▶️ PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUES THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION
PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUES THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION
mmm
resident Donald Trump declared that America offers its “endless gratitude to Almighty God” in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation. Trump began the Thanksgiving Day proclamation by highlighting President George Washington’s establishment of a National Day of Thanksgiving in 1789. Washington declared that day “the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
Trump also noted President Abraham Lincoln’s call during the Civil War for “a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”
“In every generation since, this spirit of reverence, trust, and gratitude has preserved our way of life and made America the strongest, greatest, and most resilient Nation the world has ever known,” Trump’s proclamation states.
Like Washington and Lincoln, Trump invoked God heavily in declaring a National Day of Thanksgiving:
From the pilgrims who settled our continent and the patriots who won our independence on the battlefield to the pioneers who tamed the west and the warriors who have preserved our freedom in distant lands, the spirit of gratitude and grit embodied by those who celebrated the first Thanksgiving more than 400 years ago have stood at the very heart of what it means to be an American.
This year, God has bestowed abundant blessings all across our land and indeed the entire world. As we give thanks to Him, we continue to advance our Nation through strong leadership and commonsense policy. As a result, the American economy is roaring back, we are making progress on lowering the cost of living, a new era of peace is sweeping around the world, our sovereignty is being swiftly restored, and the American spirit is coming back greater and more powerful than ever before.
As we prepare to celebrate 250 glorious years of American independence, this Thanksgiving, we summon the faith, resolve, and unflinching fortitude of the giants of American history who came before us. We vow to build a future that echoes their sacrifice. Above all, we offer our endless gratitude to Almighty God for His love, grace, and infinite blessings. ✪
▶️ RUSH LIMBAUGH’S FINAL RENDITION OF THE THANKSGIVING STORY
⭐️ Pi in the Sky
RUSH LIMBAUGH’S FINAL RENDITION OF THE THANKSGIVING STORY
jjj
early five years since America lost the great conservative radio legend Rush Limbaugh, he delivered his final annual rendition of the true story of Thanksgiving in November 2020, just months before his untimely passing. Many are keeping the tradition alive and ensuring the upcoming generations know what led to the first Thanksgiving and what it is truly a celebration of.
During his final rendition of the annual breakdown – which he delivered November 24, 2020 – Limbaugh pointed out the “True Story of Thanksgiving” is spreading.
This is a particularly relevant story now, given that the true story of Thanksgiving is largely about the failures of socialism. Yet, many are quickly forgetting those lessons yet again, as New Yorkers recently elected a socialist as the next mayor of New York City.
“The Real Story of Thanksgiving, going back to the very first early days of the Pilgrims arriving at Plymouth Rock, is that socialism failed.”
Limbaugh said, setting the scene of the arduous conditions the Pilgrims faced after landing in the New World. This was all well-documented by William Bradford. Limbaugh reminded listeners of the first unforgiving winter, as half of them died of “starvation, of sickness, exposure to the elements.” He explained:
“Now we’re getting close to what you were taught in school. When spring finally came — and, by the way, writing that doesn’t do it justice. Spring didn’t just finally come. It was a survival. It was an act of survival that you and I cannot possibly relate to or understand,.”
Limbaugh continued, noting that even with help from Native Americans, there was a lack of prosperity:
“American Special Forces can. Military people who’ve been trained can understand what the Pilgrims were — you and I can’t. We’ve never done anything like that first winter in the New World. They survived it. Spring finally came. They did meet the Indians, the Native Americans who were there, who did help them in planting corn and fishing for cod. They showed ’em where the beavers were so the beavers could be skinned for coats, other things. You animal rights people are not gonna like some of this story, but it happened.”
“They had the Mayflower Compact. They had these laws they were living by, and there was no prosperity. And I wonder why. Now, this is important to understand here, folks, because this is where modern American history lessons end, with the Indians teaching the Pilgrims how to eat, how to fish, how to skin beavers, and all that.”
▶️ 24 Minutes 38 Seconds
Via his transcript from RushLimbaugh.com:
That’s where it ends. And that’s the feel-good story. But that doesn’t even get close to the true story. You know, Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives. It wasn’t that. That happened, but Thanksgiving was a devout expression of gratitude, the Pilgrims, to God for their survival, and everything that was a part of it.
