▶️ JB SHURK: THE FIFTH COLUMN INSIDE THE US AND UK
⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger
JB SHURK: THE FIFTH COLUMN INSIDE THE US AND UK
xxx
he United States and the United Kingdom are under attack from within. Consider a small sampling of recent stories that the corporate news media have mostly ignored:
Communist commentator Hasan Piker; an America-hating, Muslim anchor baby who grew up in Istanbul, continues to tell his followers that the United States deserved 9/11, while celebrating Antifa domestic terrorism and left-wing assassination culture.
After a left-winger allegedly murdered well-known British conservative Ann Widdecombe by bashing her head with a hammer twenty-one times, an Islamic supremacy group called Palestine Action began offering “direct action” training for fellow Leftists who wish to learn how to use a hammer to effect “necessary change.”
Linda Sarsour; another America-hating, Muslim anchor baby, wants to burn the Declaration of Independence and “build a document” that celebrates her Islamic supremacist “values.”
An unemployed Ethiopian man somehow living in Minnesota murdered three workers at an apartment complex before blaming “the American system,” of racism and xenophobia. (Foreign immigrants sure do learn the “woke” victim-blaming routine fast!)
The British Government continues to overwhelm small villages by dumping unvetted, military-aged, Islamic males into “refugee” camps filled with many times more “asylum” seekers than there are villagers. In the English countryside, creepy migrant males track women and little girls for miles while making threatening, sexual noises.
This is nuts. The above stories, unfortunately, are just representative examples of a much larger number of similarly shocking stories coming from the U.S. and the U.K. in the last couple of weeks. Every day, communists, Islamists, and other left-wingers encourage or perpetrate violence against Americans and Brits. This is no way to live.
Can you imagine Americans or Brits from the WWII-generation limply standing by and holding their tongues while foreigners waged war against their countries? Because that’s what this is — war! Foreign men who do not belong in the United States or the United Kingdom rob, rape, and murder Americans and Brits. Then left-wing pundits use their platforms to explain to their brainwashed listeners that Americans and Brits deserve to be robbed, raped, and murdered. Eighty years ago, foreigners who celebrated grotesque violence against their host countries would have been tossed into the sea. Now they are handed citizenship, while collaborator-politicians treat them as sympathetic “victims.”
How much longer can this continue? When will the day come when American and British citizens finally decide that protecting their countries from foreign invasion is more important than minimizing the risk of being called a “bigot?” These insults, “racist, fascist, nationalist,” among others, are ludicrously hollow if the price of avoiding them means doing nothing while our countries are destroyed.
Must Brits really allow Muslim rape gangs to target their daughters in the name of “multiculturalism?” Must Americans really tolerate Islamic supremacists who celebrate 9/11 in order to demonstrate their commitment to “diversity” and “inclusion?” Must English-speaking peoples really allow themselves to be conquered by non-English-speaking peoples in order to prove that they are “tolerant?” Must we really all “coexist” with foreigners who have no desire to “coexist” with us?
This has gotten so absurd. When an invading army is raping and murdering your countrymen, you don’t take sides with the invaders. You don’t honor the invaders’ culture; you defend your own. You don’t disparage your own people as “bigots” and “racists” for simply not wanting to be raped or murdered. You don’t look past all the raping and murdering and conclude, “Borders are racist; we should really invite more rapists and murderers into the country.” People who wish to survive the future are going to have to wake up, grow a spine, and acknowledge that they have been under attack for quite some time.
America has distinct advantages over Britain. Because it is a much larger country, America cannot be conquered all at once. Because Americans have a Second Amendment that protects their God-given right to self-defense, they do not depend upon mealy-mouthed government authorities to keep them safe. But in both nations, the threat is the same: Successive generations of government officials have invited foreign nationals to conquer their lands.
There are all kinds of reasons why these traitors might have done so. Some really do despise Western Civilization and wish to see it disappear. Others are so enamored of cosmopolitan variety that they probably think little English villages are better off with Pakistani flair. Many are committed to depopulating the planet but find that the more successful they are in preventing their own people from having babies, the more desperate they are for foreigners to fill in labor force gaps. However, most of these American and British traitors who have spent decades inviting foreigners to invade their own countries did so for the age-old lusts of power and money.
Inviting waves of poor foreigners into Britain and America has driven down working wages, while driving up the price of homes and basic necessities. Wealthy people with assets don’t defend mass immigration policies because they’re compassionate; they defend those policies because they’re greedy. While the cost of assets in the U.K. and the U.S. has risen during decades of open borders, those armies of third-worlders have also turned into reliable voting blocs and street fighters for unscrupulous politicians. Dividing voters into quarreling groups distracts citizens while giving government officials new justifications for an expansive surveillance state. Consequently, armies of foreigners have made domestic politicians wealthier and more powerful (at least, in the short term).
However much government officials have profited by betraying their own citizens, the day is approaching when the bill for their decades-long betrayals will come due.
