✪ THE BIG FRIDAY SOOPER THREAD

⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger

Trump’s Bold Diplomacy On The Ukraine War And Iranian Nuclear Program

kkk

here was a lot of movement this week on two intractable global security problems when the Trump Administration put forward proposals that defied the foreign policy establishment to end the war in Ukraine and halt Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

There were predictable condemnations of Trump’s proposals from parties to these disputes, European leaders, foreign policy experts, and the mainstream media. However, Trump officials made clear that they will not agree to endless negotiations on these disputes and are prepared to walk away if the president’s proposals are rejected.

To end the Ukraine-Russia War, Trump officials put forward what has been called President Trump’s final offer to end the war.

Under this plan, Russia would receive formal U.S. recognition of Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014, as Russian territory. Washington would also agree to de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation of territory it seized in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The U.S. would pledge not to support Ukraine’s membership in NATO, lift sanctions against Russia imposed since 2014, and offer U.S. economic cooperation.

Ukraine would be offered “a robust security guarantee” from European military forces. It would also get back part of the Kharkiv province currently occupied by Russia, navigation rights in the Dnieper River, and assistance in post-war rebuilding.

Ukraine reportedly will also have the right to its own army and defense industry as part of a peace agreement. If true, this means the U.S. is rejecting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be demilitarized as part of a final settlement.

Trump’s proposals will be very tough for Ukraine to accept, and it was not a surprise when Ukrainian President Zelensky immediately and publicly rejected the U.S. offering at least de facto recognition of Russia’s occupation of Crimea and areas of the Donbas. Zelensky’s allies in the U.S. and Europe echoed this criticism. Trump replied that the U.S. was not asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Trump and Vice President Vance also faulted Zelensky for publicly criticizing the new U.S. proposals, which they said were harmful to the peace process.

Critics of President Trump’s Ukraine peace proposal are arguing that it does not hold Russia accountable for its vicious and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Some claimed it rewards this aggression. Although these are principled positions, Trump’s hard-nosed realist plan may be the only chance to end the war. Trump’s plan recognizes facts on the ground that are unlikely to change and offers a chance to get both sides to the negotiating table and end the war.

Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is a gamble. It may bring about an ugly peace, but if it lasts and stops the killing, the concessions in the plan will have been worth it.

Trump is pressuring both sides by stating that if they refuse to seize this opportunity for peace, the U.S. will walk away. At a White House press conference today, Trump did not rule out consequences for Russia if it does not accept this agreement, but did not want to discuss them while negotiations are ongoing.

The Trump team offered another precedent-shattering proposal this week to address the growing threat from Iran’s nuclear program when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. would agree to let Iran keep a civilian nuclear program and continue to import fuel rods for its one nuclear power reactor but the U.S. also will insist that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program.

This was a significant change in U.S. policy, which reversed the wrong-headed decision of the Obama Administration to concede to Iran the “right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes in the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the JCPOA. Before the Obama Administration, both Democratic and Republican administrations refused to support allowing states to start new uranium enrichment efforts because it is very easy to use them to produce nuclear weapons fuel.

Given Iran’s extensive nuclear weaponization activities, including acquiring nuclear bomb plans and enriching a substantial amount of uranium to near-weapons-grade levels that have no peaceful applications, Iran obviously cannot be trusted with a uranium enrichment program. Trump officials have wisely rejected proposals by Iran and its globalist allies that it be allowed to continue to enrich uranium at low levels and keep its uranium stockpile in the country, possibly (and laughably) under Russian supervision.

Iranian officials are claiming their uranium enrichment program is not negotiable. They also are claiming a nuclear deal will be time-consuming to negotiate and want the U.S. to agree to an interim deal under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium at low levels. The Biden Administration was fooled by a similar interim nuclear deal during which Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons effort. President Trump and his national security officials will not fall for this. The President has offered Iran two months to negotiate a bona fide denuclearization agreement and is prepared to walk away if an agreement can’t be reached.

