policy by constraining Bern’s ability to impose unilateral sanctions.

The motion is being pushed by pro-sovereignty politicians, who have criticized the government’s decision to largely adopt EU sanctions against Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Under the current system that the Federal Council seeks to preserve, the seven-member ruling body decides on a case-by-case basis whether Switzerland should copy restrictions imposed by other Western nations.

The proposed amendment will be put to a nationwide vote on Sunday, September 27.

Why do sanctions matter?

Switzerland largely aligned itself with the EU sanctions regime targeting Russia after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022.

As of July, Bern reported freezing 8.5 billion Swiss francs ($10.3 billion) in assets owned by Russian companies and individuals targeted by Brussels and another 6.8 billion francs ($8.2 billion) in funds owned by the Russian Central Bank. The Swiss Federal Council has rejected calls to confiscate the money.

Moscow has repeatedly accused Switzerland of abandoning its traditional neutrality by taking the sanctions path,arguing that it had lost its standing as a “trusted neutral mediator.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s stance to Swiss Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis personally, when the two met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York in July 2025.

Russia as well as several other non-Western nations reject any sanctions not authorized by the UN as illegal under international law and consider them a form of economic warfare.

What is at stake in Sunday’s vote?

The “Safeguard Swiss neutrality” initiative was launched by the Pro Schweiz (For Switzerland) pro-sovereignty movement and figures associated with the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which strongly backs the proposal.

It would define Switzerland’s neutrality in the Constitution as “perpetual and armed.”Switzerland would be barred from joining or cooperating with military or defense alliances unless it was facing a direct military attack.

The country would also be prohibited from imposing sanctions against belligerent states, with exceptions for measures mandated by the UN and those intended to prevent sanctions circumvention.

A newly-strengthened neutrality policy would be used to “prevent and resolve conflicts” and “to act as a mediator,” if the proposal is passed.

Who is against it?

The Swiss Federal Council argues that the more rigid interpretation would restrict Switzerland’s freedom of action and could weaken its national security. Parliament has also recommended rejecting the initiative.

“Anyone who waits until the crisis is already here before they are willing to cooperate is too late,” Cassis has said.

The government is particularly opposed to surrendering its ability to decide whether to adopt sanctions.

“Neutrality does not require an automatic response,” the councillor said. “It requires us to take responsibility and weigh up our interests.”

(https://www.rt.com/news/646189-swiss-neutrality-reform-referendum/

>>25079681.

2/2

Who backs it?

SVP President Marcel Dettling has accused Cassis and Swiss diplomats of seeking to erode neutrality and “play the big shot everywhere in the world.”

“Switzerland is neutral. This means we do not interfere in foreign affairs. Every individual is entitled to their own opinion, but official Switzerland is neutral and offers its good offices to all parties in conflict,” he said.

SVP member Christoph Blocher, who was a member of the Federal Council in the 2000s, rejected the notion that neutrality should be “flexible,” denouncing it as “dangerous nonsense.”

The SVP argues that fixed constitutional rules would make Swiss policy more predictable and enhance the country’s credibility as a mediator. It also contends that unilateral sanctions against parties to a conflict are incompatible with staying neutral on it.

What do the polls say?

Recent surveys show substantially more respondents opposing the neutrality initiative than supporting it.

A LeeWas survey for 20 Minuten and Tamedia, conducted earlier this month among 12,948 eligible voters, found 31% supported the initiative and 68% opposed it. Support had fallen by five percentage points compared with the previous survey wave.

Historically, Swiss voters have often sided with the Federal Council’s recommendations.

In June, they rejected the SVP-backed proposal to cap Switzerland’s population below 10 million through 2050, with 54.79% voting against and 45.21% in favor. The Federal Council had opposed the initiative.

On the same day, voters approved stricter rules governing access to alternative civilian service by 52.46% to 47.54%. That measure intended to preserve participation in the mandatory military service was backed by the Federal Council and parliament, with the SVP being among the supporting parties.

How does Swiss direct democracy work?

Switzerland has one of the world’s most extensive systems of direct democracy, with voters deciding national issues up to four times a year, often with several proposals on the ballot at once.

A popular initiative seeking to amend the Constitution requires 100,000 valid signatures collected within 18 months before it can proceed through the political process toward a nationwide vote.Constitutional amendments require a double majority – a majority of voters nationwide and a majority of the cantons – to pass.

