More on Number of Measles Cases In Canada Almost Triple That Of US

 by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The number of measles cases in Canada this year is nearly triple that of the United States, according to a July 28 weekly monitoring report from the Canadian government.

s of July 19, confirmed measles cases reported in Canada had reached 3,878, according to the report. This is 2.9 times the 1,333 confirmed cases reported in the United States as of July 29, according to a July 30 update from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Canada, measles infections, both confirmed and probable, have been reported from 10 jurisdictions—Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan.

Ontario has the highest number of cases, with 2,301 confirmed and probable infections. Alberta has had 1,450 cases, Manitoba 167, and British Columbia 140.

The current measles outbreak in Canada began in New Brunswick in October last year and has since continued to spread across several provinces, the government report said.

“Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998, and therefore endemic transmission no longer takes place in the country. However, cases continue to occur sporadically, usually due to importation from regions where measles is circulating,” it said.

According to World Health Organization data published in July, Canada ranked ninth in the list of nations that reported measles cases over the previous six months.

Ahead of Canada were Yemen, Pakistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Romania, and Nigeria.

Some of these nations—Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and Nigeria—ranked among the top 10 new immigrant nationalities that arrived in Canada last year, according to data from Statista.

The 3,878 confirmed measles infections in Canada are a very high number compared to past years.

“From 1998 to 2024, there were an average of 91 measles cases reported in Canada annually, with between 0 and 752 cases reported each year,” according to the report.

As for the United States, the 1,333 confirmed measles cases, of which 13 percent involved hospitalization, were reported across 40 states, according to the CDC update.

Americans aged 5–19 years account for the highest share of infections, closely followed by those aged 20 and above, and children under the age of 5. Out of the total, 92 percent are among people who are either unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, the agency said.

In total, there have been three confirmed deaths from measles in the United States this year.

Spokespersons from the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently said in emails to The Epoch Times that the risk of measles infection for the overall U.S. population is low.

Infection rates among Americans are less than 0.4 per 100,000 individuals, which is less than in other developed nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain, and France.

“Measles risk is higher in U.S. communities with low vaccination rates in areas with active measles outbreaks or with close social and/or geographic linkages to areas with active measles outbreaks. CDC continues to recommend MMR vaccines as the best way to protect against measles,” they said, referring to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

However, they clarified that “the decision to vaccinate is a personal one. People should consult with their healthcare provider to understand their options to get inoculated and should be informed about the potential risks and benefits associated with vaccines.”

This year’s measles case numbers in the United States are a 33-year high.

Vaccination Impact

According to a Jan. 17 post by the CDC, two doses of MMR are recommended by doctors to protect against measles.

But the agency highlights that while MMR usually protects people against measles and rubella for life, immunity against mumps could decline over time.

“Some vaccinated people may still get measles, mumps, or rubella if they are exposed to the viruses. It could be that their immune system didn’t respond as well as they should have to the vaccine; their immune system’s ability to fight the infection decreased over time; or they have prolonged, close contact with someone who has a virus,” the CDC said.

“However, disease symptoms are generally milder in vaccinated people. They are also less likely to spread the disease to other people.”

MMR vaccines may result in mild side effects such as soreness or swelling at the site where the vaccine was given, fever, temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, and mild rashes. While more serious side effects are rare, such adverse effects can include a high fever that can lead to seizures, the agency said.

In April, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said people should consider getting a measles vaccine as it could limit the spread of the disease.

On July 14, Kennedy said he does not plan on declaring a public health emergency for measles and that the United States was dealing well with the infection.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/number-measles-cases-canada-almost-triple-us

Lula Threatens Response After Trump Slaps 'Witch-Hunting' Brazil With Highest Tariff-Rate Globally

 On Friday President Trump imposed an unprecedented whopping 50% tariff on products imported into the US from Brazil, including nearly one-third of the coffee Americans consume daily.

This is despite the US having maintained a trade surplus with Brazil amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars over the past decade, and it's all tied to the political firestorm of ex-leader Jair Bolsonaro's trial, and Trump's efforts to defend his friend known as the 'Brazilian Donald Trump'.

The 50% tariff on select Brazilian imports is the highest rate currently applied to any nation globally, and with tiny Switzerland coming in second, having been shocked by its 39% tariff rate, which are the highest tariffs in Europe.

Image: Agência O Globo

On Switzerland, the BBC writes, "It's the one story dominating the news and the airwaves on Friday. One newspaper, Blick, described it as the country's biggest defeat since French victory in the battle of Marignano in 1515."

