▶️ VDH: FROM THE UNITED NATIONS TO TRUMP GLOBAL?
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
VDH: FROM THE UNITED NATIONS TO TRUMP GLOBAL?
lll
istorians traditionally blame the failure of the League of Nations; the post-World War I, Versailles-era dream of President Woodrow Wilson, on many things.
Its membership was small (58 nations). The League’s utopian rhetoric lacked commensurate force. The postwar ascendant United States refused to join.
The winners of World War I, like France and Britain, were terrified of rearming, while the losers, such as Germany and Austria, were eager to. Consequently, the League in the mid-1930s allowed fascist powers to make a mockery of the Versailles Treaty. It could never even enforce its own embargoes and sanctions.
Without big power backup, the League soon watched the Axis powers prey on weak nations and start another world war. In response, the post-World War II United Nations was said to have corrected the impotence of the old League.
The U.S. was now in. Indeed, the UN headquarters were to be in New York. Almost all the nations of the world—currently 193—eventually joined.
A “Security Council” of the great powers (and former great powers) would “police” the consensus of the General Assembly of all members.
The UN would spin off a host of subordinate globalist projects, such as the World Health Organization, International Criminal Court, and World Bank, to promote peace, law, health and profit. Yet the UN’s 80-year record has proved as dismal as the League’s 26 years.
Only half the UN members are free societies and true democracies. The two greatest threats to world peace; dictatorial Russia and communist China, exercise veto power in the Security Council. Anti-Semitism is now a UN brand. So are rank corruption and profiteering. No one expects the UN either to prevent or stop a war.
Aside from serving as a platform for national propaganda, it is increasingly both impotent and toxically anti-Western.
So who or what on the global stage is dealing with the planet’s existential crises? Who makes any effort to stop the Iranian race to get the bomb and its use of terrorist proxies?
How about the war in Ukraine? China’s serial threats to absorb Taiwan? And serial border conflicts in the Balkans, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East?
As far as the West goes, who or what is warning about its suicidal trajectory of open borders, massive illegal immigration, and crashing fertility rates?
Who lectures on the dangers of disarmament, green energy mandates, and attacks on international shipping in the Black Sea, Red Sea, the Straits of Hormuz, and the South China Sea; along with the shaky future of the Suez and Panama Canals?
So far, only the U.S. has stepped up—or, more particularly, its controversial president, the supposed neo-isolationist Donald Trump. In whirlwind fashion, Trump has inserted himself into the middle of numerous border wars.
He apparently has used American economic and military carrots and sticks to achieve cease-fires for now between Rwanda and the Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia.
The UN has done nothing to stop the horrific fighting in Ukraine; a modern, three-and-a-half-year-long Stalingrad, where 1.5 million are now dead, wounded, or missing.
Trump has tried everything—from engaging Putin to haranguing him, and from haranguing Zelensky to engaging him—while outlining a peace plan along a DMZ commercial corridor.
Iran will not obtain a bomb for years; thanks to Trump’s 30-minute use of American bombers. For the first time in memory, Iran’s once fearsome terrorist armies of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis are nearly neutered. There is even rare talk of a comprehensive peace on Israel’s borders.
The U.S. border is secure. Illegal entries are nearly nonexistent, offering a model for Europe, beleaguered by massive illegal immigration from the Middle East.
Trump may fail to find lasting solutions to all these horrific conflicts and crises. However, unlike the UN and the past American administrations, at least he is trying to persuade the belligerents that each has more to gain by deals than deaths.
Instead of soaring UN utopian rhetoric or fueling one side with money and weapons to win these forever wars, Trump engages both aggressor and victim—even those he despises. He offers neither sanctimonious Wilsonian visions of universal brotherhood nor “both sides” gobbledygook diplomatese.
Instead, Trump simply appeals to their mutual economic and financial interests by offering new trade and foreign investment openings; and the present and future goodwill of the U.S. to help the belligerents find security and prosperity. Always looming in the background is the superb but unpredictable U.S. military.
Trump, unlike the UN, is brokering cease-fires and curbing threats by wielding U.S. power through trade, leverage, and force—favoring deals over endless wars.
The failed international community despises Trump’s mercantile approach. It hates his self-referential, one-man showmanship. And it can’t decide whether he is a yahoo isolationist or a cunning interventionist.
However, the record of sober and judicious utopian internationalists, past and present, is mostly one of failure, war, destruction—and more death. ✪
▶️ JB SHURK: THE GUNS OF OCTOBER
JB SHURK: THE GUNS OF OCTOBER
lll
nce again, it feels as if we’re tiptoeing toward an official war between the United States and Russia; as opposed to the proxy war that has endured for three and half years between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine.
Although President Trump has downplayed the “rare and urgent” meeting of top military commanders from around the world at Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday, the event has generated intense speculation. The Pentagon says that Secretary of War Hegseth merely wants to deliver a speech on the “warrior ethos” and make sure that military leaders are all walking in the same direction. The President describes the focus of the gathering in general terms: “We’re talking about what we’re doing, what they’re doing, and how we’re doing.” Still, to gather the highest-ranking members of the U.S. military in one location for a chat with the President and Secretary of War leaves the impression that something of significant importance will be discussed.