Now, here’s the part that has been omitted. The original contract the Pilgrims entered into in Holland — they had sponsors. They didn’t have the money to do this trip on their own. They had sponsors. There were merchant sponsors in London and in Holland. And these merchant sponsors demanded that everything that the Pilgrims produced in the New World would go into a common store, a single bank, if you will. And that each member of the Pilgrim community was entitled to one share.
So everybody had an equal share of whatever was in that bank. All of the land they cleared, all of the houses they built belonged to that bank, to the community as well. And they were going to distribute it equally because they were gonna be fair. So all of the land that they cleared and all the houses they built belonged to everybody, belonged to the community, belonged to the bank, belonged to the common store. Nobody owned anything. They just had an equal share in it. It was a commune.
The Pilgrims established a commune, essentially. Forerunner of the communes we saw in the sixties and seventies out in California. They even had their own organic vegetables, by the way. Yep. The Pilgrims, forerunners of organic vegetables. Of course, what else could there be? No such thing as processed anything back then.
Now, William Bradford, who had become the governor of the colony ’cause he was the leader, recognized that this wasn’t gonna work. This was costly and destructive, and it just wasn’t working. It was collectivism. It was socialism. It wasn’t working. That first winter had taken a lot of lives. The manpower was greatly reduced. So William Bradford decided to take bold action …
… Bradford … threw it out and took bold action. He assigned a plot of land to each family. Every family was given a plot of land. They could work it, manage it however they wanted to. If they just wanted to sit on it, get fat, dumb, happy, and lazy, they could. If they wanted to develop it, if they wanted to grow corn, whatever on it, they could. If they wanted to build on it, they could do that. If they wanted to turn it into a quasi-business, they could do whatever they wanted to do with it.
He turned loose the power of the capitalist marketplace. Long before Karl Marx was even born, long before Karl Marx was a sperm cell in his father’s dreams, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism, and they found that it didn’t work. Now, it wasn’t called that then. But that’s exactly what it was. Everybody was given an equal share. You know what happened? Nobody did anything. There was no incentive. Nothing worked. Nothing happened.
✪✪✪✪✪
Bradford documented this failure, writing, “This community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”
It was the introduction of capitalism which turned things around. As Limbaugh said, “When they turned loose individual incentive; keep what you produce, sell what you don’t need, it went crazy.”
“This is not something they were taught by anybody by self-experience. It was not the Indians. None of this is said to put anybody down. Don’t misunderstand,” he continued.
Ultimately, they prospered when they “abandoned socialism and tried what was essentially capitalism,” Limbaugh said, adding “the word spread throughout the Old World of this massive amount of prosperity that was there for the taking in the New World.”
New arrivals then came as this prosperity was attractive and it became known as the “Great Puritan Migration.” Limbaugh added:
Now, many of the Pilgrims literally believed that God had sent Squanto to save them. And they believed, the Pilgrims believed, that without Squanto they never would have survived, or thrived. And they experienced a tremendous harvest in 1621, and that’s the big gathering that is taught in the history books, the native Indians and the Pilgrims joined together for a huge feast, which is the foundational story of the Thanksgiving story that’s taught in public schools.
“But, again, that is not The Real Story of Thanksgiving. That’s the textbook brand,” the conservative radio legend said. “It did happen, but it’s so much more than that.” ✪
▶️ WHAT DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY EVEN STAND FOR?
WHAT DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY EVEN STAND FOR?
ggg
nlike Democrats, Republicans have no unified vision of what they view as success for the country. Last Friday, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives did what many thought was unthinkable. In what can only be described as a stunning act of bravery, these bold Republicans — wait for it — passed a resolution that condemns socialism.
Yes, you read that correctly. While Americans continue to grapple with high costs of living and an increasingly broken health care system — both products of reckless government intervention — your Republican House majority decided to expend what little “low t” energy it has on a useless resolution that basically says, “SOCIALISM IS BAD!”
Consider that many of the same Republicans who enthusiastically voted to condemn socialism have had no problem bankrolling Obamacare, fraud-ridden welfare programs like SNAP, and every wallet-sucking entitlement program under the sun — all with zero intention of reforming or gutting any of them. It’s as ironic as it is comical.