But on the Brazil front, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has slammed the Trump tariffs as blatant political interference and says the government is preparing a response. 

"We have always been open for a dialogue," President Lula wrote on X. "We are working now to respond to the US tariff measures," Lula da Silva said.

"Only citizens and institutions of Brazil have the right to determine the country’s path, including the relations with the United States," he added.

The US has included some exemptions:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday slapped a 50% tariff on most Brazilian goods to fight what he has called a "witch hunt" against former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies.

Trump announced the tariffs, some of the steepest levied on any economy in the U.S. trade war, as his administration also unveiled sanctions on the Brazilian supreme court justice who has been overseeing Bolsonaro's trial on charges of plotting a coup.

Lula previously vowed to introduce tit-for-tat tariffs if Washington does not reconsider, while also expressing hope that his Brazilian delegation will be able to achieve the revision of tariffs through negotiations.

The US has sought to present this as more than just political and more than merely motivated by protection of Trump-ally Bolsonaro, however.

Graph source: @JosephPolitano

For example Wednesday's US Treasury statement announcing sanctions on those who are going after Bolsonaro also cited Brazil’s "unusual and extraordinary" actions as harmful to American businesses, free speech, and economic interests.

Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of the former president, has defended Trump's actions, saying it's not about revenge, but justice. Meanwhile Trump has said that President Lula can call him anytime.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/brazil-preparing-response-highest-globally-50-us-tariffs-president-lula

Federal agency opens probe into former Trump prosecutor Jack Smith

A U.S. federal agency has opened a formal investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw two criminal probes into President Donald Trump following his first term in the White House.

The Office of Special Counsel confirmed to Reuters that it was investigating whether Smith violated the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting federal employees from using their position for political activity. The decision follows a request for a probe by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican.

The OSC is an independent agency that probes the conduct of federal employees, but it does not have the authority to bring criminal charges. It is different from the type of Special Counsel's office previously overseen by Smith, who was appointed by the Department of Justice to pursue criminal cases.

The OSC's investigation, which was first reported by the New York Post, is the latest in a series of actions taken by Trump and his allies against their perceived political enemies.

Smith, who resigned from his post in January following Trump's election victory, could not immediately be reached for comment.

Earlier this week Cotton accused Smith of aggressively pursuing his cases against Trump with the aim of hurting his presidential campaign, calling Smith "a political actor masquerading as a public official" in a series of posts on X.

"That's why I've asked this unprecedented interference in the 2024 election be immediately investigated by OSC," Cotton wrote on X.

A former war crimes prosecutor, Smith brought two criminal cases against Trump: one accusing him of illegally retaining classified material and another related to Trump's attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, an effort that sparked the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

Neither case went to trial, having been delayed and buffeted by a series of legal challenges, including a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority that granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

Smith dropped both cases after Trump won the election, citing a longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but issued a report in January saying the evidence he gathered would have been enough to convict Trump at trial.

Trump denied wrongdoing and assailed the prosecutions as politically motivated attempts to damage his campaign.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/federal-agency-opens-probe-former-232353823.html

Ukraine Anti-Corruption Agencies Detain Four in Drone Procurement Probe

 

Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies said four people had been detained in a probe into “large-scale” corruption in the procurement of drones and jamming systems.

A group including a lawmaker, two local officials and the head of a National Guard unit organized schemes to misappropriate local authorities’ budget funds in 2024-2025, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office said Saturday in statements posted on Facebook.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-02/ukraine-anti-graft-bodies-detain-four-in-drone-procurement-probe

Zelensky Signs Law Allowing Ukrainians Over 60 To Join The Military

 Via The Libertarian Institute

Ukrainians aged 60 and older can now serve in non-combat roles thanks to new legislation. The elderly Ukrainians will need special approval and get medical clearance before enlisting.

The law was passed by the Ukrainian legislature earlier this month and signed by President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday, allowing people over the age of 60 to serve in limited roles until martial law in Ukraine is lifted.

While the current martial law authorization is set to lapse next month, Zelensky has requested that lawmakers extend it for an additional 90 days. Zelensky’s presidential term has already expired, and he has used martial law to remain in office.

Zelensky signed the law increasing the age limit as Ukraine continues to struggle with manpower in the war with Russia. Last year, Ukraine lowered its draft age from 27 to 25, but has resisted calls from the US to drop it to 18.

Regional media explains:

According to the Verkhovna Rada website, the law was returned with the president’s signature on Tuesday, July 29. Parliament had passed the legislation on Wednesday, July 16.