On Monday morning, ZeroHedge gathered data from several sites that analyze open-source intelligence to predict military engagements. Those sites were all tracking a large deployment of U.S. aerial refueling tankers crossing the Atlantic on their way to Europe. A social media account that tracks pizzerias near the Pentagon showed a spike in orders late Sunday night. The last time these sources noted a wave of air tankers leaving the United States and increased carryout orders from restaurants near the Pentagon, the U.S. military was preparing to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. When these open-source data points are viewed alongside the unusual meeting of top military commanders in northern Virginia, it is difficult not to conclude that a potentially significant military operation is imminent.
Notably, there has been a shift in public messaging from high-ranking government officials. U.S. special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg told Fox News on Sunday that President Trump has authorized NATO to use U.S. missiles in direct strikes against Moscow. In a post on Truth Social one week ago, the president stated, “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.” Trump’s rhetorical departure from months of effort directed toward peace came right after a meeting with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations in New York City. While answering reporters’ questions at the U.N., Trump said that allies should shoot down Russian aircraft that enter into the airspace of NATO nations. Marveling at the president, Zelensky called Trump a “game changer.”
In a separate interview on Fox News, Vice President Vance said that the administration might provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles. Noting that President Trump would make the “final determination” on whether to equip Ukraine with weapons that can strike Moscow, Vance’s assessment of the situation nonetheless suggested that U.S.-NATO is about to take a more aggressive posture in the region.
While signs indicate greater U.S. involvement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict in the near future, the Russian foreign ministry has been highlighting uncorroborated online chatter claiming that the Ukrainian military intends to use captured Russian drones in staged “false flag” attacks on logistics hubs in Poland and Romania. There are no hard facts to back this assertion, but numerous media reports coming from Hungarian sources have repeated the claim in recent days. Should Poland or Romania be attacked, President Trump’s recent comments suggest that there would be a swift U.S.-NATO response. As is always the case in war, propaganda and misdirection make it almost impossible to accurately analyze this information.
Ukraine has an obvious motive to undertake an operation against its allies in an effort to drag U.S.-led NATO into a larger war. Over the last three years, the Ukrainian military appears to have been involved in several attacks on NATO interests; including the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines supplying Russian energy to Germany and the more recent attack on pipeline networks supplying oil from Russia to Hungary and Slovakia; as part of an overall strategy to separate Russia from European Union economic partners.
At the same time, it is entirely logical for Russia to flood the information space with allegations of a looming “false flag” attack while carrying out an actual attack of its own. If something were to occur in Poland, Romania, or Moldova in the next few days, both Russia and NATO will accuse the other of spreading disinformation. These competing “narratives” ensure that confusion will reign; ratcheting up the prospect of retaliatory attacks and perilous escalation.
I do not like where this is heading. The issue of U.S.-NATO support for the Kyiv government in its fight against the Russian Federation has divided American conservatives. Some Americans view Russia with such hostility that they almost appear eager for a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation. I believe that such a conflict has the potential to kill millions of people and put us on the path toward long-term global instability.
Those who rush to defend Ukraine’s territorial borders routinely ignore that the eastern territories in dispute belong mainly to Russian-speaking peoples who have repeatedly allied with the Russian Federation. When NATO and Kyiv deny people the natural right to determine their own future in the name of Ukraine’s national “self-determination,” I find the argument for war ludicrous.
This has always been a civil war involving historically Russian areas, and the bloodshed began only after Obama’s State Department and European Union emissaries decided to expand NATO’s territorial grip right up to Russia’s doorstep by sacrificing Ukraine in a proxy war. Of all the reasons that U.S. and European politicians provide for the necessity of defending Ukraine, the idea that Russia’s invasion was entirely “unprovoked” is most laughable.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Ukraine has directly attacked property belonging to NATO nations. Nonetheless, NATO appears ready to protect a country that has attacked its members and to attack a country that has not.
This has always felt like another expedient “bankers’ war,” meant to put money into the hands of the world’s wealthiest financial institutions while stealing the lives and tax dollars of Western citizens. Over at The Conservative Treehouse, Sundance framed the issue aptly:
The reason why the EU member states of NATO want escalated war with Russia is financial and economic. Through policy and ideology, the EU/NATO members have walked themselves into an economic dead end. They are out of assets to leverage. The only way out for the EU/NATO leadership is to create a war to erase debt, expand assets and reset the economics.
While BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and other World Economic Forum heavyweights divide up Ukraine’s assets and manage control over the Ukraine Recovery and Reinvestment Bank, international financial interests will turn wartime spending into a money machine. At the same time, all the self-inflicted economic damage caused by “green” energy regulations and central bank money-printing propping up the expansive European welfare state can be blamed on “Russian aggression.” Should the whole financial system near collapse, the perfect rationale will exist to implement central bank digital currencies and mandatory digital identities for Western citizens. Once again, governments will manufacture potentially catastrophic problems in order to justify “solutions” that nobody wants in the first place.
In this case, however, the problem that NATO governments are creating comes with the certain loss of numerous lives and the inherent risk of cataclysm. I don’t like this game; and I wish that wiser heads would succeed in preventing this violent calculus from reaching its ever deadlier conclusion.