However, Friday’s vote was hardly the first do-nothing dog-and-pony show Republicans have put on for their constituents. For years, GOP politicos have graced the airwaves of Fox News and conservative media, telling voters what they want to hear about the issues of the day while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing of substance to address them.
During the 2024 election cycle, Republicans promised a generational “America First” reformation that would reshape political governance as we know it. And now, 10 months into GOP trifecta control of the Federal Government, this “generational change” has amounted to little more than a tax bill, which many Republicans seem to believe is enough to keep them in power next year.
Meanwhile, many of President Trump’s transformative executive orders have not been enshrined into law; the Education Department has not been abolished; there’s still no plan to repeal and replace Obamacare; no urgency to codify any meaningful DOGE cuts; or to shut down lower courts’ judicial tyranny and impeach activist judges. Pick your issue of the day, and Republicans are nowhere to be found.
Whenever confronted with this lack of effort, GOP leadership will undoubtedly point to Republicans’ small House and Senate margins, arguing the party simply doesn’t have enough seats required to implement their supposed transformative agenda. You’ll notice, however, that fact didn’t stop Democrats from ramming through their radical agenda when Joe Biden was president and their party possessed small majorities in Congress.
The real reason Republicans “can’t” (and won’t) pass any significant “America First”-style policies boils down to a much more serious problem — one which the GOP will never admit to. That is, unlike Democrats, Republicans have no unified vision of what they view as success for the country.
For all of their alleged opposition to Democrats, too many Republicans agree with Democrats on several substantive issues and support more government involvement in areas where it has no business being. For all intents and purposes, the current GOP is a party comprised of various ideological factions, disillusioned as to what “America First” actually means.
The ongoing debate over whether to abolish the Senate filibuster encapsulates this problem perfectly.
From a purely numbers standpoint, Republicans clearly possess the majority required to nuke it. The problem is there’s no guarantee that, even if they did somehow manage to get rid of the filibuster, the policies supported by Trump and conservative voters would be able to pass both chambers, given the major ideological fragmentation within the party.
This isn’t to say that elected Republicans shouldn’t have any disagreement on any issues whatsoever. Healthy debate among representatives can be a positive thing and produce better results. But on the big picture policies of the day, having a central vision and common end goal is paramount.
Unfortunately for conservatives, this is a problem that’s not going to be fixed overnight. It took years of GOP voter complacency to get us to this point, and it’s going to take years of consistent citizen activism (and better endorsements and support from leaders like Trump) to fix it.
Electing your preferred candidate isn’t the end of self-governance; it’s merely the beginning. Being a citizen means being fully engaged with your elected officials and government, whether it be at the local, state, or federal level.
That’s the responsibility that comes with being an American. And until conservatives start acting like citizens and not just voters, they should expect more of the same, wherein Democrats destroy the country while their socialist-condemning Republicans do nothing but watch. ✪
▶️ VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: INSURRECTION CHIC
⭐️ HelloKItty’sGotAHairTrigger
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: INSURRECTION CHIC
mmm
emocrats now celebrate the very nullificationist tactics they once decried, embracing a neo-Confederate defiance of federal authority to undermine a president they despise. Who is the real, or fictional, inspiration for the new insurrectionary wing of the Democrat Party?
Is it the fictitious Hollywood insurrectionist, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “James Mattoon Scott” (Burt Lancaster), who in the 1964 film Seven Days in May attempted to overthrow the presidency?
Or perhaps it’s Jefferson Davis, who ultimately ordered the attack by South Carolina state forces against the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, which ignited the Civil War.
Or are Democrats inspired by the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door?” Alabama Governor George Wallace, who likewise vowed to use his state’s law enforcement to nullify federal law.
Yet how odd that the Left, which lectured us so often about a January 6th “insurrection”—a charge not even the Javert-like special counsel Jack Smith ever lodged against Donald Trump—now talks frequently about the proud nullification of our nation’s federal laws.
✪ The New Confederacy
Democrats weirdly boast about the subordination of the Constitution to international statutes. Our governors and mayors in blue states and cities take neo-Confederate vows to oppose the national government’s right to protect its own property, to direct its own employees, and to enforce our shared federal laws.