President Trump has said that nothing is off the table on how he would respond if Iran refuses to negotiate a serious nuclear deal. He has moved substantial U.S. military assets to the region, including two aircraft carrier groups and B-2 bombers. President Trump has also talked about restoring the tough “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran from his first term that nearly bankrupted the country.

President Trump’s proposals to end the war in Ukraine and the threat from Iran’s nuclear weapons program are serious and groundbreaking offers that neither President Biden nor any other world leader would have made. But they are serious proposals backed up by a decisive and unpredictable president who won’t be pressured into adopting the failed approaches to these conflicts of the past.

Trump’s new proposals also reflect an America First approach to U.S. national security to keep America out of unnecessary wars and exhaust all peaceful options to resolve conflicts short of war before he considers using military force.

Time is short for Russia, Ukraine, and Iran to answer President Trump’s bold proposals. We should know in a few short weeks whether these states want an agreement or whether they wish to risk unpredictable consequences from President Trump.✪

Saving The World Is Not America’s Responsibility

lll

he world can be an ugly place. Russia invaded Ukraine. Sudan is consumed by civil war. Haiti is overrun by violent gangs. Conflict has surged in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Somalia is ravaged by violence. Israel is waging war on Palestinians. In Burma the military regime is committing murder and mayhem.

The list goes on: Syria remains divided and at risk after years of conflict. Islamist violence is consuming Nigeria’s Christians and moderate Muslims. China is threatening to forcibly reclaim Taiwan. The Trump Administration is killing Yemenis and threatening to bomb Iran. Europeans are pushing America toward a direct military confrontation with Moscow.

These and other conflicts and potential conflicts are terrible. Many people, especially in Washington, look to the U.S. for answers. In their view, if only Uncle Sam is willing to “lead,” the lion will be forced to lie down with the lamb. And all will be well.

Unfortunately, this strategy, as evidenced by the last three decades, has proved to be disastrous. Fixing the world proved to be well beyond Washington’s capability. Equally important, these battles aren’t Americans’ responsibility.

That’s a controversial belief in Washington, where commitment to the U.S. as the crusader state dies hard. Even the Trump Administration, staffed with more neocon warriors than MAGA realists, seems determined on war somewhere. Indeed, the conviction that Washington should fix every problem and right every wrong is widely shared. I recently attended a conference on religious persecution around the world, an issue that I have covered for years. I was surprised when a long-time colleague vehemently criticized my long-held opposition to Washington’s continuing military presence in Syria.

Never mind that the American people have never thought of, let alone debated, protecting Syria’s Kurds. Or that the president has not negotiated and the Senate has not ratified a defense treaty. That Syria never has been a significant security interest for America. That Washington did much to harm Syrian civilians by fueling the civil war and applying brutal sanctions. That maintaining a garrison entangles the U.S. in the globe’s most volatile region. That protecting Syrian Kurds requires an ongoing, potentially permanent military presence. That American forces in Syria face multiple challengers, including Russia, Iran, ISIS, unaffiliated Islamist radicals, NATO ally Turkey, and the new Damascus regime, whose leaders once were affiliated with Al Qaeda. Or that such involvement is not in Americans’ interest.

Still, this person wanted the U.S. military to stick around. Not forever, they insisted. However, no one in the region, especially in the newly emerging Syrian government, which would like to reestablish control over all the land it now purports to rule, and Turkey, which has invaded Syria’s north and used proxy forces to rule over ethnic Kurdish borderlands, is prepared to abandon its claim. Which means any U.S. commitment must be open ended and any U.S. forces must remain perpetually ready for combat.

There is no duty for any government more fundamental than protecting its people. The Constitution speaks of the “common defense.” But that means of Americans, not the world. Most importantly, that also means defense. Not conducting grand crusades around the globe to bring paradise to earth.

