▶️ BREAKING: TRUMP SAYS CHARLIE KIRK SUSPECT IS ‘IN CUSTODY’
BREAKING: TRUMP SAYS CHARLIE KIRK SUSPECT IS ‘IN CUSTODY’
www
resident Donald Trump revealed during an interview on Fox & Friends Friday morning that the suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk is now in custody, calling the arrest the result of a tireless, around-the-clock effort by law enforcement.
The conversation began when host Ainsley Earhardt mentioned that Trump had attended the 9/11 Memorial the day before, while Vice President J.D. Vance traveled to Arizona to be with Kirk’s family and accompany the body back home. Earhardt also noted Trump’s announcement that he intends to award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom, a decision the president confirmed on air.
▶️ 2 Minutes 50 Seconds
When asked about the status of the suspect, Trump didn’t hold back. “With a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody,” he said. “Everyone did a great job. We worked with the local police, the governor. Everybody did a great job.”
Trump highlighted just how daunting the investigation was at the start. “Getting somebody that you start off with absolutely nothing,” he explained. “We started off with a clip that made him look like an ant. That was almost useless. We just saw there was somebody up there. And so much work has been done over the last two and a half days. It’s amazing actually, when you start off with that and then all of a sudden, you get lucky or talent or whatever it is. But yeah, I think we’re in great shape.”
▶️ 31 Seconds
The news marks the first public confirmation of an arrest in the case since Kirk was gunned down during a Q&A session at Utah Valley University earlier this week, in what appears to have been an ideologically motivated attack. Trump’s remarks signal that investigators have moved swiftly to deliver justice for the slain conservative leader, a development likely to bring some measure of relief to Kirk’s grieving supporters.
At this stage, however, the FBI has not yet issued its own confirmation of the arrest, leaving Trump’s statement as the only official word on the matter. That makes the president’s announcement all the more significant; and all eyes will now be on federal authorities to confirm the details.
Law enforcement in Utah held a late press conference Thursday night to provide updates on the manhunt for Kirk’s assassin. FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino were on hand in Salt Lake City but did not speak. Instead, investigators unveiled new surveillance footage and enhanced still images showing the suspect fleeing the rooftop where the fatal shot was fired.
The images revealed a clearer look at the suspect: a t-shirt, backpack, hat with a triangle logo, and Converse shoes. Investigators also confirmed they’ve recovered the firearm used in the attack and traced the suspect’s movements after the shooting.
The case has drawn massive public engagement, with more than 7,000 tips flooding in; reportedly the highest volume since the Boston Marathon bombing. Law enforcement has already conducted 200 witness interviews, and forensic analysis is underway at both state and federal labs.
Gov. Spencer Cox thanked federal officials for working alongside Utah agencies and stressed the importance of public cooperation, saying law enforcement “cannot do our job without the public’s help.” He also warned of “a tremendous amount of disinformation” spreading online about the case and vowed that prosecutors will seek the death penalty once the killer is captured.
Justice for Charlie Kirk is finally within reach. After a relentless, around-the-clock law enforcement effort, the assassin is reportedly now in custody. ✪
▶️ VDH: THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE WESTERN APOCALYPSE
VDH: THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE WESTERN APOCALYPSE
hhh
urope faces four self-inflicted crises; radical green mandates, collapsing families, unchecked immigration, and rising tribalism now threaten Western Civilization itself. Yet they are all self-inflicted—and by a dominant, therapeutic culture that embraced utopian but lethal bromides.
These suicidal wounds are now nearing the end-stage. Indeed, they are destroying the very civilization that was soon envisioned to be Heaven on Earth.
The global warming hysterics could not just entertain gradual transformations away from dependencies on traditional fuels and power generation.
Instead, elites have demanded catastrophic and near-instant “net zero” mandates. That radicalism entailed transitioning to unreliable and costly solar and wind energy. Fuel and electricity prices then soared.
The green socialist elite cared little that shutdowns of nuclear, coal, natural gas, and oil power generation would cripple industry, reduce living standards, and impoverish Europe.
Germany, the once economic powerhouse of Europe, has become a shell of its former self. The same efforts accelerated under the Obama and Biden Administrations in the U.S.
Both administrations sought to slash new fossil fuel production and use, without regard to the costs, dangers to the economy, or deleterious effects on the middle class and poor.