Over a decade ago, some 600 “sanctuary cities” declared that they were immune from the full enforcement of federal law. They further boasted they would not hand over illegal aliens, detained by state or local authorities, to federal agents.
These were strange threats. Not long ago, at the 1992 and 1996 Democrat conventions, liberal grandees like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi vowed to stop all would-be illegal aliens from unlawfully entering the U.S. Apparently, they all flipped to advocating for open borders once spiraling numbers turned the undocumented into a new Democratic constituency.
Moreover, being the Left, their loud nullificationist vows were, of course, purely political and never principled.
Once, an exasperated Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, beseeched the Obama Administration in vain to enforce its own federal laws at the southern border. In frustration, she finally sought ways to use her own state’s resources to do what Obama refused. And the reaction of the Obama Administration?
It was certainly not gratitude for Brewer’s efforts to enforce federal law. Instead, the Obama crowd sued her. It successfully sought out left-wing judges to stay her state’s efforts.
How strange that our current “principled” district judges once ruled states could not interfere with federal border policies; even in cases where the Federal Government illegally refusing to enforce its own laws.
However now, they’ve become neo-Confederates who routinely favor states blocking the Federal Government when it finally fulfills its constitutional duties.
Of course, if any rural red county decided to nullify the Federal Government’s laws governing handgun registration or EPA regulations, the projectionist Left would deem them insurrectionary and send in the FBI.
✪ Coup Bluster
During Trump’s first term, some retired four-star admirals and generals—Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice be damned—talked of a sitting U.S. President Trump leaving office, the “sooner the better”—whatever that meant. Others libeled him as a “liar” and “Mussolini,” his policies comparable to those of the executioners at Auschwitz.
Some retired lieutenant colonels in 2020 even publicly advocated using military units to confront presidential security details. Did they want an armed showdown to forcibly remove Trump from the Oval Office? And in their madness, they bragged about the purported greater lethality of their army friends to defeat the president’s supporters or security details: “Trump’s little green men, so intimidating to lightly armed federal law enforcement agents, step aside and fade away, realizing they would not constitute a good morning’s work for a brigade of the 82nd Airborne.”
Do we remember the Obama-era Pentagon lawyer who, eleven days into the first Trump Administration, speculated in print about how to remove an elected President Trump? She offered up the choices of Trump removal by either the 25th Amendment, the impeachment process, or a military coup: “A possibility for removing President Trump is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup…”
We also remember General Mark Milley, the recent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He once apparently diagnosed Commander-in-Chief Trump as unhinged.
So Milley took it upon himself to warn his communist Chinese counterpart that during any existential crisis, the People’s Liberation Army head would be first contacted by Milley; if Milley ever felt Trump was too erratic to be obeyed (in Milley’s nonprofessional medical judgment).
So Milley reported his call as follows: “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.” Milley apparently also decided that he was exempt from obeying federal laws.
As JCS chair, he also violated laws governing the chain of command. He unlawfully directed regional commanders to report to him first, should they receive a direct presidential order deemed lunatic by Milley. Yet the legal chain of command mandated that subordinate theater commanders report to, and receive presidential orders via, the Secretary of Defense.
Later, ex-generals like Milley and John Kelly routinely and emphatically blasted ex-President Trump as a “fascist.” “Fascist” was just the sort of dangerous hyperbole that the left so often has warned us can prompt the unstable—like a Thomas Crooks or Ryan Routh—to emerge from their creepy shadows to “save the republic.”
✪ Fort Sumter?
Democrat officials are also currently calling for organized and state-sanctioned opposition to the Federal Government, in the traditional near-Bleeding Kansas or Fort Sumter insurrectionary fashion.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson claims he will use his city resources to actively thwart ICE duties. In deranged fashion, he threatens to call in the UN to prevent federal law enforcement. He apparently treats the Constitution as nothing, as if Johnson were elected not by fellow citizens but by global voters from Iran to North Korea.
Johnson’s idiocy is no mere boast: when a trapped convoy of ICE vehicles was recently besieged by violent protesters, local Chicago-area police were told to stand down and let ICE fight its own way out.