Washington should be prepared to deter war against and defeat antagonists of Americans. Although the U.S. need not wait for the invaders to touch American soil, to act Washington should confront a genuine threat, not seek to create an idealized version of Pax Americana in the far reaches of the globe. Defending the U.S. has gotten more complicated in today’s world, where conflict can take various forms. Nevertheless, defense still means defense. Just as Supreme Court justices know pornography when they see it, Americans know cant about humanitarian war-making when they hear it. To constrain the Blob, as the foreign policy establishment has been called, it is vital to narrowly define both the foreign policy end and military means.

What makes international affairs so complicated is that it is prudential, requiring a judgment call in ever varying circumstances. For instance, Imperial Germany’s Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm and Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler warranted very different responses. Unnecessary intervention in World War I inadvertently led to World War II, which was far more difficult for Washington to avoid. In retrospect the Soviet Union’s ambitions look more limited than feared at the time. However, policymakers must deal with reality as it appears at the time. The results often are counterproductive, sometimes disastrously so.

Indeed, many of today’s hot spots, some literally on fire, are to varying degrees America’s or the broader West’s responsibility. Such is the Russia–Ukraine conflict, in which the U.S. and European allies have been fighting a proxy war-plus, very publicly helping Ukraine kill thousands of Russians. Moscow chose to initiate hostilities, an unjust and unjustified invasion. However, Washington and its NATO partners broke multiple promises not to expand the alliance to Russia’s borders, launched an aggressive war against Serbia, a long-time friend of Moscow, and promoted regime change in neighboring Georgia and Ukraine, where a democratically-elected president who leaned east was ousted.

Had the Soviet Union conducted a similar campaign against Mexico, the U.S. and USSR would have been at the brink of war, like over Cuba during the Cold War. Catastrophe could result.  Russia possesses nuclear weapons, which it uses to make up for conventional inferiority, and cares a lot more about Ukraine than America, which never challenged Moscow’s rule over that territory, even during the Cold War.

In the Middle East, the U.S. has proved to be a prodigious killer. Washington waged war on Iraq (twice), Libya, Syria, and Yemen, causing hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. The U.S. is threatening Iran, again. A war there could be worse than all the others combined.

Moreover, Washington has shaped its policy to protect the interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel rather than America. They long looked to war, and, more importantly, war by America, as the answer to their problems. For instance, the Guardian reported:

“The Saudi king was recorded as having ‘frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program,’ one cable stated. ‘He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake,’ the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah’s meeting with the U.S. general David Petraeus in April 2008.”

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has long campaigned for the same result. For instance, noted the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, “By ringing the alarm bells on Iran’s growing nuclear program, Netanyahu had hoped to eliminate Obama’s ‘kick the can down the road’ option and force Washington to strike Iran militarily.” Netanyahu similarly pushed Biden to act, but “almost all [of his plans] required significant U.S. support via direct military intervention or intelligence sharing. Israel has also requested that Washington help Israel defend itself should Iran retaliate.”

The prime minister continues to push for war. According to the New York Times: “Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran.” Apparently, even Trump is wary of his nominal friend. During his first term, the president complained that Israel’s premier was “willing to fight Iran to the last American soldier.”

Unfortunately, Washington’s refusal to do its supposed clients’ bidding in this case was unusual. In Yemen the U.S. aided the Saudi royals, among the world’s worst human rights abusers, in killing tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians to reinstate a puppet regime. Hamas warrants obvious condemnation for its atrocities, but Israel’s killing of tens of thousands of civilians goes well beyond a legitimate response.

Worst of all, the U.S. is thoughtlessly careening toward a potential war with China over Taiwan with little thought of the consequences. Only a very few voices have been raised in Washington against the idea of confronting Beijing militarily if it moves against Taiwan, a territory as close to the Chinese mainland as Cuba is to America.

However, battling a major conventional power possessing nuclear weapons over an issue which it views as existential is a prescription for catastrophe. Even in the minority of cases when the U.S. wins war games it suffers major losses in manpower and materiel, and the exercises typically presume no use of nuclear weapons. America’s response to Soviet military activities in Cuba offer a scary foretaste of how Beijing might ultimately respond to increased U.S. military activity on and around Taiwan.