The law applies exclusively to volunteers – there is no provision for compulsory service in this age group.

Under the updated Law “On Military Duty and Military Service,” citizens aged 60+ can now enlist under contract during martial law, provided they are deemed medically fit by a military commission and have written consent from a unit commander.

Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod explained earlier this month that her country was facing a severe manpower shortage, saying, "Our main problem is people. Nobody is giving us people."

The MP said that even if President Donald Trump sent more weapons to Ukraine, the "war cannot last forever." Over the past years, older men have been spotted among military ranks, leading to questions over just how desperate Ukrainie's military recruiters have become.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-signs-law-allowing-ukrainians-over-60-join-military

Submission Accomplished: Europe Blinked. Trump (and America) Won

 

By Charlton Allen

The real story isn’t that Europe blinked in the so-called trade war—that was always inevitable.

The real story is how many are now admitting aloud what Trump supporters have known for years.

A few, like Bill Maher, are at least willing to give credit where it’s due. But most still tie themselves in rhetorical knots—acknowledging the outcome while recasting the vanquished as victims in a story where Trump dared to succeed.

As I wrote in my April 9th American Thinker column, Too Little, Too Late:

Von der Leyen’s preemptive surrender was no gesture of goodwill. It’s a plea from a cornered technocrat who sees what’s coming: a second Trump term, a U.S. trade policy guided by strategic self-interest, and a world where the old racket of Euro-guilt-for-gain is finally over.

The European Union isn’t negotiating from strength. It’s bracing for another dose of reality—the same one Trump delivered in 2018 when he imposed tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, refused to be bullied in Davos, and told NATO members to pay their fair share or else.

The media chorus, echoed by what passes for Democrat leadership these days, warned that Trump’s tariffs would ignite trade wars and isolate America. But now Brussels is courting the supposed isolationist with an offer to zero out tariffs on industrial goods.

 

The legacy press and the political class—from Capitol Hill to Foggy Bottom—won’t say it out loud, but Trump’s tariffs are working—not by inflicting pain, but by exposing the lie that one-sided trade could last forever.

So what’s the point of calling your shot if you can’t take a little victory lap when the ball clears the fence?

Europe capitulated. And the Eurocentric chorus on both sides of the Atlantic is seething.

Legacy media outlets are wringing their hands. Certain think tanks are gnashing their teeth

Economists keep missing their projections. Jobs are rising. Inflation is down—well below Biden-era highs.

The stock market—an imperfect barometer, yes, but still—keeps setting records. Industries are reshoring. And Main Street is buzzing with optimism.

The one soft spot? Interest rates remain artificially high. But Powell’s era of monetary sclerosis is nearing its end.

After decades of lopsided trade, Europe finally admitted what it long denied: it needs access to the American market far more than America needs European validation.

Now, the EU must confront its own dense thicket of non-tariff barriers that for years boxed out U.S. exports. It must increase military spending—much of which will flow directly into the American defense industry.

And it must finally stop the self-defeating habit of buying Russian energy while counting on American power to contain Putin.

That era is ending—and not a moment too soon.

And on the matter of European security, let’s not forget: President Trump secured historic pledges from most NATO members to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP—an unimaginable leap just a few years ago.

Simply put, Trump has recalibrated the U.S.-European relationship with precision and with purpose. The goal? Put American interests first.

The White House isn’t just taking a victory lap—they’re breaking the tape with fists raised high. According to the official fact sheet, the deal:

• Imposes a 15% U.S. tariff on most EU imports while eliminating all EU tariffs on U.S. industrial goods;
• Locks in a $750 billion EU commitment to buy American energy through 2028—up from about $80 billion annually;
• Secures $600 billion in new EU investment in the U.S. over that same period;
• Commits Brussels to purchasing U.S. military equipment, expanding quotas for American agriculture, and eliminating non-tariff barriers across digital, industrial, and food sectors.

This isn’t a minor policy tweak—it’s a sweeping structural overhaul of the U.S.-EU economic and geopolitical relationship.

It strikes at the core of the postwar contradiction that defined Europe’s posture: the illusion that a continent could simultaneously freeload off U.S. defense, bash American tech while demanding unfettered access to its innovations, block American goods, stiff-arm American energy, and bankroll Moscow.

That was never sustainable. Trump didn’t just expose it—he dismantled it.

And still, the complaints pour in. French officials called the deal “submission” and a “dark day.” German EU Parliament members labeled it “significantly imbalanced.” France’s European Affairs Minister even called for retaliatory measures against a deal the EU had just helped craft.