In Portland, the local police sometimes advise violent Antifa-related protesters on strategies for their anti-ICE street activities, presumably to help them avoid arrest. Consider the blather of the increasingly disturbed octogenarian Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
She recently boasted that “Trump is ‘a vile creature, the worst thing on the face of the Earth.” Then she doubled down and giggled that she “could have done much worse.” But what exact epithet could Pelosi mean that is “much worse” than “vile” and “the worst thing on earth?” The “vilest creature in the cosmos?”
As Speaker of the House, Pelosi set an embarrassing historic precedent by tearing up on national television the State of the Union address of the President of the United States when the text, as is customary, was ceremoniously presented to her by Trump. Should that now become a normal part of all SOTU addresses?
Recently, in a veritable paean to Jefferson Davis, Pelosi warned that federal agents might be arrested on her home turf if her state officers determine whether their enforcement of federal law violates California statutes. If Pelosi’s confrontation materializes, will they use force?
Mayor-elect Zoran Mamdani has boasted in the past that he will soon override federal law as mayor of New York and arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he arrive at the UN headquarters in New York. But what if the Federal Government says, “NO!” Will Mamdani then call in the NYPD?
Note, Mamdani did not issue a comparable threat to the communist Chinese UN delegations, whose government oversees a million Uyghurs in work camps, nor to the Nigerians who have allowed Islamic terrorists to kill over 150,000 Christians, nor to Vladimir Putin, who invaded Ukraine, causing over 1.5 million casualties in the greatest European slaughterhouse since World War II.
Instead, Mamdani appeals to a superior “international law.” In his unconstitutional mind, world law supersedes his own government’s constitutional authority.
As a de facto insurrectionist, Mamdani would claim that international human rights activists, or the International Criminal Court (?), deserve greater legal authority inside the U.S. than do Americans’ own elected Federal Government.
All this nonsense sounds like infamous Confederate Attorney General Judah Benjamin, who often bragged about how insurrectionary states could legally ignore federal authority.
✪ Military Resistance?
Yet the most recent and dangerous example of insurrectionary nullification is an inflammatory video issued by Democrat and veteran politicos.
In it, Democrat lawmakers and veterans Senators Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, and Chrissy Houlahan appeal to U.S. soldiers to “disobey” their superior officers’ orders if, in their own legal opinion, they feel the orders are “illegal” by contravening the Constitution. How or why, they do not say.
Are we then to imagine an insurrectionary fantasy of 1.3 million active-duty soldiers, now each acting as his own lawyer, questioning daily orders from their officers? Not one of these elected officials provided a single instance of any past Trump order or Pentagon directive that would serve as an example of their nullificationist dogma.
When these Democrat officials also appealed to federal intelligence officers to likewise disobey orders, should we laugh or cry?
Did any of these moralists ever issue such a video when the Obama and Biden era Directors of the CIA, FBI, and National Intelligence all admittedly lied under oath?
How about when “51 intelligence authorities” deliberately lied in an open letter to the American people on the eve of the 2020 election to help elect Joe Biden? Or when the FBI agents worked with private social media to suppress the news?
In the video, did these officials mean that soldiers should resist presidential orders to employ federal troops to quell domestic chaos and rioting? Lots of presidents have done just that from the Civil War to the present.
Would they have urged U.S. soldiers to disobey any order in pursuance of the use of force without congressional approval? If so, why didn’t they damn past presidents like Harry S. Truman, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, who all directed the military to act abroad without the approval of Congress?
How about Barack Obama’s serial use of Predator assassination drones that, on at least one occasion, blew up an American citizen?
These sanctimonious Democrat officials did not outline any possible scenarios for their advocacy of insurrectionary disobedience—because they had no example to draw on.
Nor did they dare reference in any detail Articles 90 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which explicitly spell out when, in the rarest of cases, a soldier can disobey an order.
The officials had no concern that their video was endangering thousands—if someone might take their advice and, without cause, disobey an order, putting lives at risk, well beyond their own careers. What the Democrats did not say is that they cut the video to implant a false narrative that Trump was on the verge of issuing unconstitutional orders, and they were encouraging mass and politicized disobedience, after the previous failure of the shutdown, mass street protests, attacks on ICE agents, and Tesla dealerships.