What may be most striking about these cases is that none of them have much to do with defending America. The purpose of allies should be to help protect the U.S., not to act as welfare queens dragging Americans into other people’s quarrels. In some cases, the battle is largely irrelevant to U.S. interests and occasionally entirely unjust, such as Riyadh’s years of brutal attacks on Yemen. On occasion the objective may be useful, but is in no way vital for America, such as preventing Iran’s possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. In other examples, the cause is just—such as supporting Ukraine and Taiwan against foreign aggression. However, even then the interest isn’t vital for America, and certainly not worth conflict with a nuclear power.

The Founders’ desire to prevent promiscuous military meddling abroad caused them to require congressional assent for war. George Mason insisted that the president “is not safely to be entrusted with” that authority, hence it was placed with Congress. Explained James Wilson, “It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve U.S. in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at large.” The inimitable Thomas Jefferson made the same argument in more colorful language: the Constitution provided an “effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose.”

Their worries proved to be well-founded. In the modern era presidents misuse their role as military commander-in-chief to start endless conflicts. Unfortunately, Congresses fail to fulfill their responsibility and hold errant chief executives to account. Only rarely does either branch of government follow the Constitution.

“It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it,” opined Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee as he viewed the human carnage of the Fredericksburg battlefield. Since the end of the Cold War the U.S. has been the most militaristic and aggressive of nations. The lust for power and war has energized the infamous foreign policy Blob centered in Washington. Alas, everyone else at home, and many abroad, have paid the price.

Contra the constant fearmongering used to justify the U.S. government’s frequent war making, America is the most secure great power ever. Military intervention has proved to be the cause of, not solution to, U.S. insecurity.

Trump should chart another course. He was the first modern president to publicly acknowledge that America had done wrong, announcing that “war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” During his first term he also was reluctant to retaliate against other nations and needlessly leave corpses in the U.S. military’s wake. Now the president is attempting to bring peace to Europe and disentangle America from that continent’s major conventional conflict. He should take the same approach to the Middle East, ending threats against Iran, attacks on Yemen, and backing for Israel’s depredations.

Doing so won’t end war and inaugurate eternal peace. However, it would better keep America safe and force other nations to address their own problems and grievances. It’s impossible to know Trump’s ultimate legacy. However, it would be hard to improve on reducing America’s involvement in dangerous and unnecessary wars. ✪

JB SHURK: Pete Hegseth Threatens The Deep State

lll

t’s been three months since Vice President Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to confirm Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary. The Deep State worked hard to scuttle Hegseth’s nomination in December and January with a steady drip of news stories calling his character into question, but President Trump and his trusted veep stood by their man and applied enough pressure on wayward Republican senators to secure his confirmation. Suddenly, corporate propagandists posing as reporters are back with fresh stories meant to undermine Secretary Hegseth and get him fired from the Pentagon’s top post.  

It’s almost as if the Deep State tabled its sabotage campaign for a neat ninety days. Do you think there’s a section in some clandestine handbook on the dark arts of information warfare that recommends a three-month cooling-off period before ramping up operations against a given target? Our domestic spooks have gotten so tiresomely predictable!

Make no mistake: The silly attempts to create a public “narrative” that Secretary Hegseth threatens national security are part of the same Intelligence Community operation that targeted him last winter. It’s quite revealing how desperate the Deep State is to keep “outsiders” away from the levers of power, isn’t it? 

If the CIA and its Establishment co-conspirators don’t “own” you, they don’t want you around sticking your nose in their business. And it is big business! They’ve got elections to rig (foreign and domestic!), governments to topple (for the right price), and trillions of dollars in war funding to spend! They can’t let the president of the United States and his Secretary of Defense get in their way! Don’t Trump and Hegseth understand that they’re just here for cute photo ops while the permanently installed shadow government runs the global show? Heck, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin disappeared for days at a time, and nobody even noticed! The same information warfare specialists who continue to call Hegseth a “drunk” never said anything about Austin performing his duties while under sedation!