Rules are less restrictive for optional referendums on laws passed by parliament.

(https://www.rt.com/news/646189-swiss-neutrality-reform-referendum/

Rapid Response 47

The White House

@RapidResponse47

"The trade deficit that we have with China is only growing…"

@USTradeRep: "That's not true at all. It was $300B coming into President Trump's term; we're now tracking to have only a $140B deficit with China this year. The trade deficit in goods with China is down by 40%!"

00:07

9:38 AM · Sep 25, 2026

174.5K

Views

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2103479157175005571

LIVE

updated 3 minutes ago

Trump says he rejected Iran Hormuz plan, expects strikes after midterms

Summary

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council denied it would respond militarily to recent flight restrictions, saying talks were underway and non-military retaliatory options remained available if needed.

State media reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iran’s negotiating delegation could remain in New York until Wednesday, before later deleting the report, while the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency said Araghchi and his delegation were scheduled to return to Iran on Tuesday.

US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon,” in a post on Truth Social.

Iraq is seeking US exemptions for some airports to allow Iranian flights to resume for humanitarian and civilian purposes, the Iraqi prime minister’s media office said on Saturday.

The Saudi-led coalition said it intercepted two Iran-backed Houthi drones heading toward Riyadh. The group’s attacks threaten Saudi cities and exports while Hormuz shipping remains disrupted.

Trump rejected Iran’s seven-day proposal and told aides he expects to resume bombing after November’s midterms, the WSJ reported.

Video: Trump says he rejected Iran proposal but remains open to deal

US President Donald Trump said Saturday he had rejected Iran’s proposal on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the regional fighting,while saying he remained open to reaching a different agreement with Tehran.

“I’m rejecting their deal,” Trump told reporters, saying… pic.twitter.com/fjY2E604IK

— Iran International English (@IranIntl_En) September 26, 2026

14 minutes ago

Lavrov pushes Persian Gulf security framework, takes aim at US dominance

Russia’s proposed collective-security framework for the Persian Gulf could help stabilize the region amid the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the UN General Assembly on Saturday.

“This is what drives our concept for collective security in the Persian Gulf,” Lavrov said, adding that Moscow was ready to help stabilize the region. Citing Russian President Vladimir Putin, he said “the dictatorship of one hegemon is spiraling out of control,” in an apparent reference to the United States.

Russia has for years promoted a broader Persian Gulf security architecture involving regional states, including Iran and Arab countries, rather than arrangements centered on a single outside power. Lavrov presented the proposal as a framework for reducing tensions and addressing regional security disputes.

He also linked wider Middle East stability to the Palestinian issue, saying it was time to resolve what he described as the region’s central problem by ensuring Palestinian statehood on the basis of UN decisions.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202609269384

Inside China’s Race To Build The World’s Data Centers

CNBC

Chinese companies are using prefabricated construction to build data centers faster and more efficiently. As America’s AI-driven data center boom accelerates, China’s BrightRay hopes to win U.S. business with its modular approach. But growing U.S.-China tensions, national-security concerns and restrictions on some Chinese-made products could limit that opportunity. CNBC's China Bureau Chief Eunice Yoon reports.

(Can you imagine China having all the data of every country of the world and how it would be used by the CIA and dark forces?)

11:49

https://youtu.be/5aSb5p9N-CI

It's VERY IMPORTANT for the US and China to talk: Trump advisor

President Donald Trump's advisor David Sacks discusses the commander-in-chief's talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on 'Jesse Watters Primetime

4:27

https://youtu.be/cJqUhTBIfrM

Sen Tom Cotton: The condescension is sharp

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., criticizes his opponent for her comments on illegal immigration on ‘Hannity.’

Yeah I know Hannity is annoying but Cotton is ok maybe

5:58

https://youtu.be/ETdi6YE5L1w

‘I HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THAT’: Harris jokes with El-Sayed on campaign trail

(Why to hell is Kamala even talking, she can only hurt these radicals hopefully)

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., analyzes former Vice President Kamala Harris’ decision to campaign with Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed on ‘The Story.