Right now, however, all signs point to madness. It looks as if a wider war with Russia will coincide with Antifa’s war against Americans at home. Prepare accordingly. ✪
▶️ DON SURBER: DEMOCRATS SWING AT TRUMP & HIT THEMSELVES
⭐️ Jorline
DON SURBER: DEMOCRATS SWING AT TRUMP & HIT THEMSELVES
nnn
ahm Emanuel gave the world a simple truth about politics when he wrote, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
Obama the Goof was pretty good at it. In Trump’s second presidency, has mastered this. He used emergencies to shut down the border, lay heavy tariffs on trade cheats and to turn DC into a clean capital worthy of hosting world leaders at the White House.
Trump now is using the government shutdown to do what people thought he could never do; shut down the government. I know. It’s amazingly simple and yet Democrats couldn’t see it coming.
Charley the Clueless Schumer and his cardboard cutout of Obama, Hakeem Jeffries, were the perfect foils. Rather than risk the ire of AOC, brother lover Ilhan and Swivelhead Jasmine, Schumer let Trump shut the government down.
Oh yes, Chuck and Hakeem tried to act big by demanding an audience with the President. Trump said fine. They went to the White House with a list of the demands and left empty handed without even the list.
As a bonus, Trump mocked their press conference and their sole issue: giving free health care to illegal aliens, three-quarters of whom are Hispanic.
The shutdown became reality on Wednesday and it finally dawned on the lefty press that Donald John Trump owned the Democrats. Republicans are going to the mats just as they did in Trump’s first presidency when there was a five-week shutdown. The difference is this time they are going to the mats for their president, not against.
National Review reported:
“Democrats have said they will support a continuing resolution to fund the government through November 21 only if Republicans include legislative language to permanently extend temporary Obamacare subsidies. Democrats drafted their own continuing resolution, which would repeal significant parts of President Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
In other words, Democrats want Trump to surrender his entire agenda. Only Rand Paul waved the white flag as the rest of the party rallied behind the party’s leader.
NR said that the Congressional Budget Office estimated the first presidency cost the economy $3 billion in five weeks. That means a 50-week shutdown would cost $30 billion; chump change in a 30 trillion dollar economy. And that’s using the partisan CBO numbers.
As the shutdown turned into another nothingburger, it dawned on the press corps that Democrats blew it. Politico reported:
Agencies central to Trump’s agenda are shielding certain programs by declaring the federal employees who work on them essential or sheltering them under already approved funding streams—designations that will allow them to keep running through the funding lapse.
That means offices tasked with immigration enforcement and tariff negotiations, two hallmarks of Trump’s presidency, will retain significantly more staff than they have in prior shutdowns, according to a Politico analysis of agency documents submitted to the White House in recent days and interviews with current and former administration officials. That’s even as hundreds of thousands of federal workers are sent home, hampering a variety of government functions including some routine food safety inspections, Social Security benefit verifications and the publication of employment numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I don’t see how the shutdown affects Social Security which is self-funded and sitting on a $2.7 trillion surplus. But how will we live without BLS’s made-up numbers?
That after sifting through agency documents and interviewing all these officials, past and present, that was the worst Politico could come up with; the loss of food inspections, benefits verifications and statistics. That’s it.
The government spends $6 trillion and shutting it down to its bare essentials loses you three tiny things?
Newt Gingrich told Politico, “Rahm Emanuel should be proud of the Trump team because they’re prepared to say, ‘Every day this is shut, we will find ways to pay for everything we want. We’ll find ways to eliminate everything you want. And we’ll do it legally.’ ”
NASA will continue to prepare a moon launch. The Interior Department will continue to lease land to oil drillers. Thousands of government workers will be laid off permanently.
Politico also said:
“The last person that wants to shut down is us,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday. “Now, with that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible — that are bad for them and irreversible by them. Like cutting vast numbers of people out. Cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like.”
While the party controlling Washington typically suffers politically during a shutdown, polling shows significant peril for Democrats: A new New York Times-Siena College poll found that 65% of respondents, including 43% of Democrats, think Democrats shouldn’t allow a government shutdown, even if their demands aren’t met.
As the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles like to say, Trump has reversed the polarity. The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached record highs. But the press had to do what it does best—spin to win for the Democrats.
The drama queens at AP went into overdrive:
Plunged into a government shutdown, the U.S. is confronting a fresh cycle of uncertainty after President Donald Trump and Congress failed to strike an agreement to keep government programs and services running by Wednesday’s deadline.
Roughly 750,000 federal workers are expected to be furloughed, some potentially fired by Trump’s Republican administration. Many offices will be shuttered, perhaps permanently, as Trump vows to “do things that are irreversible, that are bad” as retribution. His deportation agenda is expected to run full speed ahead, while education, environmental and other services sputter. The economic fallout is expected to ripple nationwide.
Oh no! A free people were plunged into a government shutdown. Our three-word reaction is Don’t Save Us.
In another story, AP was positively delusional: “Democrats embrace a shutdown fight in a rare moment of unity against Trump.” Rare moment? Democrats have voted against every Cabinet member forcing JD Vance to break a tie over Pete Hegseth’s nomination.
Democrats are so enraged by Trump’s very existence that they refused to stand for a 12-year-old with cancer at the last State of the Union address.