C’est la vie. MAGA Americans are well versed in the Deep State’s double-standards. If you burn down cities and loot stores in the name of “social justice,” the mockingbird media chirp about civil rights and the “summer of love.” If you show up in D.C. to protest election fraud, the same mockingbird media call you an “insurrectionist” and deny that you have any civil rights at all! Because Hegseth’s not part of the Deep State team, he gets the Orange Man Bad treatment from the press. Since the Gestapo-FBI effectively acts as a pimp for Politico and The New York Times, the presstitutes who work those rags’ street corners get slapped around when they don’t do the Intelligence Community’s bidding. In the corporate news world, that’s just life!

So after a ninety-day hiatus in the information war against Secretary Hegseth, the I.C.’s “journalistic” brothel is back to its old tricks. Despite vigorous denials from the White House, NPR is pumping out the following headline on car displays: “White House looking to replace Pete Hegseth at Defense.” Talk about modern “journalism” in a nutshell! Everybody at the White House says this story is bunk. President Trump says it’s horse pucky. Undaunted by overwhelming testimonial evidence to the contrary, NPR insists that some anonymous government official has assured its bordello of scribes that Trump is planning to fire Hegseth, even though the president is publicly saying the exact opposite! Could this unnamed “official” perhaps be related to the tubby Tweedle-Vindmans, a diminutive Ukrainian president, or some cash-strapped Nigerian prince? Holy moly, President Trump can’t defund fake-news NPR soon enough!

Last winter, when the Deep State’s “Operation: Sink Hegseth” was in full force, corporate news presstitutes nearly succeeded in giving RINO squishes enough cover to vote against his nomination. Celebrity “journalists” — whose profession remains a notorious breeding ground for alcoholism and sexual harassment — did their best to slander Pete Hegseth as a drunken womanizer and “Me Too” villain. Like monkeys flinging poo at the public, the nation’s trashiest gossip rags created a scene almost ugly enough to distract from Senate Republicans’ premeditated betrayal.  

Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Senator Joni Ernst withheld support for Trump’s pick, and rumors swirled that she hoped to secure the SecDef job herself. Two-Faced Thom Tillis was apparently working behind the scenes to tank Hegseth’s nomination at the last minute. Bitter and enfeebled Mitch McConnell, brain-dead Mainer Susan Collins, and dimwitted Democrat-in-all-but-name Lisa Murkowski (whom Alaskans have repeatedly tried to kick to the curb, while Establishment cheaters rig “elections” in her favor) scowled for the cameras, apparently hoping that their permanently dour visages would scare senatorial colleagues into submission. Much to the consternation of so many RINOs who have turned losing into an art form, Senate majority leader John Thune managed to avoid another spectacular Republican double-cross, reminiscent of John McCain’s infamous rescue of socialized medicine (AKA Obamacare).

One thing that regular people have learned well over the last several decades is that D.C.’s “ruling class” never gives up on failed plans. Americans repeatedly told politicians that marriage is a sacred institution that exists between one man and one woman. State and federal courts put their hands over their ears and chose to redefine a millennia-old tradition. Americans repeatedly told politicians to secure the nation’s borders. For fifty years, state and federal officials kept America’s borders wide open. Americans repeatedly told politicians to stop printing and spending money that they do not have. Congress not only created forty trillion dollars of debt and another couple hundred trillion dollars in future entitlement obligations, but also put us on the path of runaway inflation and currency collapse.

In the real world, “no” means “no.” In D.C., “no” just means “wait ninety days and try again.” That’s why the Deep State has circled back to scalp Hegseth.

Unfortunately for the compromised perverts running America’s shadow government, the American people have largely caught on to their little games. When they see the streetwalkers at The New York Times, Politico, and NPR all teasing customers with new salacious Hegseth stories, the first thing on most Americans’ minds is that whatever Trump’s Defense Secretary has done to tick off the Fourth Estate’s pimps in the Intelligence Community can’t be that bad. After all, when was the last time some branch of the Deep State did something good for America?