9:14

https://youtu.be/lf9Y-XlisbA

U.S. military lays groundwork for potential action around Cuba. 1/2

September 26, 2026

Washington — The U.S. Army Reserve is examining whether it can provide the military's Southern Command with police forces, medical personnel and other support units within the next four months, according to an internal Army message reviewed by CBS News.

Though the message makes no reference to Cuba, the request is for continued military planning aimed at Cuba, according to multiple U.S. officials who spoke to CBS News under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

There is no indication in the document that any units have received deployment orders. But the planning comes as the Trump administration puts intense economic pressure on Cuba and urges the island nation to make political reforms.

The message does not identify how many troops would be needed in the Southern Command's region, which covers Central and South America, including the Caribbean. It also does not specify where the forces could be sent or what operation they would support.

The document reviewed by CBS News says Army Reserve headquarters is seeking feedback from subordinate commands on the possible availability of six types of formations that would fall under the authority of U.S. Southern Command. The units would "possibly [be] needed in 90-120 days," according to the message, which directs commands to provide feedback to Army Reserve headquarters by Sept. 25.

Among the units is a combat sustainment support battalion that specializes in coordinating logistics such as transportation, maintenance, fuel and supply needs, along with an engineer battalion. The document also seeks an expeditionary sustainment command that would oversee logistics across a theater of operations.

The document generated last week also calls for a medical brigade to command and coordinate medical units, as well as a forward resuscitative and surgical detachment to provide emergency surgery and trauma care closer to U.S. forces. Finally, the document seeks a military police brigade — these units typically oversee military police forces responsible for security, detention and other law enforcement missions.

Contacted by CBS News, the Army Reserve did not respond before publication.

A spokesperson for U.S. Southern Command said: "Due to operational security concerns, we do not disclose details or comment on U.S. operational movements or potential deployment timelines associated with current or future operations, contingencies, or planning. However, U.S. Southern Command continuously coordinates with the Joint Force to assess a range of potential requirements across its [area of responsibility] in support of assigned missions."

On Saturday, President Trump told reporters at the White House he doesn't believe the U.S. will need the military and that "Cuba and us will make a deal."

"Cuba is failing very badly. We want to help Cuba. We want to open Cuba up to our people," he said. "We have great Cuban Americans who want to go back. We want to open Cuba up to our people."

Earlier this year, American forces conducted reconnaissance operations on the seafloor and maritime approaches surrounding the Cuban island, multiple U.S. military personnel told CBS News. Separately, U.S. airpower components were placed on heightened readiness and directed to pre-stage personnel for potential deployment. Those plans, however, did not come to fruition. CBS News is withholding certain details from publication that could potentially put U.S. service members at risk.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-groundwork-potential-action-cuba-trump/

>>25079829

2/2

CBS News reported in May that U.S. intelligence officials were assessing how Cuba would respond to possible U.S. military action, as the Trump administration accused Havana of strengthening ties with Russia, China and Iran. The intelligence community's 2026 annual threat assessment largely portrays Cuba as an enabling environment for larger geopolitical competitors, rather than as an independent strategic threat.

In July, CBS News reported thatAmerican military planners had examined a range of options for possible action against the island, including an Army-led air assault involving thousands of U.S. soldiers to be carried out by the 101st Airborne Division, the only unit trained for such a task.

U.S. officials who spoke to CBS News stressed in July that the briefings were not an indication that the president or the Pentagon had decided to go forward with an operation.

Since reentering office, Mr. Trump has asserted a more muscular U.S. role in the Western Hemisphere under what officials have dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine," a Trump-era corollary to the Monroe Doctrine focused on limiting foreign adversaries and other perceived threats in the region.

In April, American and Ecuadorian troops launched a joint mission aimed at dismantling a suspected criminal hub operated by a narco-terrorist organization. On Thursday, U.S. troops and agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration assisted Ecuadorian authorities in arresting more than 30 members affiliated with Mexico's Jalisco New Generation Cartel.

Since September, the U.S. military has killed more than 230 people in 70 strikes in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The operations are a stark contrast to the U.S. military's historical role of maritime drug interdiction and arrest. Some legal experts have said the strikes amount to illegal extrajudicial killings because U.S. forces are prohibited from intentionally targeting civilians or individuals suspected of criminal activity, unless they meet the legal standard governing the use of military force.