Britain’s government has spent the last five years trying to get their citizens worked up about an impending Russian invasion. Politicians and corporate talking heads; many of whom spent the previous decade mocking the Russian Federation for being a third-world “petrol station” destined to collapse; regularly tell Brits that Russian soldiers will soon be at their front doors. In turn, those politicians and pundits have expected patriotic Brits to catch a “Russophobia” fever and rally around the Union Jack while supporting Westminster’s warmongering. The problem is, of course, that British authorities have demonized patriotic Brits for waving their nation’s flag for so many years that there is little enthusiasm for fighting a foreign war. It turns out that native Brits aren’t thrilled about dying for a government that prefers Pakistani, Iranian, Indian, and “Palestinian” flags to those that fly over England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.
One must wonder whether British and American globalists ever considered the possibility that normal people do not put their lives on the line for “multiculturalism.” They do not run up hills in defense of “diversity, inclusion, and equity.” When governments defame citizens as “racists, bigots,” and “fascists,” citizens don’t have much interest in defending their slanderous governments. When political leaders condemn the people for being “nationalists,” they shouldn’t be surprised when the people become less inclined to defend the nation. How could politicians reasonably expect citizens to sacrifice themselves for their homelands when those same politicians have already traitorously handed the people’s homelands over to foreigners?
From the point of view of a lot of Brits and Americans, it makes no sense to fight foreign wars when war is already brewing right at home. And it makes even less sense to fight for the very governments that have invited raping, murderous foreigners inside the nation’s gates. When Islamic supremacists openly celebrate 9/11 while enjoying all the benefits of living inside the United States, Americans know the enemy walks among them. When British authorities cover up the atrocities of Muslim rape gangs, Brits know Whitehall can’t be trusted. The cost of government betrayal is high and will only continue to rise. ✪
▶️ KURT SCHLICHTER: DEMOCRATS ARE WALKING INTO A MINEFIELD
⭐️ Doug Fir
KURT SCHLICHTER: DEMOCRATS ARE WALKING INTO A MINEFIELD
fff
ere’s my minority position: I think Republicans are set to do surprisingly well in the 2026 midterms and very, very well in 2028. Oh, I don’t put it beyond the Republicans to screw up any advantage they’ve been handed. Republicans have the uncanny ability to squander a good thing, but what the Democrats are handing over is pure electoral gold. If you look at the relative positioning of both parties in terms of future electoral success, there is zero question that the Republican Party is much better situated to begin a lengthy sojourn in power. The Democrats have walked themselves into a minefield, and they’ve got no map.
Let’s take a look at a few of these land mines. Some of them are obvious, some a lot less so. Will they all fully manifest by 2028? No, some will arise in later cycles. What’s important to remember is that even if the Democrats were aware of them, there’s not a lot they can do about them. One of the problems with the Democrats is that, ironically, the liberals are absolutely resistant to change; they not only don’t want to do it, but they can’t do it. They’ve confused their ideology with a religion, limiting the ability of Democrat politicians to exercise a key tool in any effective politician’s toolbox; the flexibility to do a 180 on their most deeply-held beliefs when it makes sense at election time.
The first land mine is an obvious one, but that’s not going to stop them from stomping on it. The Democrats are going harder and harder left. Right now, the success of the socialist insurgents has been limited to deep blue districts. Where they try to do it in more purple areas, they have more mixed success. In Virginia, they managed to elect a sociopath as AG who wants to kill the kids of Republicans to teach them to be good people. It didn’t work in Maine, though; Herr Platner got punted after he was accused of going a rape too far.
Normal Americans don’t like the weird stuff Democrats are getting into. There’s the transsexual stuff, of course. Normal Americans are getting tired of that freak show, but Democrats are doubling and tripling down on it. It’s become a litmus test for them, depriving them of crucial flexibility. They need to reach out to normal people who don’t think some dude should be sporting his turgid pride as he walks through a girl’s locker room. But also, there’s their whole thing about criminals. Normal people are against being murdered. Democrats are going to get painted as enabling the worst of social pathologies, just like they did in the 70s, which helped Ronald Reagan and the GOP take over until Bill Clinton came along and was able to lead a Democrat Party back to at least a semblance of sanity.
There’s a procedural land mine that President Trump has been talking about for years; election fraud. Fraud is a huge part of how they win. It is not going to go away in one fell swoop – the GOP simps are too weak to pass the SAVE Act – but it’s going to be curbed over time. Take voter ID; it is unsustainable for the Democrats to keep to the 20 side of an 80/20 issue forever. Nor can Democrat judges sitting in the Tatooine Federal District Court protect the fraud forever. Between the reforms Trump can impose (it looks like his mail-in voting postal regulations are going into effect), the revelations from the multiple investigations, and the reputational damage to Democrats defending shady practices (is California still counting from last June?), we’re going to end a lot of the scams and run down their reputations as the die on the hill of protecting the remaining grifts.
Another land mine is the swap out at the top of the Democrats’ racial hierarchy. Democrats have always been about constituencies, knitting them together to form a majority. But it’s always in flux. The white working class used to be a big piece of the puzzle, and the Democrats dumped them. In the last few cycles, Democrats have lost their headlock on Hispanics, who don’t appreciate weirdness, and many of whom have personal experience with communism. There’s a lot of talk about how Dems grabbed the affluent college-educated whites who used to be Republican voters, and that’s true, to an extent. But a lot of these are wine women, particularly single ones and including young ones, and they’re psychotic and will further alienate normal people (married women still prefer Republicans).