Second, for the last half-century, affluent Westerners embraced the idea that there were no normative lifestyles. Often, they claimed nuclear families with 2-3 children were parochial and passé.
Children supposedly inhibited the lifestyles and aspirations of women. Larger families, we were told, unfairly burdened upscale professionals with unneeded costs and offered biased and injurious models to gays, the transgendered, and single, childless men and women.
The result is that the fertility rate plummeted in the West, particularly in Europe (1.4) and the United States (1.6), to unsustainable levels.
Academia, the media, government, and foundations promoted these ideas of “empowerment;” despite the historical evidence that societies that cannot reproduce themselves age, ossify, and finally implode.
The third horseman of the Western apocalypse was unrestricted and illegal immigration.
Again, the elites discarded a century of research and common sense that immigration into modern Western societies is only beneficial if it is legal, measured, diverse, meritocratic, and met with robust efforts of the host to integrate, acculturate, and assimilate foreigners. The arrogant West scoffed at all that.
Instead, it destroyed borders. It welcomed in millions of impoverished and unaudited illegal aliens, many of them with little desire or ability to adopt the values of their hosts. What followed were unsustainable social welfare entitlements, rising crime, social chaos, and growing internal strife.
The last horseman was a new tribalism, euphemistically dubbed diversity, equity & inclusion. An elite Western class envisioned an entire set of reparatory actions for growing nonwhite populations to atone for purported prior, and sometimes ancient, sins of slavery, racism, colonialism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.
No matter that all of these pathologies are commonplace worldwide; and only in the self-critical West was slavery first outlawed, and tribalism curtailed.
Indeed, nonwhite immigrants knew precisely why fellow non-Westerners flocked to Western nations in the millions. Only there do meritocracy, consensual government, and self-criticism ensure more prosperity, freedom, and security than in their own tribal, often sexist, religiously and ethnically chauvinistic, and statist societies.
Human nature dictates that once racial fixations for any reason normalize exemptions and advantages, then tribalism and civil strife inevitably resurface.
Self-perpetuating myths of everlasting victimhood are necessary to ensure permanent special preferences. The Western idea of the Enlightenment, that we are individuals, not tribes and collectives, free to question the world about us, is shattered.
Instead, we descend into precivilizational tribalism, predicated on our superficial appearances.
There is some hope only because the four horsemen of our apocalypse were welcomed into the West by a minority of naïve, secular, and privileged Westerners. They believed as demigods that their wealth and freedom were irreversible birthrights, that utopia was near, and that they would be exempt from any consequences of their failure.
As a remedy, the West needs to stop apologizing for its 2,500-year history and take pride in its unique European and Judeo-Christian tradition that is innately inclusive. It does not have to be perfect to be good—only far better than the alternatives, as mass illegal immigration attests.
The West needs to resist top-down radical green bromides and assess their cost-to-benefit damage to most citizens.
Larger, multi-generational, and two-parent families are not strange but the historical lifeblood of robust civilizations.
If foreigners wish to move legally to the West, they should be reminded why they do so and thus integrate and assimilate to the hosts’ values—or stay home.
Finally, Americans especially need to speak out against anyone of any race or tribe who stereotypes and spouts hatred of others outside their tribe.
And feigned victimhood will end only when the invented victimizers say, “Sorry, enough is enough.” ✪
▶️ JB SHURK: THE 9-11 NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
JB SHURK: THE 9-11 NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS
kkk
ne of the nightmares which periodically jolt me awake is the image of an American jumping from the inferno-ravaged upper stories of New York’s World Trade Center into the dust-plumed streets below. He is tormented and maybe praying and then gone. More than anything else, that horror from 9/11 haunts me.
In the first few years after the Islamic terror attack, news programs would replay some of those desperate moments caught on video, when workers trapped between floors of fire were forced to make a final decision about how they would die. Many of the videos showed pairs (co-workers, friends, strangers?) holding hands as they leaped from billowing smoke into the bright sunlight of that Tuesday morning; their bodies clearly visible against the blue sky before vanishing into the grayness below.
As the years went by, those videos disappeared. Even during the annual memorials for 9/11, the sight of Americans falling from the sky was gradually obscured in the historical record. When I finally noticed those erasures, I realized that the significance of the Islamic attacks on the United States was being rewritten in real time. People who had the means to shape public “narratives” no longer wanted Americans to relive the agony of 9/11. They did not want us to reflect upon the horror of Americans being forced to choose between dying from flames or a thousand foot drop onto city streets. They wanted us to forget.