AP and the rest of the press corps are acting as if without the Federal Government, people will live in pup tents and mill along city boulevards like zombies. I have news for the reporters, people already are and have for more than a decade with a fully operational Federal Government.
Paragraph 15 said, “The Medicare and Medicaid health care programs are expected to continue, though staffing shortages could mean delays for some services. The Pentagon would still function. And most employees will stay on the job at the Department of Homeland Security.”
Social Security checks will be directly deposited. You still have to make your third quarterly payment to the IRS this month. National parks will remain open. Airports too.
The shutdown does nothing but show just how little government we really need. Thank you, Democrats, for knocking yourselves out—literally—to show this to the American people.
Democrats are in no hurry to surrender. In two weeks they will host billionaire donors at wineries in Napa Valley. The billionaires will give them money and marching orders. Both groups are out of touch so expect those orders to be don’t cave. I hope so.
By the way, Pelosi has many family members in the wine industry. They are her Napa kin. Obama has his minions hoping that the courts will thwart Trump’s move to deliver permanent layoffs using this crisis. Unexplained is how a judge can allow a president to spend money without congressional authorization, but district court justices nowadays are unbound by the law, precedent or the Constitution, aren’t they?
The shutdown is a battle over Utah and 13 Democrat states who want to bill Uncle Sam for health care for illegal aliens, who have replaced black people at the top of the Democrat totem pole.
Democrats thought they could bully Trump. He is making them pay by kicking many Democrat operatives off the payroll permanently. For once, Democrats have delivered a knockout punch—right into their own smug mugs.
As Howard Cosell might say, “Down goes Schumer! Down goes Schumer! Down goes Schumer!” ✪
▶️ THE HAMAS MILITARY CHIEF OPPOSES TRUMP PEACE PLAN
THE HAMAS MILITARY CHIEF OPPOSES TRUMP PEACE PLAN
lll
he head of Hamas‘ military wing in Gaza, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, has reportedly rejected the 20-point peace plan proposed by U.S. President Donald J. Trump. The proposal, which Israel has endorsed, aims to end the ongoing conflict in Gaza through measures such as disarmament, the release of hostages, and the establishment of a Palestinian transitional government.
Trump issued a deadline of three to four days for Hamas to accept the plan, warning of “a very sad end” if the group refuses. The plan includes provisions for large-scale aid to Gaza, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, but it requires Hamas to relinquish its control over the territory.
Hamas leaders are reportedly divided on the proposal, with some political figures in Qatar expressing willingness to negotiate amendments. However, the group’s military wing, led by al-Haddad, remains opposed, citing distrust of Israel and concerns over disarmament and the creation of a security buffer zone along Gaza’s borders.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also expressed reservations, despite endorsing the plan. In a video posted on social media, Netanyahu stated that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would maintain a presence in parts of Gaza, potentially contradicting some elements of the U.S.-backed proposal.
Regional leaders, including the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, have voiced support for Trump’s efforts, emphasizing the importance of a two-state solution. However, it was reported on Wednesday that United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur for the so-called Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, is calling on Palestinians to reject President Trump’s plan, dismissing it as the “Trap of the Century.” ✪
▶️ THE CNN & MSNBC RATINGS DEATH SPIRAL CONTINUES
THE CNN & MSNBC RATINGS DEATH SPIRAL CONTINUES
bbb
onald Trump might have been good for the wretched cable news business during his first term when MSNBC and CNNLOL were baiting their gullible left-wing viewers with one walls-are-closing-in-on-Trump hoax after another, but those days are long over in Trump 2.0.
Currently, both CNNLOL and MSNBC are in a ratings death spiral as their demoralized viewers tune out, exhausted by all the lies and false assurances that Trump was doomed. If the Russia Hoax didn’t get him, January 6 would. If the felony charges in New York didn’t get him, the felony charges in Georgia would. Joe Biden will beat him again! Kamala Harris and her Brat Summer have this thing sewn up! Look at that Iowa poll. It’s over. He’s done. The Bad Orange Man will never again be the president—wait, whuh?
And now, at long last, the evil that is CNN and MSNBC is dead. Oh, both hate outlets still wander around not knowing they are zombies with almost no influence on public opinion, but their power is so diminished, we only check up on them to point and laugh at them, which is what I’m about to do.
For the week of September 15-21, that massive news week in the aftermath of a trans-loving leftist allegedly assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, CNN was only able to attract an average of 570,000 primetime viewers. MSNBC attracted an average of only 854,000.
For context, Fox News drew an average of 2.673 million — which is close to twice the combined viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
Throughout the total day, CNN averaged only (tee hee) 400,000 viewers. MSNBC averaged only 505,000. Fox News crushed them both with 1.776 million.
In the age demo that sets advertising rates, CNN and MSNBC are dying in primetime, attracting only 87,000 and 70,000 viewers, respectively. Fox News drew 289,000.
In the same vital demo during total day viewing, CNN and MSNBC attracted only 58,000 and 44,000 demo viewers, respectively. Fox News drew 201,000.
Get a load of this…
CNN and MSNBC are so toxic to Normal People that during that Sunday’s memorial service for Charlie Kirk, NewsNation almost drew more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined:
Between 1 p.m. ET and 7:15 p.m. ET on Sunday, NewsNation averaged 615,000 total viewers and 173,000 demo viewers. This was better than MSNBC, which had 287,000 total viewers and 31,000 A25-54 viewers, and CNN, which had 342,000 total viewers and 54,000 viewers in the demo during the same time period.