Retaliation for what, exactly? Buying American goods while protected by American troops?

Because here’s the truth: while the tariff terms may appear asymmetrical, the alliance itself has long been asymmetrical.

The United States has underwritten Europe’s defense for 80-plus years. It has shouldered the lion’s share of NATO’s costs while tolerating deeply protectionist EU trade policies—policies no genuine partner, let alone a dependent one, should ever impose on its chief benefactor.

Now, after President Trump secured real concessions—on tariffs, energy, defense, and investment—the usual suspects cry foul.

It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples… resigns itself to submission.

—French Prime Minister François Bayrou, July 28, 2025

Submission to what, exactly?

To more balanced trade terms after decades of one-way access?

To defense spending targets NATO should have enforced years ago?

To buying energy from an ally instead of Putin?

This wasn’t strong-arming a fragile alliance. It’s long-overdue accountability. And the outrage? It’s a tantrum.

As ever, the sense of entitlement flows freely along the Seine.

The truth is, the outrage says more about the old order than the new deal. For decades, European elites gorged on American demand while walling off their markets with fortress regulations. The European Commission buried U.S. exports in red tape—especially in agriculture, digital services, and pharmaceuticals.

Now that game is up.

Trump did what previous presidents only talked about—if they acknowledged the problem at all.

For generations, American politicians genuflected at the altar of global consensus, chanting platitudes about world order and “free trade” while presiding over a rigged system that left Americans carrying the burden and coming up short on the deal.

Trump changed that. He cut through the Gordian knot binding together decades of economic and security dysfunction.

This agreement doesn’t just slash tariffs—it confronts the thicket of non-tariff barriers that have long distorted trade with Europe. Arbitrary certifications, regulatory favoritism, and anti-competitive red tape are finally on the table.

And while many of those barriers remain, their continued existence helps explain why the tariff structure appears asymmetrical: it’s a necessary counterweight to a European system—or rather, a confederation of over two dozen systems—designed to exclude American exports.

And let’s be clear: “America First” was never about isolationism. It wasn’t some pre-WWII fever dream. It was about restoring the logic of alliances—mutual respect, mutual contribution.

Trump made clear what no one else dared to say: the cycle of defense freeloading, energy duplicity, and one-sided access is over.

“America First” means American policy serves American interests. That shouldn’t be radical. That’s what diplomacy, trade, energy, and security partnerships are supposed to do—for any sovereign nation.

The fact that it disorients the Left—so thoroughly, so reliably, and so rabidly—says nothing about Trump or those who align with him.

It says all you need to know about an agenda that treats American interests as an afterthought.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/submission_accomplished_europe_blinked_trump_and_america_won.html

Anatomy of a Coup: The Obama-Era Big Lie That Launched a National Delusion

 

By Charlton Allen

This is the third installment in a series. Read Part I: “They Buried the Truth to Destroy Trump” and Part II: “The Analyst Who Knew Too Much”.

They didn’t just bury the truth. They built a monument to their Big Lie.

It’s a term the left loves to wield—usually against their enemies, never themselves.

But the real Big Lie was the con they ran on the American people: the Russia Hoax. And that monument? It’s now crumbling beneath a flood of declassified documents pouring into public view.

Yes, it matters in this moment. The truth matters. And despite the tired, flailing insistence that there’s “nothing new” here, there’s plenty we’ve learned—and much more still to come.

By mid-December 2016, Obama administration officials knew four things:

• The Russians had not tampered with the vote.
• The Steele dossier was Clinton-funded opposition research.
• Intelligence analysts did not concur that Russia had favored Trump, and
• The Clinton campaign had crafted a plan to falsely link Trump to Russia—specifically to distract from her political vulnerabilities.

But none of that mattered to them.

According to the newly declassified July 2025 HPSCI report, the goal was never to deliver a balanced intelligence product. It was to impose a narrative—one that could politically wound the incoming president and reverse the result they had failed to prevent at the ballot box.

The December that follows a presidential election is supposed to be a time of transition—especially after a hard-fought campaign. The American tradition holds that even in defeat, power is transferred peacefully and honorably. For years, the left has sermonized about the sacred duty of a “peaceful transition of power.”

There was nothing peaceful about December 2016. What unfolded was a deliberate, coordinated attempt to undermine—and ultimately destroy—the incoming Trump administration before it ever took office. It was sabotage on a historic scale.