I was in favor of the post-9/11 wars because I naïvely believed that Western Civilization was finally prepared to defend itself from the barbarians at the gate. After 9/11, Americans generally agreed about two things: (1) We were in a civilizational war, and (2) militant Islamists were our enemies. President Bush defined America’s military response to the attack as a “crusade.” For a while, it felt as if Western Civilization would fight for survival.
That feeling did not last. In hindsight, even our government’s designation of the conflict as a “Global War on Terrorism” indicated early on that American leaders were not prepared to defend Western Civilization from Islamic jihad. “Terrorism” is a nebulous and dangerous word. It is nebulous because almost anything can be described as an act of terrorism. It is dangerous because almost anyone can be described as someone else’s terrorist.
During the Obama and Biden presidencies, the Federal Government redirected resources from the “war on terrorism” abroad to target political conservatives here at home. After the January 6, 2021, protest against election fraud at the U.S. Capitol, the Federal Government and the entire corporate news media described Trump supporters as “domestic terrorists.” I would argue that broadcast news anchors used more pointed rhetoric to attack MAGA voters than they did to describe Osama bin Laden’s followers after 9/11.
Ultimately, the “Global War on Terrorism” — at first painted as an operation to preserve Western Civilization and eliminate Islamic supremacists — transformed into an operation to strengthen Islamic civilization’s grip on institutions of power inside the West and to eliminate defenders of Western Civilization by defaming them as bigots. Men and women who fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Levant, and parts of Africa went to war for many reasons. However, the vast majority were dedicated to defending Western Civilization, not surrendering it.
It was astonishing how quickly the defense of Western Civilization collapsed after 9/11. Before President Bush even left office, government and cultural institutions had already transitioned from actively encouraging American citizens to be vigilant against potential acts of Islamic terrorism to actively condemning American citizens for being “Islamophobic.”
During the Democrat primaries leading up to the 2008 general election, Barack Obama regularly attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the Iraq War. By the time Obama took office, the corporate news media had already begun framing U.S. military engagements overseas as imperial occupations carried out by American “oppressors” against “oppressed” adherents of Islam.
Once again, the Marxist dialectic was in full force: Americans bad; everyone else good. Or more generally: Western Civilization bad; multiculturalism good. The election of Barack Hussein Obama two years after the execution of Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity marked a watershed in the GWOT. Obama wasn’t elected just because he appeared to be the anti-Bush. He was elected because his very name repudiated the civilizational defense of the West that had begun after 9/11. Following the rise of Obama and the emergence of a politically correct war on “Islamophobia,” warriors wondered aloud, “What the hell are we fighting and dying for?”
Those who clearly remember this transition in public policy will recall two events that occurred during the first decade after the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks.
The first one involved an unknown and mediocre intellectual named Ward Churchill, who was a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder until his dismissal in 2007. Churchill wrote an essay one day after 9/11 in which he argued that the Islamic attacks were justified. Framing the murder of 3,000 Americans as a legitimate military operation against American imperialism and describing the Americans who had worked in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns” who deserved their fate, Churchill blamed innocent Americans for the acts of Islamic murderers.
When his work gained widespread attention a few years later, Americans were furious. The backlash against Churchill was so intense that the University of Colorado Board of Regents publicly apologized and eventually fired Churchill for unrelated acts of academic misconduct. Yet it is highly unlikely that he would have suffered any consequences today.
Another event worth remembering was the effort to build a mosque and Islamic community center just two blocks away from the World Trade Center. The developers claimed to be interested in “interfaith dialogue,” but the construction of a mosque so near the 9/11 terror attacks in Lower Manhattan offended Americans across the country who saw it as a symbolic act of civilizational conquest. Although public outrage forced investors to shelve the project’s original blueprints for a “Ground Zero Mosque,” plans for an Islamic cultural museum continue to this day.
With Muslim Zohran Mamdani most likely taking the mayor’s office in New York City in January, there is every reason to believe that developers will finally be able to implement more of their vision for the original “Ground Zero Mosque.” When they are done, a building reflecting classic Islamic designs will cast its shadow near the mass gravesite of Americans murdered on 9/11. When that happens, warriors who risked their lives all over the world to fight Islamic terrorism will be forced to swallow a hard pill: We came. We saw. They conquered.