Fox’s memorial coverage drew an average of 5.2 million total viewers and 755,000 demo viewers.
The only thing keeping MSNBC and CNN alive is cable/satellite TV carriage fees. If CNN and/or MSNBC are available on your cable/satellite TV package, you are funding two outlets that hate you. No way could MSNBC and CNN survive on merit or advertising revenue based on viewership.
If you care at all about your country, family, and future, cancel your cable/satellite package today. You’ll also save a fortune by moving to streaming, and you won’t believe how much of streaming is free, including news. Best of all, you won’t be subsidizing CNN and MSNBC. ✪
▶️ CANADA PREPARES TO DISARM HER CITIZENS
CANADA PREPARES TO DISARM HER CITIZENS
yyy
here has never been a positive outcome when the government sets out to disarm the people. Authoritarian states are the inevitable result. Certain semi-automatic weapons were prohibited in March 2025, with a one-year amnesty period for lawful gun owners to surrender their rifles through a buyback program. The Canadian Government claims the buyback program is completely voluntary “with the expectation they will comply,” according to Canadian Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree.
Anandasangaree does not believe the Canadian Government is equipped to disarm its citizens; as revealed in a leaked audio clip. “I just don’t think municipal police services have the resources to do this,” the minister says. The minister claims a gun lobbyist leaked the audio in which he was speaking in jest. On the audio, the minister admits that gun owners are clearly losing money with a C$400 flat rate compensation for each gun surrendered. The man asks if he would be considered a criminal for refusing to deactivate or surrender his guns. “If the police enforce it, yes,” the minister responds.
Anandasangaree admits the program is flawed, but speaking with Mark Carney is a moot point. “We’ve had all these conversations. Like I’ve had for the last four months, it’s been like constant, constant discussions on this to see what’s next, right? And the conclusion is let’s finish this because we committed to it in the campaign,” he reveals, mentioning earlier in the call he is simply following orders.
“No, you’re going to turn me into a criminal Gary, because you know I’m not gonna turn mine in. I’m telling you right now. I refused it,” the associate rebuked, adding, “Well, no, but the police will come to my house at some point, because what’s registered. They know who I am, they know where I live, they know where they are, they’re locked up in my safe, I’m gonna refuse to hand ’em in. They’re gonna come in, rip open my safe, right? Take those firearms and put me in handcuffs.” Gary stated he would bail him out if that happened.
Disgraced former PM Justin Trudeau attempted to implement a buyback program on May 1, 2020, but did not go as far as revoking gun licenses and confiscating guns. The current program is capped at a budget of C$742 million. Money is not the concern here. Canadians have had the right to legally own arms for 243 years, but suddenly their government has decided they no longer deserve that right.
Gun confiscation veiled as gun control. A voluntary program will soon become mandatory. Failure to comply will result in criminal charges. Law-abiding citizens are rarely the culprits behind gun crime. The criminals on the streets and in office will still have guns. Anandasangaree admitted that the government has yet to decide what they will do if the majority fail to comply, and after COVID, there’s valid reason to believe that most will cave. ✪
▶️ EUROPE’S GREEN SUICIDE IS CHINA’S DREAM
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
EUROPE’S GREEN SUICIDE IS CHINA’S DREAM
mmm
serve currently as a Member of the European Parliament, and for many years, I have advocated for the automotive industry. I have spent years fighting misguided climate and automotive policies that cripple our industries. From that front-row seat, I can tell you plainly: Europe’s leaders have bankrolled China’s empire. If America follows the same path, you will hand Beijing the 21st Century.
As President Trump reminded the United Nations, nations that surrender their sovereignty in pursuit of applause inevitably collapse into dependence. His warning; that global bureaucrats do not answer to working families, was prophetic. Europe ignored it, choosing ideological prestige over resilience. America cannot afford to make the same fatal miscalculation.
China’s ambition isn’t subtle. For centuries, it saw itself as the Middle Kingdom, the center of civilization. The West humiliated it in the Opium Wars, and it never forgot. When Deng Xiaoping opened China in the late 1970s, his bargain with the West was simple: we’ll build anything, at any price if you ignore pollution and human rights. The West agreed. Forty years later, China is stronger than ever, and the West is weaker.
Japan rose from the ashes of World War II; and then South Korea followed with its own miracle. But China learned something far more dangerous: don’t just copy the West; weaponize the West’s own ideals.
That’s exactly what Beijing has done with the climate agenda. Europeans buy “green” cars to feel virtuous. Yet every electric battery depends on lithium, cobalt, and rare earths mined in Africa under horrific conditions and refined in Chinese plants. Beijing locked down the African mines, built the processing capacity, and turned it into a choke point. If you need batteries, wind turbines, or solar panels, you go through China. That’s not environmentalism. That’s economic warfare.
Europe walked right into the trap. Brussels shut down clean, efficient factories for steel, glass, and cement. China opened dirtier ones at double capacity. We lost jobs and sovereignty. China gained leverage. This isn’t policy. It’s surrender.