For Cuba, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Cuban entities and officials, including military research and development enterprises tied to the country's nickel industryahead of the U.N. General Assembly this week.

In New York, Mr. Trump told the U.N. General Assembly that his administration was seeking a "fundamental change" on the island and predicted Cuba's communist government "will fall" and declared that "freedom will be coming to Cuba." The Cuban delegation walked outduring his remarks.

Mr. Trump also said Secretary of State MarcoRubio was "deep into negotiations" with Havanaand vowed that the United States would not allow foreign adversaries to establish a strengthening foothold "on our own doorstep."

Those remarks follow months of increasingly explicit statements from Mr. Trump about Cuba. Meanwhile, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel has vowed to counter any U.S. attack, and has accused the U.S. of "aggression" and "economic warfare" by blocking oil imports to Cuba.

Earlier this year, Mr. Trump toldreporters in the Oval Office that he believed he would have "the honor of taking Cuba."

"Taking Cuba in some form, yeah," he said in mid-March. "Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it — I think I could do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth."

Later that month, Mr. Trump said bluntly: "Cuba's going to be next."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-groundwork-potential-action-cuba-trump/

New York Times Latest Example of AI Doom Fear is Silly

September 26, 2026 | Sundance1/2

Bottom line, we are in an expanded information war. I’ll explain.

Several years ago, in explaining some of the site challenges CTH informed people ofGoogle’s latest information control operation that was simply called “a spider crawl.”The spider crawl was an automated instruction to search the internet and find information that was beyond the parameters of their “trust and safety” guidelines. The automated search would crawl through the websites and comment sections, and report violations based on key words in the search parameter.

Spider crawling is essentially AI. A technology tool to search databases and identify results based on parameters established by the individual who launched the search.However, now in order to push a scare narrative around the hot topic of “AI” the spider crawling is much more in depth and advanced.

Now, instead of just searching the internet, advanced AI can find information and answer questions based on lengthy attributes described by the AI user. AI can now go into proprietary databases and retrieve information to answer complex and complicated question (instructions).

If the AI launch, now called an “AI bot”, hits a gate, like a password access point, advanced AI can find workarounds to enter the database, extract the information and return the result to the AI user.If you understand that process, then this headline has context.

New York Times

OpenAl's Systems Meddled With U.S. Government SitesAfter Going Rogue The company did not learn until recently that its technology had meddled with websites for the Education and Commerce

Departments and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[SOURCE]

The entire article is nothing more than taking something that is easily understood and adding jargon to make it sound complicated. The word “meddling” is used to describe the AI process of trying to get passed the gate. When there were individual people doing this, we called it “hacking” now the process is automated via instructions to the software search.

If you were using an AI tool and asked the question: ‘How many people with basket-weaving degrees work inside the Dept of Commerce’? The AI Bot would likely look through work records in the Dept of Commerce, review LinkedIn profiles, scour college records and other online data, while trying to assemble an answer.

It’s not complicated.

AI is being used to answer complicated questions that would normally takes days, weeks or months to figure out, but understanding what the AI is doing is not complicated.

[…]None of the incidents were breaches, OpenAI said, but were examples of its technology’s behaving in unexpected and concerning ways. The company recently discovered the occurrences while conducting a review of hacks carried out by its technology, including an attack on an Australian government website in June and on the A.I. start-up Hugging Face in July.

The revelation of the U.S. government website incidents add to the growing number of situations when A.I. agents from OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta and Google have misbehaved and hackedor tried to breach companies, universities and government organizations. In some cases, the A.I. attacks were successful; the technology failed in other instances. In all the cases, the makers of the technology did not learn what their A.I. had been up to until afterward. (more)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/09/26/new-york-times-latest-example-of-ai-doom-fear-is-silly/#more-287397

>>25079877

2/2

In this example the AI is doing what the AI user tells the AI bot to accomplish. If the AI user puts restrictions around the IA bot, the AI remains confined in its effort. Nothing AI does is ‘rogue’ it is all based on instructions. The AI operations must be precise with AI about what they ask for and should not give it access to a door they don’t want opened.

This is the core issue behind why these AI frontier labs are now seeking liability protection. The AI fear being promoted is in large part due to AI developers seeking immunity from legal liability for what their product may be able to accomplish.