A few years ago, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar minimized the significance of 9/11 and portrayed Muslims as the real victims. “Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen,” she told the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2019, “and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it…CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
In an America where a member of Congress describes 9/11 as a time when “some people did something,” it is clear that Ward Churchill would never be fired today. He would probably be promoting his latest book on the evils of America.
Islamic mayors are winning elections all over Europe and America. A Michigan police department recently designed a patch written in Arabic. The World Economic Forum might as well revise its promise to Westerners: You will own nothing and become Muslims.
The 9/11 nightmare never ends. Western Civilization is in retreat. We must awaken from our sleep because the West is worth saving. ✪
▶️ FIVE OBVIOUS FACTS TOO SCARY TO TALK ABOUT
FIVE OBVIOUS FACTS TOO SCARY TO TALK ABOUT
eeee
ome things are left unsaid in political discourse because they are taken for granted. Some propositions, such as that individuals and groups of individuals have identifiable interests, are considered so obvious they often go without saying.
Another class of propositions, equally obvious, are left unspoken because they will disrupt the atmosphere of political theater. They deflate sentimental assumptions and discredit comforting narratives. The neglect of these propositions is not universal; they are occasionally expressed by individuals and political commentators, and are readily observable by the average person, yet they are ignored or dismissed in mainstream discourse. The pretense that these observable phenomena are insignificant or nonexistent does not make them go away. They will eventually, as Kipling warned about the gods of the copybook headings, have their say in our political affairs, whether they are acknowledged or not.
There are many such slighted propositions; and an exhaustive list is likely not feasible, but certain examples are ready at hand. A brief sample includes the following:
✪ ONE: The Government Really Wastes Money
Governments at all levels are consistently bad at realizing value for the money they spend. Examples of this principle abound, from green energy boondoggles to high-speed rail fiascoes to the bottomless pits of seemingly counterproductive education, drug treatment, and homelessness spending.
In keeping with the theme of obviousness, the reasons for this governmental wastefulness and incompetence are easy to notice, if not widely publicized.
There are structural limitations to governments’ fiscal stewardship. Government has a lack of incentives for spending efficiency which does not affect other enterprises. Bureaucracy, which inevitably infects public spending, is inherently inefficient, with conflicts of interest, inertia, and institutional dead weight. Politics inserts its own inefficiencies. Special interests, like public employee unions, exacerbate deficiencies in spending discipline and sometimes produce, as in the case of some inner-city schools, negative returns on monies spent.
Graft and corruption, as well as a lack of a rigorous system of accountability, are always threats to the responsible use of public money. The outright theft of taxpayer money is always a possibility.
✪ TWO: People With Mental Illnesses Cannot Function In Society
A person whose basic faculties of perception and reason are impaired cannot effectively manage day-to-day interactions. The normal constraints on irrational and potentially violent behavior may be absent, with a psychotic break posing a significant threat to people who are simply going about their lives. A person who is unable to determine if his perception of reality originates from his senses or from cognitive pathologies poses severe risks to himself and others.
It is irrational, immoral, and irresponsible to address serious psychological disorders by “compassionately” permitting them go untreated or unrestrained. People with florid thought disorders push innocent people in front of subway trains, set them on fire, stab them, mutilate themselves, get shot by law enforcement while attacking them, and succumb to any number of horrors that mental illness might provoke. The ideological pretense that “understanding” is a substitute for institutionalization benefit no one other than the ideologue. It is, to the contrary, quite compassionate and understanding to prevent people with severe mental illnesses, through no fault of their own, from seriously harming themselves or others.
Institutionalization is not perfect and is not benign. Directly observed involuntary drug therapy is an imposition on the person who is treated. However, both may be necessary for the welfare of not only the patient, but innocent people as well.
✪ THREE: Emotions Are Bad Counselors In Matters Of Policy
Emotions are useful in personal relationships. They shape our relationships with others and allow us to understand what is meaningful to us. However, emotions also produce lynch mobs; road rage; and any number of other regrettable, impulsive actions. They can make people do silly things.
When used as the basis of policy decisions, emotions can produce disastrous results. They make policymakers needlessly vulnerable to sympathetic anecdotes. They compete with common sense and enable cynical manipulation. Imprudent reliance on emotions interferes with the ability to make essential distinctions; such as that between the smiling eighth-grader in his graduation hat and the adult criminal that he grew into before being shot while committing a crime.