And it’s all connected: China’s colonization of Africa, its rare earth monopoly, and Europe’s blind climate obsession are part of one concerted strategy. Build dependence, tighten the grip, and watch the West congratulate itself into irrelevance.
Europe bankrolled China’s rise through green dogma. Trump and Vance warn America must choose sovereignty and strength or repeat Europe’s surrender.
Here’s the good news for America: you still have time to avoid Europe’s fate. That’s because you now have leadership that understands the game.
On Day One, President Donald Trump tore up Biden’s climate mandates and DEI rules with a single executive order. He began rolling back the regulatory chokehold that bled American energy, manufacturing, and industry. Vice President J.D. Vance has been just as blunt:
America cannot survive if it outsources its supply chains and sacrifices its workers to Beijing. Together, they are restoring the “America First” framework that puts sovereignty and strength ahead of elite applause.
However, not everyone in Brussels is blind. Some of us fight every day against policies that sell out our citizens and enrich Beijing. But here, we are badly outnumbered. The Green Deal has become a religion. Families pay more, industries vanish, and China laughs. Europe is turning itself into a green museum: lots of virtue signaling, but no real power.
China deserves respect for its discipline and ambition. Its people work hard. Its leaders think in decades while Western elites chase headlines. But admiration cannot mean self-delusion. If America copies Europe’s climate dogma, you’ll end up just as dependent, just as weak, and just as humiliated.
The difference is that you now have Trump and Vance in the White House. They know that China’s so-called “green” policies are not about saving the planet. They are about domination.
The choice is simple: keep reversing Biden’s failed policies, rebuild your industry, and stand strong—or repeat Europe’s mistake and bankroll China’s dream. ✪
▶️ THE CONSTANT THREATS TO FREEDOM
THE CONSTANT THREATS TO FREEDOM
lll
ne of my mentors and a most profound thinker, Sir John Templeton, while being the value stock picker of the last century, was on a mission. That mission was first and foremost, focused on the survival of free enterprise and the advancement of research regarding free markets in those countries, like America, where it flourished and had created such vast societal benefits.
In his 50-plus year career, Templeton, who invented mutual funds, became increasingly and profoundly concerned regarding the efforts of the so-called elites in America and the West to undermine and even shackle the very free enterprise system that made America great and successful.
Like almost all philanthropists who have given away their gigantic fortunes, it was Sir John’s life-long participation in free enterprise that produced the financial wherewithal to make his outsized donor status and generosity possible, some $6 billion in his case.
For him there was a noted and verifiable cycle to virtue. It began with responsibly earning and making profit, investing, saving, being thrifty, and in the end to acts of generosity, showing thankfulness for the gifts that had been entrusted to you by using them to benefit others.
The success of free enterprise, especially in its countries of origin like America, is critical to whether or not gift-giving foundations retain their ability to grow and create a beneficial impact in the world. Those large benefits are seen in medical, educational, social, religious arenas and are reflected in the myriad ways any donor choses to recycle their wealth, be it large or small, in treasure, time, or talents.
Secondarily, Sir John was also a very keen missionary of free enterprise as a solution to the world’s significant problems. He particularly wanted to seek and find ways to extend America’s model of vigorous, innovative and profit-based free enterprise to become the operating model for the world. He believed deeply in market forces and their benefits to all who participated in them. He opposed socialism and vented against governmental intervention in the market.
Sir John made the assumptions (because it was true most of his life) that the free enterprise he knew would always be strong in the West and that the resultant prosperity would provide a critical, increasingly integrated culture and system that fostered such enterprise, and thereby, the benefits that such a system can provide. He was wary of leftism in every form and the cost it extracted to human lives and society.
Early on he clearly saw that the erosions of free enterprise in the West, and especially in America, could profoundly undermine or threaten his vision of an integrated free enterprise system. Those threats included, that elites would increasingly convince the public that it is wrong to trust and value business and businesspersons. He feared the coming of an increasingly confiscatory state, one of over regulation, bureaucratic control, and excessive taxation such that wealth creation itself would be destroyed. He saw business control regulations shutting down America’s leadership and ability to do mergers and acquisitions and to ultimately restrict private property.
Templeton was most concerned in his era about totally unrestrained escalation, almost week-by-week, in taking on extraordinary levels of new (and almost assuredly, permanent) government debt and massive entitlement growth, both among states and federally. The result was clear that as he wrote, within only years, our children and grandchildren would inherit national bankruptcy.
Part of this massive growth in debt and obligations involved, not only a bailout of a growing variety of failed business models; and therefore a perpetuation of their failure, but also, the inclusion of a combination of government partial ownership of business and mandates telling management what they can and cannot do.
The ever-increasing need for revenue to pay for the actions of the state he believed would lead to a loss of productivity and a sharp curtailment of economic growth. Debt was not something he thought beneficial. It was in fact, he argued, a form of theft from future generations.
Templeton lived and believed in America’s greatness. He would not have been pleased to see its evaporation and diminution. Had he survived past his death in 2008, Templeton would doubtless have been forlorn about the rapid demise of America, its values, stature and patriotism.