In 2025, Americans have learned that only heroes become targets. You protest election fraud, you go to jail. You defend your children from public school sickos who want to castrate kids and saturate classrooms with pornography, you’re put on one of the Gestapo-FBI’s watchlists. You attend a traditional Latin Mass, you’re labeled an “extremist.” You humiliate Hillary Clinton, the I.C. frames you as a Russian spy. You refuse to yield to the Deep State, you get railroaded by corrupt prosecutors and even more corrupt judges willing to invent “crimes.”  

So when the Deep State’s favorite journalistic courtesans are back to titillating the public with news of Hegseth’s imminent demise, discerning Americans assume that Trump’s Secretary of Defense must be doing something right. Could the Deep State be mad that Hegseth is purging the military of discriminatory D-I-E initiatives that prioritize racial and sexual identities over competence, hard work, and merit? Is it mad that he’s successfully rebuilding a warrior culture that is attracting new recruits in record numbers?  Is it mad that he’s prioritizing America’s hemispheric security over nuclear-tipped civil war in Ukraine? Is it mad that he follows President Trump’s orders and expects his subordinates to do the same? Is it mad that Secretary Hegseth puts America First?

Easy answer: Yes. ✪

Victor Davis Hanson: What Is Democratic Legality?

lll

The Left decries Trump’s deportation of an MS-13-linked illegal alien while ignoring its own legal hypocrisy and attempts to undermine the U.S. Justice System. Since 2021, the left has waged a veritable war against the American legal system in a variety of ways. One serial target of Democrats and the Left has been the Supreme Court.

In 2020, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to an angry throng of pro-abortion protestors assembled at the very doors of the court chambers. He threatened two of the justices, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, by name. Schumer yelled to the volatile crowd that the justices’ views would make them “reap the whirlwind,” and the two would not know what “hit” them.

In the ensuing months, protestors mobbed some of the conservative justices’ homes—likely committing felonies. The sympathetic Biden Justice Department chose not to follow the law, and so did nothing—although eventually a would-be assassin turned up.

Joe Biden himself bragged that he would try to ignore the Supreme Court ruling banning his arbitrary cancellation of billions of dollars in student loans. Indeed, he boasted, “The Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me.” In response, no one on the left ever complained about endangering the “rule of law” or Biden as “a dictator.”

For three years, four local, state, and federal prosecutors warped the law to neuter Donald Trump. Most of the charges had never been brought against other political figures in similar circumstances.

The vast majority of the 93 weaponized indictments backfired on the liberal prosecutors, who had contorted the legal system for political purposes and now face their own ethical or legal quagmires.

The federal prosecutor Jack Smith belatedly reported accepting $140,000 in free legal services. Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis was removed from the Trump case and fined, and is now under further investigation. New York prosecutor Letitia James is now facing allegations of falsification of documents and loan fraud.

Federal immigration law prohibits the illegal entry into and residence within the United States. Yet the Biden Administration deliberately violated the law by allowing somewhere between 10-12 million illegal aliens to cross the border. Thousands had criminal records. No one on the left decried any of these various affronts to the legal system.

In polls, by overwhelming majorities—above 70 percent—the public wants the Trump Administration to close the border, begin deportations, and start with criminals or those with violent histories and gang ties.

The recent deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien from El Salvador, to the vast majority of Americans seems to fit that profile.

Garcia entered the U.S. illegally and was later found consorting with members of M-13—a State Department-designated terrorist organization—who were selling drugs. Informants reported that he was a gang member. His own tattoos likely confirm those accusations.

Two prior immigration judges found such evidence sufficient to allow deportation proceedings. In 2019, a third judge allowed Garcia to stay temporarily, but only on the grounds that hostile gangs might harm him should he return to El Salvador.

Garcia was pulled over for speeding without a driver’s license—but with eight illegal aliens who reportedly all lived at the Garcia residence. The officer released him, despite suspicions that Garcia was engaged in human trafficking.

Garcia’s live-in girlfriend, now wife, was physically assaulted by Garcia on two occasions, suffered injuries, and initially sought restraining orders against him. The left claims Garcia is a “Maryland man” without an arrest record.