Emotions provoke impulsivity, and impulsivity provokes recklessness. Policy decisions based on emotion often result in treating the exception as the rule, with statutes and judicial rulings that do not function well in unsentimental reality.
✪ FOUR: Not All Cultures Are Compatible
A workable system of multiculturalism relies on one tenuous assumption: that all cultures within a society demonstrate at least a minimum common respect for other people and cultures. A culture which condones abuse of other people who do not share the characteristics that define that culture; for example, religion, country or region of origin, socioeconomic class, ideology, cannot maintain a sustainable coexistence within a heterogeneous society. A culture that condones and encourages the sexual abuse of young girls because they are of a different religion, or that excuses predation on strangers because of their race, is defective. It is ultimately incompatible with a healthy society.
The variety of cosmetic enrichment often used to extol multiculturalism; cuisine, fashion, art, etc. Those are all irrelevant if cultures and subcultures do not have a least a minimum respect for the dignity of others outside those cultures. Cultures that do not share this common respect are incompatible, and no amount of ideological theorizing or narrative manipulation can change this.
✪ FIVE: “Experts” Use Poor Models To Guide Policy Decisions
A Danish proverb, sometimes attributed to Niels Bohr notes that “it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Policymakers attempt to deal with this inescapable fact of human existence by enlisting experts to divine the future by use of academic models. These efforts are sometimes disastrously unsuccessful.
Common examples of modeling failure are the effects and spread of COVID, climate change, and economic forecasting. When predictions prove wrong, as with the perennially impending climate catastrophes, experts and their patrons resort to dodges, such as that although the models were specifically and quantitatively inaccurate, they were qualitatively, if irrelevantly, correct.
The process of modeling is subject to numerous sources of error, including ideological corruption, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance, and perverse incentives. Policymakers often ignore these sources of error if the models provide predictions that are congenial to other interests.
It might be helpful if boards, councils and legislatures that spend public money and make policy would acknowledge these factors. If they can find time for land acknowledgments and such, they might to well to find an additional thirty seconds to acknowledge the stubborn realities that separate good policy from bad. Or maybe they could say, “We acknowledge that ideology and hubris do not usually produce good government.”
Some things that affect our political life are obvious but often ignored. What is also obvious is that these obvious things, among others, are not even discussed. The reason for that is that cultural and political elites prefer manufactured narratives to inconvenient observations, no matter how obvious. ✪
▶️ MAGA & UNIONS WANT TO CRUSH DRIVERLESS TRUCKS
MAGA & UNIONS WANT TO CRUSH DRIVERLESS TRUCKS
bbb
arlier this week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) said he planned on introducing a bill requiring that autonomous vehicles always have a human operator in them, a measure the senator says is necessary to protect the jobs of American truck drivers.
Driverless cars are “not safe” and “would be terrible, terrible for working people,” said Hawley to Business Insider on Tuesday. A draft of his proposed legislation would require a “human safety operator” behind the wheel at all times.
Similar bills pushed by the Teamsters union at the state level have been unsuccessful, even in liberal states where unions hold more influence over policymakers.
As it stands, Hawley and the Teamsters don’t need to proactively pass any new policies to stop autonomous trucks. Federal regulations requiring that warning devices, like flares or safety cones, be placed around disabled commercial trucks on public roads already act as a de facto ban on fully autonomous trucking.
The Biden Administration refused autonomous vehicle companies’ request for a waiver of those regulations in December 2024.
Those hoping the new administration might take a more hands-off approach to autonomous vehicle regulations have meanwhile received mixed signals from the White House.
Last week, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy announced that highway safety regulators would begin the process of updating federal rules to enable the growth of the autonomous vehicle industry. Duffy said:
“The rules of the road need to be updated to fit the realities of the 21st century. Our changes will eliminate redundant requirements and bring us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety.”
At the same time, the Trump Administration’s DOT has continued its predecessor’s policy of refusing to grant waivers of the warning device rule and has continued to fight a lawsuit from autonomous trucking companies challenging the denial of their requested waiver to that rule.
Back in 2023, driverless truck operator Aurora and Waymo’s driverless truck division jointly petitioned the Biden Administration for an exemption to the warning device rule. The companies proposed an alternative standard that would allow them to use cab-mounted warning lights instead of road-placed warning devices.