So too, I believe he would be grateful about its restitution in the last year, and the third American revolution and renaissance-like Golden Age which is upon us. It is downright Templetonian! ✪
▶️ WE NEED TO RETHINK THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY
WE NEED TO RETHINK THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY
nnn
ecretary of War Pete Hegseth announced last week that he will shut down the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). In March, he announced sex-neutral standards for combat arms positions. Hegseth is shifting the priorities of our military away from feminist ideals to refocus on deterring and defeating our adversaries. This will benefit both our military and our nation.
DACOWITS was founded in 1951 “to advise on strategies to improve the recruitment of women into the U.S. military during the Korean War.” This focus has continued. And, as Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson explained in a refreshingly frank statement, “The Committee is focused on advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness.”
In May, three female Democrat senators critical of Hegseth justified keeping the committee because of its role to “reduce barriers to the recruitment and retention of women.” This criticism assumes that recruitment and retention of women should be a special priority of the military. I disagree. For decades, increasing the percentage of women relative to men, expanding women’s roles in military career fields, and positioning women to break glass ceilings have been the driving forces behind “women in the military” policies. This needs to end. Here’s why.
Increasing the number of women in the military is not mission-critical. The reality: prioritizing attention to women comes at the expense of recruiting and retaining men. Men are the backbone of our military. It is senseless, even bizarre, for a military to focus special attention (for decades, no less) on recruiting and retaining women with no parallel attention to recruiting and retaining men, while even disadvantaging men in promotion so that it can produce upward arrows on graphs about women in the ranks of the military. Men are stronger. Men have greater physical endurance. Because men do not get pregnant, their period of peak physical vitality, and their availability to be away from home, will not be interrupted.
✪ Damaging The Family
Additionally, normalizing the recruitment and retention of women in high and ever-higher numbers in our military during peacetime harms the culture of our nation. For America to thrive, the vitality of the American family must rank among our top cultural values. This will involve honoring child-rearing and acknowledging the reality of two human sexes with different roles in reproduction and distinct patterns of child-rearing.
Prioritizing the recruitment and retention of women in career tracks hostile to the rhythms of family formation is the opposite of this; and military careers for women are among the most hostile of all. As most military positions require availability precisely during a person’s years of peak physical vitality, this means during women’s peak and limited window of fertility, which is also when they have the youthful energy to meet the tremendous physical and emotional demands of childbearing and rearing. Promoting the image of non-pregnant females as the icon into which we want to prioritize our resources is a last gasp of a culture doomed to die; it sends the wrong message about what womanhood means. Additionally, American families need strong men as fathers. Failing to value men in the culturally iconic role of military service sends the wrong message about what manhood means.
Prioritizing recruitment and retention of women in the military involves favoring institutionalized daycare; or, far worse, abortion to deal with the children of pregnancy. Parents make complex, private decisions about the care of their children. However, our nation’s government should not foster career structures that rely on institutionalized daycare for children. Again and again in its annual reports, DACOWITS has encouraged increasing funding for and access to daycare. Prioritizing recruitment and retention of women in the military comes at a cost not only to other priorities inside the military but also to our next generation of children and to women themselves.
✪ Six Recommendations
As the Department of War now rethinks its policies regarding women in the military, here are six recommendations to continue Hegseth’s excellent new embrace of reality-based, mission-oriented policies; not only for the sake of our military, but also for our nation:
- End efforts to increase recruitment of women in ROTC and our military colleges. The four years of our civilian college system are already a postponement of marriage; ROTC and our military colleges lock young women into essentially eight years of unavailability precisely when young women are at their prime to marry, bear children, and have the energy to start a family. Similarly, the recruitment of young enlisted women poses similar problems. Not a ban, but just do not make this a priority.
- Keep women out of the draft.
- For women in the military with children, offer a “career pause” as a voluntary career deceleration in specialties where this is feasible. It would involve accepting a loss of pay and fewer women in the higher ranks (not leapfrogging over those who do not pause). Moreover, it could encourage raising children instead of aborting them.
- Continue to allow some Special Forces units to remain all-male.
- Allow leaders in close-quarter situations, such as submarines, to opt for all-male crews.
- “Try not to be an idiot.” This was a guiding principle of a group I was part of in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (great leaders have a sense of humor). For rethinking women in the military, it means do not rush from harmful feminist policies to some fantasy vision of an all-male military; instead, establish sensible guidelines and start with some smaller experiments. Accept that alongside general patterns of male and female, there will be exceptions. Remember that not every woman will become a mother and caring for children is a stage of life, not the entirety of it.
After September 11, 2001, I worked as a civilian for the U.S. military for seven years, primarily for the Defense Intelligence Agency. I later taught part-time at the U.S. Army War College. I loved this work. Women were among my most competent colleagues. Some made vital contributions, such as the top interrogator on the team I supervised at Guantanamo Bay. When women are available and competent to serve, welcome them. However do not break the military to chase after feminist illusions. America needs a military whose priorities are to deter and defeat our adversaries.
Recruiting and retaining women in our military does not necessarily increase the number of sleepless nights for our enemies. ✪
▶️ A PALESTINIAN STATE IS A DEATH WISH FOR THE WEST
A PALESTINIAN STATE IS A DEATH WISH FOR THE WEST
uuu
ome two weeks before the 2nd anniversary of October 7, the UN, UK, France, Australia, Canada and other failed radical governments rallied to commemorate the massacres, kidnappings and rapes by giving the Islamic terrorists responsible for it their own “state.”