✪ The New Secessionists
Leftists are now back to the same old, same old incendiary conspiracies and paranoias of Russian collusion, laptop disinformation, removing Trump from the ballot, impeaching him twice, indicting him 91 times, raiding his home with armed FBI agents, plotting stealthily to record him to invoke the 25th Amendment— and all the dangerous and often illegal ways it has sought to destroy a political opponent by any means necessary.
We certainly are in dangerous times. But the crisis is one of the Left’s own making, in overtly inciting the country to a virtual rerun of 1861.
What else is urging American soldiers to defy the orders of their superiors without citing a single specific cause? How about claiming by fiat that entire cities and states are immune from federal jurisdiction? What about threatening to use state officers to arrest federal law enforcement officials?
Withholding local police help and thus endangering federal agents at the hands of violent protesters? Making a mockery of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Advising violent protesters on how best to demonstrate against federal officials without being arrested? Subordinating U.S. federal law to global legal authorities? Using city resources to help illegal aliens evade federal law enforcement?
Arresting a foreign official with diplomatic immunity and under federal legal protection when he enters a local jurisdiction? Freelancing by sidestepping the legal rights of the Commander-in-Chief and instead phoning to tip off an enemy general?
The common theme? The desperate Left feels the more insurrectionary tensions they can gin up, the more that the ensuing domestic crises hurt an elected president whom they loathe.
They assume they are exempt from following the law because they believe they are our moral and intellectual superiors.
And so for the next four years, they will once again insist they can ignore or violate with contempt any federal law they please—as the nation is heading toward widespread civil insurrection of the left’s own neo-Confederate making. ✪
lll
▶️ REPORT: CUSTOMER SERVICE AT RECORD LOW LEVELS
REPORT: CUSTOMER SERVICE NOW AT RECORD LOW LEVELS
ggg
record number of American consumers are reporting increasing frustration with products and services, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Friday. Seventy-seven percent of U.S. customers reported facing a product or service problem over the past year, marking a new record high, citing data from the most recent National Customer Rage Survey, which was conducted in February.
When the same study was last conducted in 2023, 74% of consumers responded the same way, while 66% reported the same during the height of the COVID pandemic in 2020, the outlet reported.
Just 32% of respondents told researchers they had experienced a product or customer service problem in 1976, when a similar version of the study was first conducted, the WSJ reported. Of those surveyed in 2025, 68% said their recent experiences with complaining to companies required high or very high amounts of effort, an increase from 65% in 2023, the study found, the outlet reported.
“I can order dental floss and it’ll be at my doorstep in 30 minutes, but when it comes to problem-handling, it’s still an effortful, frustrating, emotionally stressful [experience],” Scott Broetzmann, the president and chief executive of Customer Care Measurement & Consulting, which conducts the National Customer Rage Survey with the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, told the WSJ.
A Customer Experience and Communications Consumer Insights survey conducted in August and released in November by Broadridge Financial Solutions similarly found that 71% of Americans and Canadians think most businesses need to optimize their customer experience, marking a new record high, according to the WSJ.
In June, Forrester Research found that views of the customer experience among Americans and Canadians have decreased for the fourth consecutive year, with brands’ average score dropping to a new record low of 68.3 out of 100, the WSJ reported. Moreover, just 7% of the 469 brands Forrester studied boosted their average score by a statistically significant amount from 2024 in the U.S. and Canada, while 25% of brands’ scores declined, the outlet reported.
“Like the proverbial frog that doesn’t feel the water becoming increasingly hotter, many North American brands are inching into more treacherous positions with their customers’ loyalty,” Forrester Principal Analyst Pete Jacques noted in the report.
Additionally, a record 186.9 million American customers are expected to shop online and in-store between Thanksgiving to Cyber Monday this year, per a National Retail Federation (NRF) and Prosper Insights & Analytics survey published on Nov. 20.
While some recent surveys have shown many Americans are concerned over affordability and the overall state of the economy under President Donald Trump’s leadership, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker on Nov. 23 that he expects U.S. shoppers to begin seeing lower prices on some items within weeks. ✪
▶️ 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