In support of their waiver request, the two companies submitted their own studies showing that drivers reacted similarly to currently required road-placed warning devices and their proposed flashing warning beacons.
The Waymo study also found that drivers subjectively preferred the cab-mounted warning beacons. A collection of trade associations, trucking companies, and equipment manufacturers submitted comments in support of Waymo and Aurora’s waiver request.
Opposing the companies’ request were mostly trade unions representing transportation workers, who uniformly argued that warning beacons were an inferior alternative to the current requirements.
In its last month in office, the Biden Administration sided with the unions and denied Aurora and Waymo’s waiver request. Their request “does not demonstrate how Applicants or other proposed exempted parties would ensure an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved absent the exemption,” said the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in its waiver denial.
Ironically enough, a few weeks after the FMCSA denied that waiver, the agency announced it would perform its own study to evaluate “whether warning devices meaningfully influence crash-relevant aspects of human performance in the presence of a parked or disabled commercial motor vehicle.”
“The reason for denying Aurora and Waymo’s petition was that they didn’t have any evidence that it would be an equivalent level of safety or better. But then they say the existing standard doesn’t have any evidence to support it,” says Marc Scribner, a transportation policy researcher at the Reason Foundation.
Scribner suggests that the warning device rule might even reduce safety over warning beacons, given that it can potentially require truck drivers to be in moving traffic when placing warning devices on the road.
Aurora has made this same argument in the lawsuit it filed against the DOT in January 2025.
“When the applicable regulations were promulgated over 50 years ago, no actual safety data was presented to support the safety benefit of the specified human-placed warning devices,” reads the petition. “In assessing whether [cab-mounted warning beacons] are at least ‘equivalent’ to the driver-placed warnings, the actual data provided by the Applicants far exceeds what FMCSA has admitted about the agency’s existing requirements.”
The Biden Administration’s waiver denial was widely seen as a favor to the drivers’ unions, most prominently the Teamsters. It was one of many decisions the last White House made rejecting any regulatory changes that might allow the deployment of labor-saving technology in the transportation sector.
One might assume a Republican administration would look more favorably on such technology. However, the second Trump Administration is a little more complicated.
Teamsters’ head Sean O’Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2024, and the union famously did not endorse Kamala Harris—a break from its traditional practice of stumping for Democrat presidential candidates.
Lobbying disclosures show the Teamsters have also been lobbying the Trump Administration’s DOT on “commercial motor vehicle automation” issues.
It’s possible then that their influence has pushed the administration, which has otherwise been supportive of new technologies like artificial intelligence and automation, to stick by the warning device rule.
While Aurora’s lawsuit was filed against the Biden Administration, the Trump Administration has notably continued to litigate it in court.
There are some signs that a settlement agreement in that case is in the offing. Aurora and the administration have repeatedly asked the court to delay filing deadlines, which could indicate they’re trying to work out a deal.
Autonomous vehicle industry advocates are optimistic that the current administration will ultimately come down on the side of encouraging the new industry.
“We’re very hopeful that the Department of Transportation, under the leadership of Secretary Duffy, is going to make the right decision here,” says Jeff Farrah, CEO of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. “We need to make sure the regulatory structure is in place so that these companies can pour investment into the economy.”
In addition to the rule making that Duffy announced last week, the latest “unified agenda of regulatory and deregulatory actions” says the administration will seek to amend motor carrier safety regulations to “ensure the safe introduction of automated driving systems” on commercial vehicles.
The notice does not list specific rules that it would amend. There’s a long list of regulations that reference human drivers that could trip up autonomous vehicles.
Fixing all of them will take a long time, however. Updating federal regulations to accommodate driverless commercial vehicles was a process that started in the first Trump Administration. The DOT doesn’t anticipate even releasing proposed new regulations until May 2026.
In the meantime, autonomous vehicle technology has progressed rapidly. While a more comprehensive rule change is in the making, Scribner says the administration could take immediate action to grant waivers to the warning device rule, which he says is the most immediate barrier to commercial autonomous vehicles.