However he is not a U.S. citizen or a legal resident of Maryland. Instead, Garcia is in legal limbo and remains what he always was—a citizen of El Salvador with gang ties and formerly residing illegally in the U.S.

Garcia is now back home on El Salvadorian soil and was mistakenly sent to a high-security prison. But his own government in El Salvador will ultimately decide how involved Garcia is or was with M-13 gangs. And then, as a sovereign nation, it will act according to its own policies about its own citizens’ associations with that terrorist organization.

The Left has demanded that Garcia be returned to the U.S. He has become a cause célèbre as a purported victim of the supposedly fascist Trump. Returning Garcia is seen by leftists as a performance art-act to derail the Trump agenda, which otherwise they have neither the power nor public support to thwart.

The left also ignores its own hypocrisies and ironies. Those who weaponized the court system and destroyed the border now rail that Trump is acting unlawfully by not returning an illegal alien, an M-13 member, and a domestic abuser with a propensity to ignore our laws. How ironic that those who rail about colonialism now sound like 19th-century Yankee imperialists.

Democrats do not own El Salvador—although they act like it when dictating to its government that El Salvador cannot detain one of its own citizens on its own soil for its own reasons. ✪

⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger

Mr Globalism Goes Away

uuu

hen the skies over the Swiss resort of Davos next fill with over 1,000 private jets bearing the elites of the world to discuss its fate, the Teutonic man behind it all may no longer be there.

Klaus Martin Schwab, born during WWII to a Nazi factory manager using forced labor to make flamethrowers, is Mr. Globalism. Even those who don’t know his name have seen that face with its cold fish stare through the rimmed eyeglasses looking back at them from under the towering futura font, slim and minimalist, of a solemn address at a World Economic Forum event.

“As I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Klaus announced with dryly punctilious precision, declaring his departure while telling us nothing about why he’s leaving.

One reason may be that the WEF is investigating Schwab’s alleged withdrawal of cash from ATMs and use of the WEF to pay for hotel room massages, but the WEF founder has been accused of worse in the past.

But the real reason may be all the empty seats at the last World Economic Forum’s Davos event.

Not only Trump, who delivered virtual remarks, but most world leaders stayed home from 2025’s AI-themed Davos. Apart from Ukraine’s Zelenskyy, who can be counted on to show up at garage sales, dinner theaters and children’s puppet shows as long as there’s a chance photos will be taken, the WEF had to make do with personal addresses from the likes of South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, the UN Secretary General, and the European Commission president. The globalists, failed state leaders, and CEOs looking to mingle still come, but Davos is dying.

Klaus and Davos have both outlived their moment and the movement. Globalism remains a compelling force as a political reality, but its ideological momentum has run out. Conservatives hate the WEF and entire political movements have been based on running against globalism. Leftists want their internationalism in the form of riots and terrorism, not glorified TED talks with Bill Gates and elderly German academic bureaucrats selling them watered-down Marxism.

The general public never had much faith in the Eurocratic vision that the world would be run by an unaccountable world government of elite bureaucrats, academic experts and billionaire philanthropists holding conferences in various resorts to discuss how much light rail to build and how many patients with incurable diseases on national health insurance to euthanize.

But if Klaus were to blame anyone for destroying globalism’s credibility, it would be his former messiah, Barack Obama, who seemed like he had been cloned at Davos to accomplish the WEF’s goals. Instead, Americans got a taste of Davos and ran as far as they could the other way. Obama’s Arab Spring flooded Europe with Muslim mass migration and woke the continent from the slumbering haze of childless elderly government workers sleepwalking into the sunset.

By the time Schwab was using the pandemic to call for a “global reset,” the slick blend of corporate buzzwords and NGO marketing looked like an evil tyranny to millions of people. The Davosites had gotten their way and left behind ruin and misery on a global scale, and as the 1,000 private jets continued to fly to Davos, it was all too clear that they were still not done.