Along with a High Holidays gift to the Jews celebrating their new year.
The invention of a ‘Palestinian’ state is the capstone to the Big Lie that this is a war between Israel and some smaller population in Gaza or the West Bank rather than a regional conflict between Muslims and Jews, as part of a global conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Since October 7, Israel has been forced to fight not only Hamas in Gaza, but Muslim terrorist forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran. A possible war with Egypt may be on the horizon. And while that may seem like a lot, back in 1948, Israel was forced to fight its War of Independence against genocidal invasions by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
During that conflict, Egypt and Jordan seized control of those parts of Israel that they today claim represent a ‘Palestinian’ state. No such state was created because those territories never represented a unique culture or nationality, only a platform for pursuing the Muslim genocide of the Jews of Israel, as part of the larger mission of the Islamic conquest of non-Muslims. With the complicity of plenty of those same non-Muslims.
The Jordanian armies in 1948 were under the command of British generals with the sanction of the Labour Government which not only backed the Islamic invasions of Israel but that same year began the process of filling the United Kingdom with Muslim mass migration through the British Nationality Act. PM Keir Starmer is doubling down on both policies of his Labour predecessors, supporting Islamic terrorists in Israel and inviting them to invade and overrun the UK. That is what ‘globalizing the intifada’ really means.
The ‘intifada’ is not a war in Israel. It’s a world war. It may well be the final world war. But unlike Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Communist China, the invaders don’t represent a mighty military force that can swamp the civilized world on its own. It could not claim a single piece of territory without our sustained appeasement, mutual backstabbing and helpful nation building.
The oil industry that funds the global war was built by America, British and other western hands, that was then nationalized by Muslim dictatorships, or like Aramco, gradually nationalized with American taxpayers funding the Saudi tyranny through the ‘Golden Gimmick’ lobbied for by John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, who had once quipped, “the Constitution is just a scrap of paper.”
Western governments built up Muslim armies in the hopes that they would prove a bulwark against Communism. They welcomed every Muslim dictatorship into the UN, for the same reason, making a mockery of its commitment to democracy, only to have them either side with the Soviet Union against America, or play America and the USSR against each other.
Western governments were tasked with maintaining the power of the same Muslim governments that were funding airline hijackings and bombs in their own cities. And then when America and Europe intervened to protect those governments, that was used as a rallying cry for Jihadists to launch a new era of terrorism; and when we intervened to promote ‘democracy,’ that allowed the Jihadists to come to power and then double down on waging a war on the West.
After selling out the Christians of Lebanon and the secular government of Iran, Western governments spent a generation working to legitimize an Islamic terrorist state inside Israel made up of the parts of Israel that Egypt and Jordan had lost during their attempt to wipe out Israel in the Six Day War, in order to finally bring about peace. A generation later the ‘Palestinian’ state demonstrated that it could kill far more people and cause far more havoc once it had land.
October 7 should have buried the ‘Palestinian’ state experiment once and for all, instead it gave it new life, showing once again that the real impetus for the ‘Palestinian’ cause isn’t peace: it’s war. Peace has never been a real world criteria for ‘Palestinian’ statehood. If it had, the state wouldn’t have been set up by terrorists, the terrorists wouldn’t have been armed by Western governments, and October 7 wouldn’t have led Western governments to embrace a terror state.
Too many people suffer from the misunderstanding that if only they prove to these same governments that the ‘Palestinian’ state is a terrorist operation, they would stop pushing for it. But the only thing such arguments accomplish is to make leaders like France’s Macron or the UK’s Starmer briefly cringe like clergymen caught on camera in a whorehouse before they go right back to vocally advocating for a terrorist state. Because it’s the terrorism they really want.
When there is a fundamental discrepancy between what people say they want and what they do, the answer is to ignore what they say and pay attention to their actions. If only their behavior had been limited to Israel, some might be justified in attributing it to antisemitism. But if Starmer, Macron, Canada’s Carney, Australia’s Albanese and many others simply hate Jews, why are they filling their own countries with Muslim terrorists and suppressing opposition to them?
Western leaders calling for a ‘Palestinian’ state are not antisemitic. (Or at least that doesn’t prove they are.) They’re trying to destroy Israel just like they’re destroying their own countries.
Even as European leftists are demanding a ‘Palestinian’ state in Israel and threatening to bring its existence into being by force, they’re creating ‘Palestinian’ states in their own countries. And the Americans who are the most enthusiastic about waving PLO flags want to destroy America. This isn’t putting words in their mouths or their minds. It’s what they now openly say.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest, whose most famous figure, Mahmoud Khalil, was embraced by Democrats and the media, called for the “total eradication of Western civilization.”
At The People’s Conference for Palestine, there was a call to “destroy the idea of America in Americans’ heads.” The ‘globalized’ intifada is about a world war on a truly global scale.
The drive for a ‘Palestinian’ state is a civilizational death wish out to destroy the civilized world. Those who collaborate with it want war, not peace, and they are as willing to destroy their own countries as they are enthusiastic about bringing down Israel. The only supporters of a ‘Palestinian’ state are the enemies of civilization and their useful idiots. ✪
▶️ 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
▶️ RSBN LIVESTREAM LINK: WHITE HOUSE PRESSER
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