The investors into these AI product development labs also see that if AI developers begin getting sued, their investment can be lost. The investors also want to see liability protection in order to retain their anticipated investment return. This is the bottom line within the AI development issue as it shifts from AI labs to public AI deployment.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2026: (CNBC)- In May, the Gemini model accessed three separate private computer systems by guessing passwords and by twice using a repository of publicly listed passwords, Google said.

The incident happened as part of a “capture-the-flag” security test run by Israeli startup Irregular, and Google’s agents were never supposed to access the broader internet, but a bug in the testing environment made internet access available.

The agents stopped their intrusion when they determined they had accessed real company systems, not just part of the testing environment, Google said. (read more)

Irregular is an Israeli artificial intelligence security startupthat tests the safety limits of advanced AI models, and it gained global attention when infrastructure misconfigurations in its testing environments allowed AI systems from major tech companies to reach the internet and perform unauthorized actions.

Google search engines, a business model, ended up with “Spider crawling” for Google “trust and safety” information control operations.These advanced AI bot missions are no different. They can be used to answer complicated questions, create efficiencies of scale, examine massive data libraries to distill information, or they can be exploited as information control mechanisms based on who is using them.

Put AI control in the hands of government regulators and what exactly do you think they will do with the “trust and safety” mission? The answer to that question is self-evident from the U.S. government operation over the X (Twitter) platform, and the banning of unapproved information related to the issues of COVID.

The AI FEAR narrative serves two simultaneous interests. The first is the big tech group who wants AI immunity. The second is the big govt group who want AI control. When you understand this dynamic, things make sense.

The need for information control, is a reaction to information fear.

Me, I’m just waiting for the dancing AI coders.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/09/26/new-york-times-latest-example-of-ai-doom-fear-is-silly/#more-287397

Chief Nerd on X: "Chamath & David Sacks Say It’s Time for AI Companies to Stop Calling Themselves ‘Labs’ CHAMATH: “They are not labs. These are for-profit corporations that are subject to product liability risk, and they should act accordingly.” SACKS: “It's this patina of virtue signaling that obscures what's really going on.”"

@TheChiefNerd

Chief Nerd

@TheChiefNerd

Chamath & David Sacks Say It’s Time for AI Companies to Stop Calling Themselves ‘Labs’

CHAMATH: “They are not labs. These are for-profit corporations that are subject to product liability risk, and they should act accordingly.”

SACKS: “It's this patina of virtue signaling that obscures what's really going on.”

US backs Musk’s X in legal battle with EU

The tech mogul is contesting a $120 million fine imposed by the Brussels bloc under its DSA censorship laws.1/2

Published 25 Sep, 2026 11:12 |

The US government has joined Elon Musk’s appealagainst an EU fine imposed on X, accusing Brussels of “regulatory overreach”and escalating a transatlantic clash over its regulation of US tech firms.

The European Commission fined X €120 million ($136.51 million) for alleged violations of its 2022 Digital Services Act, the first such penalty under the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a vast legislative censorship and media control apparatus. Brussels accused the platform of breaching rules on transparency, advertising, and data access, as well as using a deceptive blue-tick system for verified accounts.

Musk, who has claimed the EU’s tech regulations stall technological progress and equated the bloc to a “Fourth Reich” over them, appealed the decision in February, seeking to overturn the fine.

On Thursday, the US Department of Justice said it had filed an application to intervene in support of Musk’s legal challenge.

“The European Commission inappropriately attempted to expand its regulatory authority to reach American companies not present or operating within its jurisdiction,” Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said. “We will not tolerate the European Commission engaging in regulatory over-reach to try and control American engines of innovation and economic growth.”

The Justice Department warned that the case – the first DSA enforcement challenge to reach the General Court – could set a precedent for US tech firms.Citing “significant concerns” over Brussels’ approach to liability and jurisdiction, it said Washington has an interest in “protecting American companies from foreign extraterritorial enforcement action.”

Separately, the EU is investigating X for other potential DSA breaches, including its approach to content moderation and explicit images generated by its Grok AI chatbot. Under the DSA, the EU has also probed Meta Platforms and Amazon, while Apple was fined under a sister law, the Digital Markets Act, over alleged anti-competitive behavior in its App Store. Apple is appealing a €500 million fine under the regulation.

Neither the European Commission nor X responded to media requests for comment on the US intervention.