But the big problem for Democrats is their biggest and most loyal constituency, blacks. We’re already seeing the fallout in Texas, where the darling of the faculty/Chardonnay set, heretical imp James Talarico, defeated noted particle physicist Jasmine Crockett in the Senate primary. Well, Jazzy C and black Texans aren’t taking that very well. They believe, not without merit, that they have been ripped off. And they have been. Democrats take blacks for granted, which is the fault of blacks because they’ve allowed themselves, until now, to be taken for granted. But a black woman just roasted Talarico at one of his rallies, bringing this to a head. He’s already a problem because, well, blacks tend to be religious, and this guy is a blasphemous demon in human form who spreads satanic lies that will lead the unwary to eternal damnation. Black folk aren’t down with that. And it’s only going to get worse for the Democrats because blacks across the country are going to demand their share of the power, power that the ascendant leftists want for themselves.
There is also the 2030 census, which will likely put the House out of reach of Democrats for a decade. Democrat failure is driving people from blue states to red states. The coming redistricting, along with the intermittent demonstrations of GOP manhood via gerrymandering, are going to crush the Dems. And if we go for the big enchilada, banning the counting of illegal aliens in the census, the Dems are screwed.
There is another land mine, the baby bomb. Democrats aren’t breeding like conservatives. A lot of them are single women who have no intention of settling down and having children; when they do get knocked up, abortion remains readily available in blue states, and they make use of it. This blends with another problem for the Democrats, which is that a lot of their boomer base is aging out. If you recall those rallies for the Nazi tattoo guy, behind him on stage were always a bunch of gray crones who all looked like Billy Jack’s girlfriend. They’re not going to be around that much longer, and they are some of the Dems’ most devoted voters. Gen X is much more conservative; we have the advantage of being around for another couple of decades.
And there are other effects that come from Democrats not reproducing, besides upping the average IQ and attractiveness of Americans. The birth dearth means fewer kids being indoctrinated in grade schools and colleges. Academia is where the Democrats not only found places for their members to get paid but gave them a chance to corrupt our youth. But fewer kids mean fewer unionized teachers paying union dues, while a lot of colleges are going away in the bankruptcy. That’s fewer dollars and fewer worker bees making mischief. Combined with new technology that is making old education methods obsolete, as well as cost considerations and conservative attention that is going to work to undermine the leftist hold on these institutions, academia writ large is going to stop being so influential. Democrats have become fatally over-invested in their own version of the buggy whip industry.
Immigration is going to continue to be a huge problem for the Democrats because they’re not going to be able to import a brand-new electorate from the Third World to make into welfare clients and electoral serfs. Deportations are ongoing, but the Republican goal isn’t to drag them all out of the country. It’s to drive them all out of the country. Initiatives like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent leaning on the banks and other industries not to do business with them, as well as other reforms that make it unbearable to live here as an illegal, are going to make them pack up and go home in numbers that dwarf what ICE is doing. With the open door at the border slammed shut, the only way to generate more of these people is through birthright citizenship, and the recent Supreme Court decision, while not overturning it, began a discussion that’s inevitably going to lead to reforms that limit it.
Here are some other things that the Democrats might find blow them up. The mainstream media may dismiss the government handout fraud stuff that we’ve been seeing, but fraud resonates. From California’s high-speed rail that’s cost billions of dollars and built about 15 inches of track, to massive Somali learing center schemes, to corrupt USAID payoffs to leftist NGOs and beyond, the crackdown is both going to starve the Democrats of money looted from the treasury and laundered into the pockets of the left and closely associated Democrats with fraud in the minds of the voters.
Then there’s something they really can blame on the Jews. The Dems will have to deal with Jews’ sense of self-preservation as the Democrats fully embrace their new Hamas constituency and work to ensure Israel and the Israelis are annihilated. That’s not putting it too harshly – if you’re Jewish, you can’t take any threat too seriously, and this is a threat. Jewish Democrats are enormous donors to the Democrat Party, and that flow of dollars is going to shrink to a trickle that’s not going to be made up by a bunch of new Dems just imported from Goatbangistan. The money might not go to Republicans – that’s a bridge too far for a lot of liberal Jews – but it isn’t going to the Palisimpian Democrats. We’ve seen massive shortfalls in Democrat donations this cycle, and that was before half of the House Democrat caucus voted to render Israel defenseless in the face of the psychopaths who committed the October 7th attacks.
Here’s another ka-boom that’s coming that only a few people are talking about right now. Cuba is about to go under. The clock is ticking, and the commie dictatorship has maybe got a year or so left. Here’s the Dems’ problem. The Dirección de Inteligencia (DI) has spent over 60 years infiltrating the left in the United States. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass went to Havana and trained with these communist bastards, but there are a lot more big names on the left of the party who are tied in with Cuban intelligence. Cuba is going to fall; Marco Rubio has that as one of his 87 jobs.