The outgoing Obama team sought to compromise Trump’s ability to govern from Day One. In their bitterness, they were willing to paralyze the government itself.

They wanted Trump to fail—and with him, America.

That’s why this may be the most nefarious political scandal in American history.

And so they did what they always do: they cooked the books, silenced the dissenters, and blamed their misdeeds on someone else.

Projection is their default. The lies, the scandals, the abuses—they graft onto their enemies what they themselves have done. They invert the truth with surgical precision—because they know all too many in the media will amplify it.

It is long past time for accountability.

This deliberate campaign to cripple a duly elected president and his incoming administration was a premeditated act. They weaponized our intelligence agencies, shredded constitutional norms, and poisoned faith in our republican institutions.

They jeopardized U.S. foreign policy, triggered a diplomatic breakdown with the world’s most heavily armed nuclear power, and made America—and our allies—less safe.

All because they lost an election.

The House Intelligence Committee’s newly declassified findings are staggering.

The Intelligence Community Assessment wasn’t an objective appraisal—it was a politically commandeered document, warped into an anti-Trump manifesto, and riddled with deviations from established tradecraft.

Its key judgment—that Russia favored Trump—was inserted over internal dissent and lacked firm evidentiary support.

Far from a neutral analysis, the ICA was a custom-built narrative. And it served a deeply partisan end: to delegitimize, discredit, and ultimately destroy the duly elected President of the United States.

To this day, for many on the left, it remains a sacramental truth—their secular catechism. The Russia Hoax is the origin story of their hatred for all things Trump. They cling to it with theological fervor, facts be damned.

Yet here are key findings from the declassified House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report—findings that Russia itself withheld from public amplification during the 2016 election, undercutting any supposed preference for Donald Trump:

• Russian intelligence assessed that top Democrats—including President Obama—were alarmed by Clinton’s health. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported that Democratic leaders viewed her condition as a serious threat to her election prospects, citing “psycho-emotional problems,” including “uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness.”
• Clinton was allegedly on a regimen of “heavy tranquilizers” and suffered from multiple serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease, deep vein thrombosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
• SVR intercepts revealed internal DNC communications outlining a plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia. These communications described Clinton as “obsessed with a thirst for power”. They also indicated that her campaign sought to distract from her political vulnerabilities by linking Trump to Russian interference.
• The SVR obtained intelligence indicating political interference in the FBI’s Clinton email investigation. Russian sources reported that senior DOJ officials were briefing the Clinton campaign on the status of the probe—and that pressure was being applied to limit the inquiry’s scope.
• The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) reported secret meetings between State Department officials and religious groups, in which U.S. officials allegedly offered increased U.S. funding (e.g., via USAID) and diplomatic backing for their work in post-Soviet countries—conditioned on support for Clinton’s candidacy.
• Intelligence disputed that Russia favored Trump. Internal dissent existed when the ICA was drafted; some analysts concluded the evidence reflected a disruption strategy, not a preference for Trump.
• ICA authors and investigators were blocked from accessing key records. Critical context was withheld, impeding an objective intelligence product.
• The ICA violated tradecraft and internal standards by ignoring evidence that Putin withheld damaging material on Clinton. Despite having “significant information available to Moscow to denigrate Secretary Clinton,” the ICA did not incorporate it—violating the standard requiring inclusion of all relevant intelligence.

They knew the truth. They lied. They manipulated. And they got away with it—until now.

The Brennan-Clapper-Comey axis didn’t act as guardians of national security. They worked as saboteurs—partisan operatives in suits and lanyards, weaponizing America’s intelligence agencies to sully a duly-elected president.

The Russia Hoax wasn’t just a smear. It was a state-sponsored clandestine attack—waged by U.S. officials against the incoming government.

A silent coup, cloaked in classified briefings and choreographed leaks. And it has echoed ever since.

The implications are sweeping. The examination of the Big Lie has only just begun. But the accountability phase is long overdue.

The American people weren’t simply misled—they were targeted and deceived not by foreign adversaries, but by domestic conspirators embedded in the highest ranks of power. Their goal wasn’t to defend democracy. It was to override it.

History will deliver its verdict. But justice—real, unapologetic, and unrelenting—must not wait that long.

Stay tuned for more to come.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. His commentary has been featured in American Thinker and linked across multiple RealClear platforms, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearWorld, RealClearDefense, RealClearHistory, and RealClearPolicy. X: @CharltonAllenNC

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/anatomy_of_a_coup_the_obama_era_big_lie_that_launched_a_national_delusion.html