The one thing much of America and Europe now agree on is a burning hatred for the establishment. And globalism in its full flower at the WEF is the ultimate establishment. The WEF and its allied billionaire philanthropists helped platform and fund a militant activist class, but from Obama to the street rioters, that class doesn’t want to be seen in public with the WEF.

Schwab’s 2025 WEF pitch for “constructive optimism” and collaboration through AI fell flat.

Ironically, with AI, Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution seems more plausible than ever, but no one is cheering the dystopia of digital automation even as everyone seems to be diving in. It’s a world that seems to echo the WEF’s old pitch of “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,” many believe the first part, but few believe the second part. And no one outside Davos is happy.

The illusion of a global world order, a project with troubling roots in Europe’s post-fascist systems, came apart even before Trump took office. Nationalist governments run for office promising that unhitching from globalism will make their countries and societies better. Brexit was not a one-off but a major moment in a grand global uncoupling that continues today.

President Trump’s dismantling of America’s participation in globalist institutions is a serious blow to the order that Schwab had tried to impose, but it wouldn’t be possible if there hadn’t been a systemic loss of faith in the system embodied by Davos conferences, McKinsey contracts, expert opinions, multilateral talks, think tank papers and whatever Bill Gates, Bloomberg, Soros, the Amazon founder’s ex-wife and the Apple co-founder’s widow are funding this year.

At last year’s Davos event, Schwab complained that, “geopolitically, our world is more interconnected, yet paradoxically, more divided than ever” and urged that “to break this cycle, we need a paradigm shift, we must rebuild trust” touting “100 initiatives” bringing together “the best experts throughout the year at our headquarters in Geneva, and throughout the world, to make tangible progress in finding solutions for the key challenges on the global agenda.”

But Klaus was selling something that no one was buying anymore. Davos is a club for men and women whose institutional power is great, but whose hold on events and the public has faded. That’s why world leaders have been staying away, leaving it to CEOs to abuse shareholder funds to subsidize Schwab’s Swiss globalist gab getaway. And not even Klaus could keep it up.

After Klaus, the WEF falls to Børge Brende, a former Norwegian minister who already serves as its CEO to be its public face. Unfortunately, like Schwab, it’s the face of a James Bond villain. But that’s already how most people see globalism. What used to be sold to the public as a more efficient process of fixing problems in the third world has turned the first world into the third.

Globalism, like Davos, is a scam, its promise of fixing problems through convergence only converges the problems on those parts of the world foolish enough to try to fix them. The Arab Spring didn’t just make the Middle East and North Africa worse, it also made Europe worse. Promising to save the planet has made life worse for Dutch farmers and American workers.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings,” Winston Churchill, who had been at war with the system represented by the Schwabs, asserted. “The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” The WEF has played a role in sharing miseries, but those miseries are more likely to be found in rust belt cities in America and England than in the resort playgrounds of Davos. Every WEF idea somehow makes life worse for ordinary people and better for Davos attendees. And few still believe that’s some sort of coincidence.

Davos urged corporations to act like NGOs and NGOs to act like corporations. Billionaires were told to think like politicians and bring about positive change. National leaders were encouraged to think like world leaders. Out of this goulash of globalism has come a much worse world in which people no longer feel represented by those they elect and believe that they are being governed by an unelected tyranny of self-proclaimed billionaire world leaders like Bill Gates.

And they’re sick and tired of it.

Klaus Schwab’s belated retirement is incomplete. A proper Auf Wiedersehen from him would have been to take down the signs, pull down the curtain and put an end to the WEF. ✪

ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security

ZELLE is the perfect online alternative to PayPal. It’s an incredibly simple, secure, easy, fast and FREE way to send or receive money to recipients directly from your online banking account without a middleman. Best of all, there’s NO fees.

ZELLE is a service provided by your bank and is already built in to your online banking account. You only need to activate it first before using. If you’ve already activated ZELLE in your online bank or credit union account, you can donate to The New Americanist by using our ZELLE address:

vip@thenewamericanist.com

To activate your ZELLE, follow these easy instructions (a simple two minute process):