US-EU clash over Big Tech

EU scrutiny of US tech firms has become a major source of friction between Brussels and the administration of President Donald Trump, which has backed claims that the bloc unfairly targets American tech giants and harms digital free speech. Senior administration figures, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have criticized the EU’s fine on X as an attack on American companies. Musk previously accused the EU of trying to shut down X, claiming in 2024 that the commission had offered him an “illegal secret deal” to “quietly censor speech” to avoid a fine.

Trump has railed against the X fine, calling it “nasty” and warning that “Europe is going in some bad direction.” He has strongly condemned the DSA and related tech regulations, repeatedly labeling them “overseas extortion” and a “form of taxation.” He has threatened new tariffs on European goods unless the EU rolls back the regulatory penalties. The European Commission has rejected Trump’s criticism, insisting the DSA is non-discriminatory and applies equally to all large tech platforms operating in Europe.

https://www.rt.com/news/646234-us-backs-musks-eu-dsa/

>>25079905

2/2

DSA: Online safety or censorship?

Brussels sells the DSA as an online-safety law meant to fight illegal content and “disinformation.” Critics see something far more sinister: an expanding censorship and narrative-control regime that gives unelected EU officials sweeping leverage over political speech – and over the largely American tech platforms that carry it.

That criticism gained ammunition from a 2026 report by Republicans on the US House Judiciary Committee.

They have accused the bloc of a “clear bias” toward censoring conservative and populist parties, pointing to its intervention in Romania’s election, then in Hungary, where arch EU critic Viktor Orban was heavily defeated by pro-EU Peter Magyar. It also cited pressure on platforms in Slovakia, the Netherlands, France, Moldova, and Ireland, as well as at EU level.

Brussels has also gone beyond pressuring platforms. The EU banned RT and Sputnik in 2022 and has sought tighter controls on what it considers Russian disinformation, and has since pushed platforms to clamp down on what Brussels labels Russian disinformation. The commission itself admitted DSA-linked mechanisms are being used to address Ukraine-related content and election risks. Critics argue that, backed by the threat of massive fines, the system gives Brussels powerful leverage over narratives that challenge its political and foreign-policy consensus.

That leaves a stark divide over what Brussels’ flagship internet law actually does. The EU calls it online safety; its critics see a censorship architecture capable of suppressing dissenting narratives, shaping the information environment around elections, and forcing global tech platforms to police political speech on Brussels’

(Seems like the EU are adopting the laws and bias before Russia became a free country.)

https://www.rt.com/news/646234-us-backs-musks-eu-dsa/

United States in danger of losing its first Presidents Cup in 28 years. 1/2

9/25/26

MEDINAH, Ill. — The International Team was given very little chance by oddsmakers to win the Presidents Cup this week.

After two days, that’s changed dramatically. The Internationals are up 7-3 after going 5-0 in Friday’s afternoon foursomes (alternate shot) format.

The United States is 13-1-1 all time in the biennial competition and has not lost since 1998. It is undefeated on American soil.

But now captain Brandt Snedeker will have to find answers for what the Internationals are doing and figure out who on his team can lead a comeback. The Americans began the Presidents Cup with 78.5 percent chances of winning, per DataGolf.com. The Internationals are now favored at 54.5 percent.

All of his biggest stars played Friday, and they all lost. Scottie Scheffler and Sam Burns lost 1 up to the Canadian duo of Nick Taylor and Corey Conners. Justin Thomas and Cameron Young were beaten 3 and 2 by Adam Scott and Christiaan Bezuidenhout. Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schauffele, at one time considered an unstoppable duo, lost 4 and 3 to Tom Kim and Si Woo Kim.

Eight points will be at stake Saturday, with four four-ball matches followed by four foursome matches.

All eyes on the American captain

For the umpteenth time in a row, a United States captain sent out a team based on vibes. Hunches. Friendship. Feelings.

And once again, it did not work.

Before the week, Snedeker said, “We’re putting the best players out there and let you all go do your thing. Then we’re getting the heck out of your way. What am I going to tell Scottie Scheffler to do with a 7-iron in his hand?”

His foursome picks appeared to take this unscientific strategy: He sent out pairings built on friendships.