A settlement agreement that grants Aurora and other companies a waiver from the warning device rule in exchange for collecting data on the efficacy of warning beacons would be a meaningful step toward encouraging the safe rollout of new technology, he says. ✪
▶️ THE GREAT REPLACEMENT THEORY
THE GREAT REPLACEMENT THEORY
sss
his subject has actually been around since 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Act made major changes to immigration in the United States, allowing for a more diverse population. No longer did we give preference to Northern and Western Europeans. Kennedy was gone; Johnson, one of the most partisan presidents, took the opportunity and went with it.
Since at least Lyndon Johnson, the contemporary inner workings of the Democrat Party are, by any measure, treasonous.
You could say that we stopped searching for engineers and doctors, among others, who could make significant contributions, and instead began looking for future needy Democrats. These new Dems would be coerced into continually voting for Democrats lest they lose their handouts.
Since that legislation passed, our population has nearly doubled. That is not the entire problem. The main issue is the new immigrants’ origins, culture, and identity. These factors can lead to challenges in integration and social cohesion because vastly different cultural practices and values clash with established norms. In our case, the established norms are Western, Judeo Christian values.
The melting pot in America requires assimilation. Muslims in general do not assimilate; they dominate. We don’t want cultures that demand the cessation of church bells on Sunday morning but require a loudspeaker call to prayer five times a day. We don’t want cultures in America that promote segregation or the establishment of separate towns or cities.
If you respect different cultures but would rather not live with a tribe from Papua New Guinea, the Left will label you a racist. The Left ignores this issue, even when it hits them in the head, rapes their women, or murders their children.
The Left appears to choose what they see as the ethical path, regardless of the potential consequences for their fellow Americans. These Democrats will ignore any inner feelings of deceit while Governor Pritzker or Mayor Johnson walk around Chicago with their security detail, out of view of cameras, telling us how safe their streets are. Mayor Johnson’s narrative comes first. The possibility that Trump, an outsider and Republican no less, will clean Chicago of crime will be too much for him or any Democrat to bear. Instead, they continue to promote policies that prioritize ideology over the safety and well-being of their constituents. This selective blindness raises sober questions about their commitment to genuine community welfare and accountability.
The Democrat Party’s extreme defensive stance was the most striking aspect of the 1965 bill. Many Americans were alarmed at the new law. People heard constantly that “the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants… It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause Americans to lose their jobs.” It did all of the above.
How else could we now have representatives in Congress who hate the country they represent? When they know they’re wrong, they take an extreme defensive position, which leads to all the feared consequences.
When Biden became the pseudo president, the Democrat committee that took control over our country accelerated the program beyond anyone’s nightmare. It is no longer theory. It is a fact. The Democrats have been working from inside to diminish & destroy America as we know it.
For their purposes, which are still coming into focus, the Democrat Party decided to remake America into a different country, no longer hospitable to Americans, no longer expecting or demanding that immigrants be financially independent or assimilate into American society, but instead becoming a nation of tribes. As Charlie Kirk would say, adopting this approach guarantees civilizational suicide. Looking at Europe, it has become unrecognizable, a dying continent.
The Democrats took it upon themselves to change America to ensure that the voting outcomes were acceptable to them. These are the people who keep telling you that democracy is in danger, but they will fix it.
The Great Replacement Theory is no theory. It is very real. The Left loves to use racism as a way to deflect from their real objective. The Democrats don’t like Americans, American culture, or the American way of life. And they want it gone! In Europe, Western culture is dying, and their leadership seems to lack the wisdom or the will to save it.
It becomes clear that the conversation surrounding the Great Replacement extends far beyond mere accusations of racism. This objection to ‘Replacement’ politics is rooted in nationalism, not racism. It has nothing to do with white privilege. It highlights a growing sentiment among those who feel that political maneuvers are reshaping America to suit the preferences of a select few.
The Democrats want you to believe what they say, not what you see. And we see it everywhere. A political party opened our borders to unvetted immigrants to dilute American culture and secure an untapped voter base for themselves. It’s this inclination to alter traditional American values and culture that is raising serious questions that challenge their commitment to the very democracy they profess to uphold. The Great Replacement is now a fact & no longer a theory.
Americans want America, not a bastardized version of it. ✪
▶️ DONATE VIA PAYPAL (DEBIT & CREDIT CARD)
ALL PayPal Transactions Are Encrypted For Card Holder Privacy & Security
▶️ DONATE VIA ZELLE (DIRECT BANK CASH TRANSFER)
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):
▶️ DONATE VIA SNAIL MAIL