And when that grotesque regime’s collapse accelerates, a lot of DI officials are going to want to ensure that they don’t swing from a lamppost or worse. I married a Cuban–they’re not a forgiving people, and they’re going to make the people who oppressed them pay. So, if you’re a high-ranking DI officer, you’re going to want to make American intelligence an offer it can’t refuse to save your worthless hide, and that means trading stolen records on the DI’s intelligence network in the United States that includes prominent Democrats. That’s going to happen, and it’s going to be earth-shattering. People throw the word “treason” around a lot, but working with the communists to subvert the United States is literally treason, and it’s been happening. Do not expect the Trump administration to forgive and forget, and even the regime media is going to be unable to hide the indictments. The Democrats will, correctly, be painted as the party of traitors.
Let’s also not forget the collapse of captured institutions. We mentioned academia’s decline, but look at the mainstream media and Hollywood. Both are going away. Moreover, the decades of corporate footsie with Democrats will end as the business world realizes that the DSA types can’t be bought off like the old school Pelosi Dems could be. Plus, there is a generalized anti-woke counter-reaction that places PC Democrats with their spouting off on woke nonsense outside of the zeitgeist. Their own base won’t let them moderate; they’ll be telling us dudes can menstruate for another decade even as over-it normals shake their heads in disgust.
So, I like how the Republicans are positioned over the next decade or so. In the short term, the Trump economy is going to take off again. We’re going to clear out the illegals one way or the other, and we’re going to continue to drive crime down. Long-term, we’re having babies, and the future belongs to people who show up. Importantly, we’re not traitors colluding with a foreign government to undermine our country.
But then again, we are Republicans, and the fact remains that the Republican Party is the only party that can summon up enough dumb to squander these advantages. ✪
▶️ TRUMP’S PATIENCE WITH IRAN FINALLY RUNS OUT
TRUMP’S PATIENCE WITH IRAN FINALLY RUNS OUT
ooo
fter weeks of patience, President Trump has finally had enough with Iran’s radical Islamist regime. Divided, economically crippled, and increasingly desperate, Iran’s leaders have responded to U.S. peace efforts and restraint with repeated violations of a ceasefire, threats against its neighbors, and blatant lies about negotiations with the U.S. On July 9th, the President declared the ceasefire and the associated Memorandum of Understanding “over.” He ordered intensive U.S. airstrikes against strategic targets across Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Trump’s message was clear: his patience with the Iranian regime has run out.
The renewed airstrikes are a major escalation and have since struck hundreds of Iranian targets in order to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, according to CENTCOM. The airstrikes also targeted other key regime assets, including missile production facilities, IRGC command centers, and nuclear-related infrastructure that survived earlier operations. These were not attacks on civilians but precision operations aimed at degrading the regime’s ability to project power and threaten the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
The U.S. also struck a railway bridge in northern Iran’s Golestan Province linking the country to China and Russia; a rail link that has taken on growing importance as Iran leans on overland trade to blunt the effect of the U.S. naval blockade on its Gulf ports. The strike is a reminder that Washington’s pressure campaign extends beyond the battlefield to the economic lifelines propping up the regime.
In addition, the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil sales will deliver immediate economic pain to a regime already reeling from a dramatic reduction in revenue and mounting internal unrest. As Trump noted, his special envoys to Iran, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, may continue to pursue diplomacy with Tehran, but he now sees little value in talks, describing further engagement with Iran’s leaders as “a waste of time.”
Iran’s leaders badly miscalculated. They assumed Trump’s desire to end foreign conflicts quickly; particularly with midterm elections approaching, gave them room to cheat and defy the U.S. They violated ceasefire terms, continued proxy attacks through militias, disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and strung along negotiators with empty promises while rebuilding their offensive capabilities in secret. In doing so, Iran’s leaders repeated the same mistakes: underestimating American resolve when core interests are at stake.
This is classic Trump. His public willingness to float bold and unorthodox ideas keeps America’s adversaries off balance. But beneath his rhetoric is a clear America First calculus: peace through strength, not weakness. Trump entered these talks seeking a sustainable end to hostilities—having already achieved his core objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He will not now accept a temporary pause that lets Iran rebuild its nuclear and missile programs, threaten the Strait of Hormuz, or continue funding terrorism. The goal remains ending the war as rapidly as possible, but on terms that protect U.S. and regional security interests, secure freedom of navigation, and deter future Iranian aggression.
The regime’s miscalculation was predictable. Years of weak Iran policies by prior Democrat and Republican presidents taught Tehran the U.S. will make major concessions in its eagerness for a deal. Trump’s first term and the maximum-pressure campaign that followed proved otherwise, delivering the Abraham Accords and degrading Iranian capabilities without starting new endless wars. The second term has followed the same pattern: engagement paired with overwhelming leverage. By violating the ceasefire, Iran tested whether Trump was so eager for peace that he would accept appeasement. He will not.
It remains to be seen whether Iran’s broken and fanatical regime will respond to these strikes by agreeing to a genuine, sustained ceasefire or by doubling down on defiance. Further escalation will bring only greater isolation and pain. Given Tehran’s recent record of deceit, Iranian leaders will have to demonstrate far more than words to convince President Trump that they are serious about a negotiated settlement.
The Iranian people deserve better than the corrupt, radical Islamist leadership that has impoverished and isolated them. America’s partners in the region deserve security, not constant threats of terrorism, missiles, and nuclear blackmail. Global markets deserve reliable energy flows. President Trump’s decisive action this week reaffirms that the United States will not subsidize aggression through endless patience. Strength remains the surest path to peace. It is time for Iran’s leaders to understand that Trump’s response to their continued defiance and provocations will be devastating pressure, not appeasement. ✪
▶️ MADURO DRUG TRAFFICKING TRIAL IS SET FOR JUNE 2027
MADURO DRUG TRAFFICKING TRIAL IS SET FOR JUNE 2027
ddd
he drug trafficking trial against Venezuela’s deposed socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, will begin on June 1, 2027, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein announced on Wednesday.
The date stems from a joint proposal by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office and the dictator’s defense team, led by American lawyer Barry Pollack, outlets reported.
Maduro and Flores appeared before a Manhattan federal court on Wednesday for the first time since their March appearance. Reuters reports that the new hearing lasted about 20 minutes — during which Judge Hellerstein also set a September 2 deadline for the first round of legal motions by Maduro’s defense, who is seeking to have the case dismissed on alleged immunity grounds. Additionally, Judge Hellerstein set a November 17 hearing for the arguments on said motions.
“The parties all agree that this is a realistic schedule. We don’t think it’s going to slip, but obviously if anything comes up we will inform your honor,” Pollack reportedly told Judge Hellerstein on Wednesday.
Nicolás Maduro, long wanted by U.S. authorities on multiple drug trafficking charges, was arrested alongside his wife during a U.S. law enforcement operation in Caracas, Venezuela, on January 3. Since then, the pair has remained detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn.
Maduro and Flores face a litany of drug trafficking charges; with a potential life in prison sentence if convicted. Maduro pleaded “not guilty” during to the charges during his arraignment in January.
Per the BBC, the courtroom was “packed with spectators,” with people lining up for hours for the chance to see a glimpse of Maduro in person. The Colombian news channel NTN24 reports that the courtroom was “completely full.” Maduro reportedly appeared “visibly thinner” and wearing a beige prisoner uniform
The deposed dictator succeeded Hugo Chávez at the head of the Venezuelan socialist regime in 2013 after Chávez died of an undisclosed type of cancer in March 2013. Chávez’s death triggered a snap election in April 2013 which resulted in a narrow and highly-questionable victory for the socialist dictator. Maduro then illegitimately clung to power first by holding sham elections in 2018 and 2024.
Maduro’s son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, condemned the trial against his father as “unfair” during a Wednesday rally in Caracas alongside sympathizers of the deposed socialist dictator; demanding the “immediate release” of Maduro and Flores. Nicolás Maduro Guerra is listed as one of the co-conspirators in his father’s ongoing drug trafficking trial.
“Today, the streets were filled with solidarity. More than just a demonstration, it was the Venezuelan family coming together to tell the world that we continue to fight, that we take care of our own, and that justice is and will always be our most sacred cause. Freedom for Cilia and Nicolás,” the dictator’s son wrote on a social media post. ✪
▶️ CHINESE EVs NOW FLOODING EUROPE THRU SOCIALIST SPAIN
CHINESE EVs NOW FLOODING EUROPE THRU SOCIALIST SPAIN
kkk
xisting Chinese vehicle manufacturing plants in Spain have turned the country into a “gateway” for Chinese vehicles flooding into Europe, local outlets stated.
The growing arrival and continued penetration of Chinese automakers into European Union markets is a now years-long phenomenon across the regional bloc. It’s reportedly estimated Chinese brands represent a majority of the 27 new vehicle brands on sale in Spain and in other European countries; with Chinese vehicles now accounting for nearly ten percent of all sales in Europe.
Although the European Union has imposed protective tariffs on Chinese Electric Vehicles (EVs) in recent years, Chinese carmakers are able to completely circumvent the tariffs by manufacturing its cars in European factories instead.
While several Chinese carmakers have signed deals to establish manufacturing plants in European countries; as such as Chinese auto giant BYD in Hungary, Spain notably stands out as the European country receiving the highest amount of Beijing-based investment. Presently, there are now five different Chinese vehicle manufacturing with a manufacturing presence in Spain; or in plans to start manufacturing soon.
The Spanish outlet Ok Diario stressed on Friday this has turned Spain into a “Haven of the Chinese automotive industry” and a gateway for Chinese vehicles into Europe. China’s Chery, BAIC, Leapmotor & others are now manufacturing their vehicles in Spanish territory.
Most recently, on Thursday, Chinese carmaker Geely announced it will build two electric SUV models at Ford’s plant in Valencia, Spain through joint venture signed by both companies. Speaking during the announcement event, pro-China socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez affirmed that the deal evidence Spain’s “capacity to attack investments.”
The Spanish economy outlet El Economista, citing information from the Spanish Association of Automobile and Truck Manufacturers, reports Chinese manufacturers are choosing Spain because it boasts one of the “most efficient logistic chains” in all of Europe. Local labor conditions, and “competitive” renewable energy prices is reportedly listed as other reasons for Chinese carmakers choosing Spain as their manufacturing hub destination.
China’s news agency Xinhua claimed on Friday that Chinese vehicles’ growth in Spain is supported by “growing consumer acceptable and rising demand for electric and electrified vehicles.”
“MG, BYD and Omoda & Jaecoo accounted for most of the registrations, while other Chinese brands, including Geely and Changan, continued to expand their presence in the Spanish market,” Xinhua wrote.
According to Xinhua, Chinese brands registered 75,024 new vehicles in Spain during the first half of 2026; accounting for 12.3 percent of the market, and marking a 50.9 percent year-on-year increase.
Some Chinese companies, rather than build new facilities in Spain, have opted instead to install themselves in pre-existing locations which have been bought from their previous owners.
One such case is Chery, which signed a deal with Barcelona’s local government to occupy a shutdown plant previously operated by Japan’s Nissan. The Chinese carmaker reportedly plants to produce 200,000 vehicles in that plant by 2029.
The current flood of Chinese vehicles is pushing European carmakers into downsizing, with Germany’s Volkswagen on the verge of shutting down several plants and firing 100,000 employees; nearly a seventh of its entire workforce.
When the EU applied tariffs to Chinese EVs it did not apply similar tariffs to hybrid vehicles. As a result, the Chinese have been able to dump their unsold inventories into European markets, further exacerbating the prevalence of Chinese-made vehicles in the region. ✪
▶️ THE DEMOCRATS CAN’T KICK THEIR TRANS OBSESSION
THE DEMOCRATS CAN’T KICK THEIR TRANS OBSESSION
kkk
watched the New York Pride Parade on livestream. The parade is a major event in NYC, attended by well over a million people. Eleven years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage, the movement which once celebrated equality alongside most Democrats looks very different. The near-complete embrace of trans rights as seen in the parade, especially as it affects children, is more likely to harm the Democrat Party in coming elections. (FYI, I’ll use the word “gay” as shorthand here for the various LBGT constructions, the most recent of which is the unhandy unhandy LGBTQQIP2SAA+).
One of the most noticeable changes in this year’s Pride Parade was the replacement of the once-ubiquitous rainbow flag with the “trans flag,” adding pink, brown, white, and black striping. Trans people were also present in large numbers, had their own floats, and were noticeably name-checked by most of the speakers and signs I saw.
As in years before, Democrat politicians were also quite visible. However, this year the senior pol, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was openly booed. Some in the crowd turned their backs on him, and when the parade paused, they shouted out about how he does not support trans rights. Chuck yelled back he was the first major politician to ever attend a Pride Parade, back in the ’90s. Meanwhile, the all-in, modern trans-supporter Mayor Zohran Mamdani got some of the biggest applause of the day.
In Gallup polls from 1996 only about a third of Americans supported same-sex marriage. But by the mid-2010s, the figure had flipped and remained about two-thirds into the 2020s. This change culminated in the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2024 the Republican Party even removed their opposition to “marriage equality” from their party platform. Importantly, the Court ruling followed—not preceded—the broader cultural shift.
The emphasis which led to national acceptance of gay rights was driven by several factors; key among which was the emphasis on marriage involving consenting adults, many of whom were already cohabitating in various statuses. Advocacy focused on the universal human rights already part of American law and society, such as the right to work, to own property jointly, and so on; nothing more than asking people to accept someone else’s private life. However, it did not include sexual “rights” for children.
Then something happened concurrent with the first election of Donald Trump. While it once was sufficient to support basic rights, the Pride Parade started to include overt anti-Trump messages. Signs which read “Trans rights are human rights,” and the new flag was debuted. Far from “celebrating victory, defending the gains, and staying vigilant while winding down as a movement that had achieved its core objectives,” many gay groups did the opposite. They further radicalized.
Democrats increasingly view gay activism as an important component of their electoral coalition. The letter Q and the term “queer” have come to symbolize the idea public expression of one’s sexual identity is a political act. In the 2016 presidential election, gay voters embraced Hillary Clinton, promoting irrational fears as bizarre as Trump planning to imprison gays in concentration camps. This voting pattern reflected a broader social shift, where identity-based politics becomes increasingly central to how one votes. The Democrats took full advantage of this, fanning the flames further in the next election cycle with careful allotments by gender identity (as well as race, disability, etc.) throughout the Biden Administration, especially in the military.
The move from basic rights to gender identity made things much more complex once Trump took office a second time.
The gay rights movement prior to Obergefell v. Hodges demanded equality and mutual respect. They claimed no one’s straight life would change when gay marriage became legal. But then the shift started toward children, and any political advantage Democrats may have enjoyed because many Americans support same sex marriage began to fail. They advocated that gender; or sex?was no longer biological but instead merely an undesired social construct. Medical schools began teaching newspeak like “chest-feeding” instead of “breastfeeding,” A mother suddenly became a “birthing parent” and a woman a “person with a uterus.” Many libraries transformed into repositories of sexual education, often aimed at elementary-age kids who were “considering” becoming trans.
Divas in drag became a library staple in progressive areas. Teachers at some schools were expected to morph into gender coaches for those same kids, and rules were made allowed schools in some areas to keep all this secret from parents; no matter how young the child. Schools in general also took the lead in transitioning to all-sex toilets, with biological boys being allowed to change in front of girls.
It finally required a Supreme Court decision to allow states to keep biological boys out of girls’ sports. Quickly evolved medical standards saw doctors encouraged to perform “gender-affirming care” for pre-pubescents who were supposed to be experiencing gender dysphoria at an age when they likely could not correctly spell the term. This care, often called “support,” included procedures sometimes irreversible such as chemical puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions. Parental involvement varied, but in some cases was brought down to zero.
Democrats, greedy for votes, supported this all as received wisdom. Of course, no debate was allowed. Opponents were shouted down and canceled, called bigots and fascists; labeled homophobic. Even the author of many young voters’ childhood favorite books, J.K. Rowling, was ostracized because she did not support trans rights in the proper woke way. Democrats now intend to take this same way of thinking into the midterms and the next presidential election. This really can’t be a good idea.
In one post-election survey, cultural issues, including transgender issues, mattered more to swing voters than even immigration and inflation. Reality also plays a part. Predictions a second Trump administration would seek to overturn same-sex marriage have not materialized.
Instead, Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury is a married gay man with kids. The public attitudes toward gay Americans has shifted more rapidly than any other civil rights issue in U.S. history; and they are shifting again. The public increasingly appears to be cooling from any support for gender-identity activism. Whether Democrats will recognize this as writing on the wall, could be a very important question in this next election. ✪
▶️ IS THERE REALLY SUCH A THING AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD?’
IS THERE REALLY SUCH A THING AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD?’
ppp
he new Democratic Socialists of America often refer to the common good, or the communist good. Is there such a thing as “the common good” and what specifically is government’s role in providing it, if any?
It seems many arguments about a common good are made assuming such or referring to some broad abstract concept named as such. The term often appears to be the last defense arguing in favor of various forms of collectivism.
What should we make of competing meanings of the common good? Do we need one; or would it be better to just completely drop it from all parlance and debate? Is the common good an ideologically dependent concept or a self-evident truth? Or is it perhaps only a lie or myth? The answer greatly differs significantly depending on which philosophical or political tradition you subscribe to; and, which writings carry the most weight for you.
The communist and socialist arguments of Marx and myriad latter day neo-Marxists depend on the vanguard of the proletariat and the stated goal of equality of outcomes. Most liberals think in terms of welfare and the benefits of progressive taxation as the primary means to bring about various forms of social welfare and equality. However, utilitarians and pragmatists are less sanguine about the term and tend to shy away from it in favor instead of obtaining happiness or some kind of maximum efficiency.
There are four historically distinct and major ways to consider the meaning of the common good:
✪ The Classical Tradition
In this ancient tradition associated with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, the common good is not merely the sum of individual interests. It also considers all the social conditions which enable people to flourish together in society; justice, peace, trustworthy institutions, and shared moral norms. Individuals may achieve their own good partly through participating in the larger political community. Catholic Social Teaching, based in Catholicism and papal encyclicals, is a large progenitor of this concept of the common good, but it is largely rejected by Protestants, who rebelled against Catholic hierarchy and corruption by creating their own Reformed tradition.
✪ The Liberal Tradition
This definition of the common good is usually associated with John Locke and later thinkers.
Liberals have always been skeptical there is one substantive common good everyone shares. They think the State’s responsibility is primarily to protect individual rights and property; and to allow people to pursue their own personal conceptions of the common good. To them, the common good often means maintaining rules & regulation rather than actually promoting some particular vision or normative program which directly supports human flourishing.
✪ The Utilitarian Tradition
This definition of the common good is associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
Here the common good is identified as a social means to maximize overall welfare or human happiness. This can mean at the sacrifice of the interests of minorities if doing so increases total overall welfare. In this model, a specific calculus is performed to decide which actions to take and which to avoid.
✪ Public Choice & Libertarian Critiques
These advocates argue most appeals to the common good often mask support of agendas or the interests of particular groups. Politicians and bureaucrats often invoke the common good while pursuing power or appealing to well organized and narrow constituencies. This view is associated with thinkers such as James Buchanan.
In practice, truthfully, there are some things almost everyone regards as basic, common needs because they are impossible to provide individually; or, because everyone in society benefits from them. Examples include the national defense, public safety, clean air and water, certain basic public health measures, the Rule of Law, and safe, reliable infrastructure. The deeper disagreement is whether these examples point to a moral reality or are simply areas where individual interests happen to overlap or are agreed to be essential.
The question remains, “Is there really any such thing as the common good?” Empirically yes, because every society seemingly depends on some, even if limited, shared goods and institutions which individuals cannot create or sustain alone.
However philosophically, the idea remains contested. Some believe the common good is a convenient & objective feature of political life. Others think it is mainly a shorthand for overlapping private interests or a rhetorical concept which is often misused for political purposes.
Whether the common good is “real” ultimately depends on whether we believe human beings are fundamentally individuals who need to cooperate together for mutual advantage as members of larger communities whose flourishing is intrinsically interconnected. That explains the enduring debate.
The free-market economy is a key link between the technological project and the logic of modernity; especially when one considers the balance between civil institutions of limited government and personal autonomy. That’s because these civil institutions and therefore the meaning of “liberalism” in the Anglo-American world, (especially in the U.S.) is significantly different from its meaning in most of Western Europe: France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany; all formerly Catholic.
Because most Europeans eschew what they call “social atomism” in favor of any common good arrived at by purely democratic means. In Europe, there is a deep-seated anti-clericalism (originally directed against the Church) and opposition to one-person or autocratic rule (Fascism, Nazism).
They comprehend free-market economy, which they insist on describing by using the French expression laissez-faire, to be only one out of several ways to meet the economic needs of society, and therefore, could or should, conceivably be replaced by something better under certain circumstances. Therefore, the Continental liberalism embraced by Europe is seemingly compatible with socialism.
In this regard, most Europeans are closer to Bentham’s confused presumption the individual good is subservant to a holistic, collective, social common good. Continental academics, politicians, and bureaucrats believe “entrepreneurship” to be only a kind of information which can either be taught or forced. As a result, Europeans generally mistrust the free market and the entrepreneurs it produces and they often use the common good argument as an excuse to confiscate wealth.
Such distrust of free-market economies in Europe and sacrificing them for a common good results in lower technological innovation and achievement, more activist and interventionist governments which favor implicit socialism, and a formalistic Rule of Law which finds itself subordinated more to politics under the notion of a common (collective good); resulting in weak economies, lack of growth, little charity, and an ever larger role for the State in managing society.
This is why most of the currently held notions of the common good are both incompatible and fallacious. We should be on guard and wary every time we hear this term being used and what it implies, since there obviously isn’t even a common agreement on what a common good actually is. ✪
▶️ THEY DON’T MAKE THEM LIKE THIS ANYMORE
⭐️ Jim in Tucson
THEY DON’T MAKE THEM LIKE THIS ANYMORE
jjj
ne hundred and forty one years ago yesterday, on July 23, 1885, Ulysses S. Grant died at the age of 63. Most people know him as the general who won the Civil War and as the two term President who now appears on the 50 Dollar bill.
However, few actually know how his life story ended; and it’s one of the most quietly heroic things in all American history. Let’s start with the fact “Ulysses S. Grant” was never even his birth name. He was born Hiram Ulysses Grant. Once he arrived at West Point, a congressman filled out the paperwork wrong and wrote his name as Ulysses S. Grant. The S stood for nothing at all. Grant just shrugged it off and kept this as his name for the rest of his life.
Later, when he forced a Confederate fort to surrender with no conditions, soldiers said the U.S. in his name stood for “Unconditional Surrender.” Yet before the war, Grant was a failure at almost everything he tried. He failed at farming. He failed at real estate. In his late thirties he was still only working as a clerk in his father’s leather goods store and hauling hides for his younger brothers. Yet when the war came, the quiet clerk turned into one of the greatest military minds America ever produced.
Grant took Vicksburg. He ground down Lee. He accepted the surrender at Appomattox; and instead of gloating, allowed the Confederate soldiers to keep their horses so they could plant crops. He next went on to win the White House and serve two terms as President. So how is it possible for a man of Grant’s stature & caliber to end up dying broke?
In 1884, Grant unfortunately trusted his entire savings to a Wall Street firm run by a young hotshot named Ferdinand Ward, basically a Bernie Madoff of his day. Unknown to Grant, Ward was running a con and when it collapsed, Grant lost everything. He was left so impoverished he was forced to borrow money just to cover his household expenses. Eventually he had to hand over his war trophies and swords to pay his debts. The most famous soldier in America was suddenly a pauper.
Then his life grew worse. Doctors discovered he had throat cancer brought about by Grant’s long time habit of smoking twenty cigars each day. A habit which had become part of his public image. After each of his military and political victories, public admirers mailed him cigars by the thousands.
Grant knew he was dying, and feared he would leave his wife Julia with nothing. In constant pain, with his throat closing up and some days unable to speak barely above a whisper, Grant sat down and wrote his memoirs. Mark Twain, one of Grant’s many admirers, offered him a stunningly generous book deal; much better than anything regular authors received at that time.
Grant seized upon Twain’s generous offer and immediately set to work, producing an almost three hundred thousand word manuscript in less than a year. On the days he couldn’t talk, he wrote on small slips of paper. Witnesses said his pain was constant, yet he continued on regardless, finally finishing the manuscript only days before his death.
His plan to provide for his wife after his death was successful. Grant’s personal memoirs became one of the best selling books of the 19th Century and is still considered by many to be the finest memoir ever written by an American president. The total royalties for Julia came to almost four hundred fifty thousand dollars; an enormous sum for the time. Enough so she never worried about money again.
Grant never recovered the money he lost on Wall Street, instead, he wrote his way out of poverty before leaving this life. When he finally died, the entire country came to a halt for several days. Around a million and a half people lined the streets of New York for his funeral; the largest the city had ever seen.
His pallbearers included both Union and Confederate generals, side by side. One of his general pallbearers was Simon Bolivar Buckner, the very man who had surrendered to Grant at Fort Donelson decades earlier. He had come to Grant’s deathbed near the end; two old enemies making peace, and then helped to carry him to his final resting place. Grant’s Tomb in New York, became the largest mausoleum in North America.
A once failed store clerk who ultimately saved the Union, lost everything to a con man, and then while dying in agony, wrote an historical masterpiece to provide for his wife, passed way 141 years ago yesterday. They really don’t make them like that anymore.✪
▶️ ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️ ✪✪✪ DONATE ✪✪✪ ◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️◼️
▶️ 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 are 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: Trump Announcement On Nuclear Innovation
⭐️ TokaiseBlessedPatriot