Scheffler and Burns are really good friends. Russell Henley is Jacob Bridgeman’s mentor. Thomas and Young are close, as well. At least the Cantlay-Schauffele friendship has years of success behind it.

Brody Miller and Lauren Morales-Jones

Like Zach Johnson and Keegan Bradley before him, it does not appear Snedeker is making choices assisted by data, research or evidence. It’s the buddy system.

But Snedeker does not deserve all the blame. The U.S. had the demonstrably better set of golfers in every match, and they still did not execute. Especially in foursomes. We have years of evidence across both team competitions, from the 7-1 foursomes loss in Rome to the 6-2 loss in New York. Add in a 5-0 Friday loss in the last Presidents Cup in Montreal. This is a dramatic problem, and it’s up and down the lineup. Scheffler, the No. 1 player in the world, is 1-8 all time in foursomes.

The craziest red flag? Snedeker reduced the bad session to putting: “They made a ton of putts. I feel like our guys hit a bunch of great putts and just couldn’t find the bottom of the hole.” — Brody Miller

Wyndham Clark is the lone bright spot for the U.S.

This is a sentence I never thought I would write in May: Wyndham Clark has to play all five matches in this Presidents Cup.

Through two days, Clark has not only been the Americans’ best player; but by strokes gained, he’s been the top overall competitor. He’s gained 4.46 strokes in two rounds, while eight of the Americans are losing strokes. That includes his partner, Collin Morikawa, who miserably missed three straight makable putts that they had to have Friday.

Clark is not for everyone, but in the same way that Patrick Reed could harness a similar energy in team competitions and turn into a weapon, Clark’s fire is an asset in these moments.

(https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7631099/2026/09/25/united-states-president-cup-losing-international-team-2026/?unlocked_article_code=1.EFE.CNxq.KkdbQFR0BWeH&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-

>>25079922

2/2

Clark won three times this year, most notably the U.S. Open (his second), but also the CJ Cup and a playoff event, the BMW Championship. He’s hot, and Snedeker has to lean on him the rest of the way. And probably without Morikawa for the afternoon foursome session. — Hugh Kellenberger

Presidents Cup Saturday tee times

(All times ET. United States team listed first.)

• Match 1 (8:02 a.m.): Justin Thomas/Jackson Koivun vs. Min Woo Lee/Sungjae Im

• Match 2 (8:20 a.m.): Collin Morikawa/Wyndham Clark vs. Si Woo Kim/Tom Kim

• Match 3 (8:38 a.m.): Chris Gotterup/Cameron Young vs. Nick Taylor/Corey Conners

• Match 4 (8:56 a.m.): Scottie Scheffler/Sam Burns vs. Hideki Matsuyama/Ryo Hisatsune

What to think about the Americans’ chances Saturday

Snedeker decided to bench Cantlay and Schauffele, who are both an earned 0-2. He will sit Henley and Bridgeman for the second straight four-ball session, especially after they struggled together in foursomes Friday. All valid.

The real theme is Snedeker sticking to his guns, and he will be judged fully by that decision. His decision-making here seems to be as simple as: Burns-Scheffler, Clark-Morikawa and Thomas-Koivun won four-ball matches Thursday, so they should play four-ball again.

He is not concerned by any of the noise to any of those players. They won Thursday, so they go again.

The only change is switching to Gotterup-Young, two birdie machines who can bomb it. I think this should have been the Thursday pairing, so I’m excited to watch. — Miller

International redemption arcs

The beauty of the 5-0 International run? The players doing it.

Min Woo Lee was benched two years ago by captain Mike Weir, playing one of four team sessions. Lee had a poor day Thursday in four-ball. But Friday, Lee led all 20 players in strokes gained. He put his teammate, Ryan Fox, in a good position all day.

Fox also struggled mightily Thursday, but Friday he flipped the match with a 13-foot birdie putt on No. 15 and a 19-foot make on No. 16 to hush the American-leaning crowds.

Adam Scott is the leader of the International team, but he entered the day 20-29-6 in 23 years of cups. He helped lead a struggling Christiaan Bezuidenhout to the win with darts from trouble spots and two 30-plus-foot birdies to flip holes. — Miller

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7631099/2026/09/25/united-states-president-cup-losing-international-team-2026/?unlocked_article_code=1.EFE.CNxq.KkdbQFR0BWeH&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta