Aggregatore di feed

“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”—Daniel Webster

We find ourselves approaching that time of year when, as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, we’re supposed to give thanks as a nation and as individuals for our safety and our freedoms.

It’s not an easy undertaking.

The contrast between George Washington’s first Thanksgiving proclamation and the state of the nation today reveals how far we have drifted—and how low we have fallen—since Washington called upon early Americans (a nation of immigrants) to give thanks for a government that protected their safety and happiness, and for a Constitution designed to safeguard civil and religious liberty.

But how do you give thanks for freedoms that are constantly being eroded?

How do you express gratitude for one’s safety when the perils posed by the American police state grow more treacherous by the day?

How do you come together as a nation in thanksgiving when the powers-that-be continue to polarize and divide us into warring factions?

To our collective misfortune, we have been saddled with a government that is a far cry from Washington’s vision: governed by wise, just, constitutional laws; faithfully executed by principled public servants; promoting peace, virtue, and liberty; and fostering the prosperity of the nation.

Instead, the U.S. government has become a warring empire: lawless in its ambitions, militarized in its posture, abusive in its policing, and increasingly hostile to conscience, truth, and constitutional limits.

Washington never intended Thanksgiving to be a day of glib platitudes—a moment to be grateful for whatever crumbs the government chooses to bestow upon us. He intended it to be a day of reflection, honesty, and moral accounting, a day when the nation examines its failures, acknowledges its wrongs, and commits to restoring liberty in the year ahead.

If Thanksgiving is to mean anything in times such as these, it must also compel us to speak plainly about the forces that threaten our freedom. Giving thanks for our blessings requires the courage to say “no thanks” to the very forces working to strip away the blessings we claim to celebrate.

In that true spirit of Thanksgiving, here is a sobering list of things for which we should not give thanks in this age of the American police state.

Say “no thanks” to oligarchy and self-serving, pay-to-play politics. A pay-to-play culture now permeates the highest levels of government, dominated by a mindset that money—not law—defines the boundaries of power. America is being bought and sold by corporate elites and political cronies. “We the People” have been pushed into a permanent underclass, ruled by a political machine that monetizes every aspect of governance—surveillance, policing, incarceration, immigration enforcement, even war itself. Our elected officials increasingly represent the interests of the wealthy and well-connected rather than the rights and needs of the citizenry. This is oligarchy masquerading as representative government.

Say “no thanks” to an imperial presidency that rules by fiat. Executive power has metastasized into something the Framers would not recognize. In 2025 alone, we have seen:

• sweeping executive orders redefining law without Congress’ oversight or approval,
• federal agencies weaponized against political enemies,
• unilateral decisions to deploy federal troops domestically,
• and attempts to redefine constitutional rights by proclamation.

Whether the occupant of the Oval Office is a Republican or Democrat, the result is the same: presidents now behave as lawmakers, judges, and enforcers combined — a constitutional impossibility and a recipe for dictatorship. The Founders warned us plainly: when one person claims the authority to rule by decree, liberty is already in mortal danger.

Say “no thanks” to martial law and standing armies used against the American people. What once would have been unthinkable is now routine. National Guard units have been federalized to police protests. Tactical teams roam American streets outfitted like combat forces. A generation of Americans is growing up under the shadow of armored vehicles and militarized responses to ordinary civil unrest. This year’s federal deployments in California and elsewhere following ICE raids—justified by vague claims of “restoring order”—are only the latest sign. A government comfortable using soldiers against its own citizens is a government that has abandoned the constitutional line between civilian authority and military force.

Say “no thanks” to the government’s fear tactics. Fear is the oldest tool of tyranny. We have seen fear weaponized to justify:

• speech crackdowns,
• “domestic threat” watchlists,
• expanded surveillance authorities,
• “emergency powers” without end,
• and the rounding up of vulnerable populations under the guise of safety.

From mental-health “round-ups” to demands that soldiers obey unlawful commands without question, fear has become the operating currency of government power. When the people are afraid, they can be controlled. When one’s right to conscience is criminalized, that conscience can be silenced.

Say “no thanks” to endless wars. For more than two decades, the U.S. has been mired in endless wars without clear objectives, limits, or endpoints. The war footing has become perpetual—an unbroken justification for secrecy, surveillance, militarization, and unchecked executive power. Wars abroad have consequences at home: they brutalize our politics, exhaust our populace, expand federal power, and normalize the idea that violence—rather than diplomacy, law, or liberty—is the default solution for national problems.

Say “no thanks” to everywhere wars. When government can label anyone, anywhere, an “enemy” in order to wage war, we are all in danger. That danger is no longer theoretical. In the same breath that the administration touts lethal military strikes against Venezuelan boats in Caribbean waters, federal agents are conducting coordinated militarized raids on communities across the country. The lesson to be learned: a nation permanently on war footing eventually turns its war machinery inward.

Say “no thanks” to the transformation of domestic police into extensions of the military.  For decades, billions in Pentagon gear—tanks, drones, armored carriers, battlefield weapons — have been funneled to local police under the 1033 military surplus program. Training once reserved for war zones has become standard for domestic policing. The results are unmistakable:

• SWAT raids for routine warrants,
• trigger-happy policing,
• a “kill or be killed” mentality,
• and communities patrolled like occupied territories.

The police are no longer peace officers. They are an occupying force.

Say “no thanks” to ICE raids that trample constitutional rights and terrorize communities. What began as an agency tasked with immigration enforcement has mutated into something far darker: a roaming domestic strike force. ICE’s quota-driven model incentivizes arrests at all costs, creating a bounty-hunter culture in which constitutional rights are obstacles, not guarantees. From coast to coast, ICE goon squads—incognito, thuggish, fueled by profit-driven incentives and outlandish quotas, and empowered by the Trump administration to act as if they are untouchable—are prowling neighborhoods, churches, courthouses, hospitals, bus stops, and worksites, anywhere “suspected” migrants might be present, snatching people first and asking questions later. No one is off limits—not even American citizens.

Say “no thanks” to a government mindset that seeks to transform the nation into a prison state. From the creation of Alligator Alcatraz to the administration’s $170 billion plan for megaprisons, the U.S. incarceration system is being expanded at breakneck speed. Combined with predictive enforcement, surveillance dragnets, and limits on due process, the United States is rapidly becoming a prison state — one that cages not only bodies, but autonomy, dissent, and opportunity.

Say “no thanks” to a surveillance state that has become a fourth branch of government.  We now live in a world in which everything—your words, your purchases, your location, your associations—is recorded, stored, and weaponized by the government and its corporate partners in crime. The surveillance state watches, catalogs, and predicts everything we do. This year alone has seen the normalization of:

• Palantir-powered national tracking systems,
• AI threat-scoring of ordinary Americans,
• geofence warrants turning whole neighborhoods into suspects,
• biometric mandates proposed as “public health tools,”
• and the creation of federal databases of “pre-crime indicators.”

Say “no thanks” to a government that punishes the poor. 2025 has brought a brutal resurgence of debtors’ courts, cash-bail coercion, poverty penalties, and retaliatory prosecutions. The criminal legal system has become a two-tiered caste structure—harsh for the poor, lenient for the powerful.

Say “no thanks” to policies that muzzle dissent. Whistleblowers, journalists, activists, and critics continue to find themselves targeted for speaking truth to power. In a climate where thought crimes and “dangerous ideas” are policed, those who criticize the government are increasingly being portrayed as traitors and subjected to investigation and prosecution.

Say “no thanks” to courts that rubber-stamp government power. Time and again, the courts have chosen order over justice, secrecy over transparency, and government power over constitutional rights—refusing to rein in geofence warrants, no-knock raids, military deployments, or the ever-expanding surveillance state.

Say “no thanks” to a government that criminalizes the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps the most alarming development of all is the growing chorus of political voices calling for the arrest—even the execution—of those who urge members of the military to follow their conscience and refuse unlawful, unconstitutional orders. Let us be clear: the American military’s oath is to the Constitution—not to any president, political agenda, or unlawful order. Anyone who suggests otherwise should be court-martialed.

Say “no thanks” to government theft disguised as fines, fees, taxes, and forfeitures. When the government can seize your home, your car, your money, or your property without due process, you are no longer a free citizen—you are a subject. Asset forfeiture, civil penalties, red-light cameras, code-enforcement schemes, and debt-trap fines have turned the government at all levels into a predatory revenue machine. The line between public property and private property has vanished. This is legalized theft.

At some point, we’ve got to face up to the uncomfortable truth that freedom is slipping through our fingers, and that the government now poses a greater threat to our safety than any outside force ever could.

We cannot keep pretending that “it can’t happen here” while it is happening all around us.

There comes a point at which no people—not even a patient, hopeful, long-suffering people—can continue pretending that the crumbs of liberty left to them constitute freedom.

Thanksgiving is supposed to remind us of our blessings. But it is also meant to remind us of our responsibilities.

A free people must do more than count their blessings.

We must guard them. We must assert them. We must defend them—even when doing so is dangerous, costly, or unpopular.

There is still time to turn back from the brink, but the hour is late.

If we want future generations to enjoy even a measure of the freedom we inherited, then “We the People” must refuse to go quietly into the machinery of the police state.

We must refuse to be governed by fear.

We must refuse to surrender our rights for the illusion of safety.

And we must refuse to bow to those who insist that conscience is treason and obedience is the highest virtue.

The Founders gave us a constitutional republic on the condition that we fight to keep it. That responsibility cannot be outsourced to politicians, courts, or parties. It rests squarely with the people themselves, with those who refuse to surrender conscience, rights, or truth to the demands of tyrants.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the only force strong enough to restrain government overreach is an informed, engaged, and courageous citizenry that will not trade its birthright for the hollow comforts of authoritarianism.

The future of freedom depends not on presidents or parties but on “We the People”—ordinary individuals who refuse to be silent, refuse to be intimidated, and refuse to give up on the promise of America.

So this Thanksgiving, let us give thanks. But let us also say—with clarity and conviction—no thanks to tyranny, in whatever form it takes.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

The post Giving Thanks for Our Blessings Means Saying ‘No Thanks’ to Police State Tyranny appeared first on LewRockwell.

At the dawning of the British Empire in 1818, the romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley penned a memorable sonnet freighted with foreboding about the inevitable decline of all empires, whether in ancient Egypt or then-modern Britain.

In Shelly’s stanzas, a traveler in Egypt comes across the ruins of a once-monumental statue, with “a shattered visage lying half sunk” in desert sands bearing the “sneer of cold command.” Only its “trunkless legs of stone” remain standing. Yet the inscription carved on those stones still proclaims: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!” And in a silent mockery of such imperial hubris, all the trappings of that awesome power, all the palaces and fortresses, have been utterly erased, leaving only a desolation “boundless and bare” as “the lone and level sands stretch far away.”

Taken too literally, those verses might lead us to anticipate some future traveler finding fragments of St. Paul’s Cathedral scattered on the banks of the Thames River in London or stones from the Washington Monument strewn in a kudzu-covered field near the Potomac. Shelley is, however, offering us a more profound lesson that every empire teaches and every imperialist then forgets: Imperial ascent begets an inevitable decline.

Imperial Washington

Indeed, these days Donald Trump’s Washington abounds with monuments to overblown imperial grandeur and plans for more, all of which add up to an unconvincing denial that America’s global imperium is facing an Ozymandias-like fate. With his future Gilded Age ballroom meant to rise from the rubble of the White House’s East Wing, his plans for a massive triumphal arch at the city’s entrance, and a military parade of tanks and troops clanking down Constitution Avenue on his birthday, who could ever imagine such a thing?  Not Donald Trump, that’s for sure.

In a celebration of his “works” that are supposedly making the “mighty despair” in foreign capitals around the world, his former national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, has recently argued in Foreign Affairs that the president’s “policy of peace through strength” is reversing a Democrat-induced decline of U.S. global power. According to O’Brien, instead of crippling NATO (as his critics claim), President Trump is “leading the biggest European rearmament of the postwar era”; unleashing military innovation “to counter China”; and proving himself the “indispensable global statesman by driving efforts to bring peace to… long-standing disputes” in Gaza, the Congo, and, quite soon, Ukraine as well. Even in North America, according to O’Brien, Trump’s attempt to acquire Greenland has forced Denmark to expand its military presence, putting Russia on notice that the West will compete for control of the Arctic.

As it happens, whatever the truth of any of that may be, the policy elements that O’Brien cites are certain to prove largely irrelevant to the ceaseless struggle for geopolitical power among the globe’s great empires. Or, to borrow a favorite Trumpian epithet from the president’s “cornucopia of crudeness,” in the relentless, often ruthless world of grand strategy, none of those factors amounts to a hill of “shit.”

Indeed, O’Brien’s epic catalogue of Trump’s supposed foreign policy successes cleverly avoids any mention of the central factor in the rise and fall of every dominant world power for the past 500 years: energy. While the United States made genuine strides toward a green energy revolution under President Joe Biden, his successor, the “drill, baby, drill” president, has seemed determined not just to destroy those gains, but to revert to dependence on fossil fuels “bigly,” as Trump would say. In a perplexing paradox, President Trump’s systematic attack on alternative energy at home will almost certainly subvert America’s geopolitical power abroad. How and why? Let me explain by dipping my toes in a bit of history.

For the past five centuries, the rise of every global empire has rested on an underlying transformation (or perhaps revolution would be a more accurate word for it) in the form of energy that drove its version of the world economy. Innovation in the basic force behind its rising global presence gave each successive hegemonic power — Portugal, Spain, England, the United States, and possibly now China — a critical competitive advantage, cutting costs and increasing profits. That energy innovation and the lucrative commerce it created infused each successive imperium with intangible but substantial power, impelling its armed forces relentlessly forward and crushing resistance to its rule, whether by local groups or would-be imperial rivals. Although scholars of imperial history often ignore it, energy should be considered, as I argued in my book To Govern the Globe, the determinative factor in the rise and fall of every global hegemon for the past five centuries.

Iberia’s Mastery of Muscle

In the fifteenth century, the Iberian powers — Portugal and Spain — manipulated the ocean winds and maximized the energy output of the human body, giving them new forms of energy that allowed their arid lands and limited populations to conquer much of the globe. By replacing the square sail of lumbering Mediterranean ships with a triangular sail, agile Portuguese vessels like the famed caravela de armada doubled their capacity to tack close to the wind, allowing them to master the world’s oceans.

By 1500, Portuguese warships had navigation instruments that allowed them to cross the widest bodies of water, sails to beat into the strongest headwinds, a sturdy hull for guns and cargo, and lethal cannons that could destroy enemy fleets or breach the walls of port cities. As a result, a small flotilla of Portuguese caravels soon conquered colonies on both sides of the South Atlantic Ocean and seized control of Asian sea lanes from the Red Sea to the Java Sea.

For the next three centuries, such sailing ships would transport 11 million African captives across the Atlantic to work as slaves in a new form of agriculture that was both exceptionally cruel and extraordinarily profitable: the sugar plantation. The output of Europe’s free yeoman farmers was then constrained by the limits of the individual body and the temperate climate’s short six-month growing season. By contrast, enslaved laborers, massed into efficient teams in tropical latitudes, were driven year-round to the brink of death and beyond to extract unprecedented productivity and profits from those plantations. Indeed, even as late as the nineteenth century, the U.S. southern slave plantation was, according to an econometric analysis, 35% more efficient than a northern family farm.

After developing the sugar plantation, or fazenda, as a new form of agribusiness on small islands off the coast of Africa in the fifteenth century, the Portuguese brought that system to Brazil in the sixteenth century. From there, it migrated to European colonies in the Caribbean, making that cruel commerce synonymous with the slave trade for nearly four centuries. So profitable was the slave plantation for its owners that, unlike almost every other form of production, it did not die from natural economic causes but would instead require the full force of the British navy to do it in.

The Dutch Harness the Winds

But the true masters of wind power would prove to be the Dutch, whose technological prowess would allow their small land, devoid of natural resources, to conquer a colonial empire that spanned three continents. In the seventeenth century, the Dutch drive for scientific innovation led them to harness the winds as never before, building sailing ships 10 times the size of a Portuguese caravel and windmills that, among other things, replaced the tedious hand sawing of logs to produce lumber for shipbuilding. With giant sails spanning over 90 feet, a five-ton shaft generating up to 50 horsepower, and several sawing frames with six steel blades each, a windmill’s four-man crew could turn 60 tree trunks a day into uniform planks to maintain the massive Dutch merchant fleet of 4,000 ocean-going ships.

By 1650, the Zaan district near Amsterdam, arguably Europe’s first major industrial area, had more than 50 wind-driven sawmills and was the world’s largest shipyard, launching 150 hulls annually (at half the cost of English-built vessels). Many of these were the Dutch-designed fluitschip, an agile three-masted cargo vessel that cut crew size, doubled sailing speed, and could carry 500 tons of cargo with exceptional efficiency.

Through its commercial acumen and mastery of wind power, tiny Holland defeated the mighty Spanish empire in the Thirty Years War (1618-48), then fought the British to a standstill in three massive naval wars, while building an empire that reached around the world — from the Spice Islands of Indonesia to the city of New Amsterdam on the island of Manhattan.

When Coal Was King

As Holland’s commercial empire began to fade, however, Great Britain was already launching an energy transition to coal-fired steam energy that would leave the wind and muscle power of the Iberian age in the dust of history. And the industrial revolution that went with it would build the world’s first truly global empire.

The Scottish inventor James Watt perfected the steam engine by 1784. Such machines began driving railways in 1825 and the Royal Navy’s warships in the 1840s. By then, an armada of steam engines was transforming the nature of work worldwide — driving sawmills, pulling gang plows, and sculpting the earth’s surface with steam shovels, steam dredges, and steam rollers. Between 1880 and 1900, the number of steam engines in the United States would triple from 56,000 units to 156,000, accounting for 77% of all American industrial power. To fuel that age of steam and steel, Britain’s coal production climbed to a peak of 290 million tons in 1913, while worldwide production reached 1.3 billion tons.

Coal was the catalyst for an industrial revolution that fused steam technology with steel production to make Britain the master of the world’s oceans. From the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, tiny Britain with just 40 million people would preside over a global empire that controlled a quarter of all humanity directly through colonies and another quarter indirectly through client states. In addition to its vast territorial empire, Britannia ruled the world’s waves, while its pound sterling became the global reserve currency, and London the financial center of the planet.

America’s Petrol-Powered Hegemony

Just as Britain’s imperial age had coincided with its coal-driven industrial revolution, so Washington’s brand-new world order focused on crude oil to feed the voracious energy needs of its global economy. By 1950, in the wake of World War II, the U.S. petrol-powered economy was producing half the world’s economic output and using that raw economic power for commercial and military dominion over most of the planet (outside the Sino-Soviet communist bloc).

By 1960, the Pentagon had built a nuclear triad that gave it a formidable strategic deterrent, as five nuclear-powered submarines armed with atomic warheads trolled the ocean depths, while 14 nuclear-armed aircraft carriers patrolled the world’s oceans. Flying from 500 U.S. overseas military bases, the Strategic Air Command had 1,700 bombers ready for nuclear strikes.

As American automobile ownership climbed from 40 million units in 1950 to 200 million in 2000, the country’s oil consumption surged from 6.5 million barrels daily to a peak of 20 million. During those same decades, the federal government spent $370 billion to cover the country with 46,000 miles of interstate highways, allowing cars and trucks to replace railroads as the ribs of the nation’s transportation infrastructure.

To drive the carbon-fueled economy of Washington’s world order, there would be a dramatic, five-fold increase in the global consumption of liquid fossil fuels during the last half of the twentieth century. As the number of motor vehicles worldwide kept climbing, crude oil rose from 27% of global fossil-fuel consumption in 1950 to 44% by 2003, surpassing coal to become the world’s main source of energy.

To meet this relentlessly rising demand, the Middle East’s share of global oil production climbed from just 7% in 1945 to 35% in 2003. As the self-appointed guardian of the Persian Gulf whose vast oil reserves represented some 60% of the world’s total, Washington would become embroiled in endless wars in that tumultuous region, from the Gulf War of 1990-91 to its present-day interventions in Israel and Iran.

Whether thanks to Britain’s coal-fired factories or America’s auto traffic, all those carbon emissions were already producing signs of global warming that, by the 1990s, would set alarm bells ringing among scientists worldwide. From the “pre-industrial” baseline of 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1880, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere kept climbing to 410 ppm by 2018, resulting in the rising seas, devastating fires, raging storms, and protracted droughts that came to be known as global warming.

As evidence of the climate crisis became undeniable, the world’s nations responded with striking unanimity by signing the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to cut carbon emissions and surge investments into alternative energy that soon yielded significant breakthroughs in both cost and efficiency. Within four years, the International Energy Agency predicted that dramatic drops in the cost of solar panels meant that solar energy would soon be “the new king of the world’s electricity markets.” Indeed, as technology slashed the cost of battery storage and solar panels, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported in 2024 that the solar generation of electricity had become 41% cheaper than fossil fuels, while offshore wind was 53% cheaper — a truly significant disparity that will, as technology continues to slash the cost of solar energy, render the use of coal and natural gas for electricity an economic irrationality, if not an utter absurdity.

In the game of empires, seemingly small margins can have large consequences, often marking the difference between dominance and subordination, success and failure — whether the 35% advantage of enslaved over free labor, the 50% cost advantage for Dutch sailing craft over British ones, and now a 41% savings for solar over fossil fuels. Moreover, the day is fast coming when fossil-fuel electricity will cost more than twice as much as alternative energy from solar and wind power.

To assure America’s economic future, the administration of President Joe Biden began investing trillions of dollars in alternative energy by building battery plants, encouraging massive wind and solar projects, and continuing a consumer subsidy to sustain Detroit’s transition to electric vehicles. In January 2025, however, Donald Trump entered the White House (again) determined to roll back the global green revolution. After quitting the Paris climate accord and labeling climate change a “hoax” or “the green new scam,” President Trump has halted construction of major offshore wind projects, ended the subsidy for electric vehicle purchases, and opened yet more federal lands for coal and oil leases. Armed with extraordinary executive powers and a single-minded determination, he will predictably delay, if not derail, America’s transition to alternative energy, missing market opportunities and undercutting the country’s economic competitiveness by chaining it to overpriced fossil fuels.

China’s Green-Energy Ride to Global Power

While Washington was demolishing America’s green energy infrastructure, Beijing has been working to make China a global powerhouse for alternative energy. Ten years ago, its leaders launched a “Made in China 2025” program to storm the heights of the global economy by becoming the world leader in 10 strategic industries, eight of which involved some aspect of the green-energy transformation, including “new materials,” “high-tech ships,” “advanced railways,” “energy-saving and new energy vehicles,” and “energy equipment.” Those “new materials” include China’s virtual monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are absolutely critical to the manufacturing of the key components for renewable energy — specifically, wind turbines, solar panels, energy storage systems, electric vehicles, and hydrogen extraction. In sum, Beijing is already riding the green energy revolution in a serious bid to become the world’s “leading manufacturing superpower” by 2049, while erasing America’s economic edge and its global hegemony in the bargain.

So, you might ask, have any of those seemingly pie-in-the-sky plans already become an economic reality? Given China’s recent progress in key energy sectors, the answer is a resounding yes.

Under its economic plan, China has already come to dominate the world’s solar power industry. In 2024, it cut the wholesale price of its solar panel exports in half and nearly doubled its exports of panel components. To replace its old export “trio” of clothing, furniture, and appliances, Beijing has mandated a “new trio” of solar panels, lithium batteries, and electric cars. And to put what’s happening in perspective, imagine that, in just the month of May, China installed enough wind and solar energy to power a country as big as Poland, reaching an impressive figure that represents half the world’s “total installed solar capacity.” By 2024, China was already producing at least 80% of the world’s solar panel components, dominating the global market, and undercutting would-be competitors in Europe and the U.S.  Driving all that explosive growth, China’s investment in clean energy has reached nearly $2 trillion, representing 10% of its gross domestic product, and has been growing at three times the rate of its overall economy, meaning it would soon account for a full 20% of its entire economy.

With similar determination, its electric vehicles (EVs) are now beginning to capture the global car market. By 2024, 17.3 million electric cars were made worldwide, and China produced 70% of them. Not only are Chinese companies opening massive robotic assembly plants worldwide to crank out such cars by the millions, but they are also making the world’s cheapest and best cars — with the YangWang U9-X hitting a world speed record of 308 miles per hour; BYD’s latest plug-in hybrid models, priced at only $13,700 and capable of traveling a record 1,200 miles on a single charge and single tank of gas; the YangWang U8 with a capacity to literally drive across water; and the Xiaomi SU-7 displaying a high-tech driver interface that makes a Tesla look like a Ford Pinto.

Since an EV is just a steel box with a battery, technology will soon allow low-cost electric vehicles to completely eradicate gas guzzlers, enabling China to conquer the global car market — with full electric cars like the self-driving BYD Seagull sedan already priced at $8,000, models like BYD’s Han with a 5-minute charge time that’s faster than pumping a tank of gas, and sedans like the Nio ET7 with a standard range on a single charge of 620 miles. And most of that extraordinary technological progress has happened in less than four years, essentially the time remaining in Donald Trump’s second term in office.

An Agenda for America’s Economic Future

By discouraging alternative energy and encouraging fossil fuels, President Trump is undercutting America’s economic competitiveness in the most fundamental way imaginable. Amid an historic transformation in the world’s energy infrastructure (comparable in scope and scale to the coal-fired industrial revolution), the United States will spend the next three years under his watch digging coal and burning oil and natural gas, while the rest of the industrial world follows China as it pursues technological innovation to the furthest frontiers of the human imagination. Indeed, the latest annual report from the world’s energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, states bluntly that the transition away from fossil fuels is “inevitable” as the world, “led by a surge in cheap solar power in… the Middle East and Asia,” installs more green energy capacity in the next five years than it has in the last 40 combined.

By the time Donald Trump leaves office in 2029, this country will be distinctly on the imperial decline amid fast-paced changes that will make electric vehicles universal and solar-powered electricity an economic imperative. And just as the Dutch used energy technology to capture their imperial moment in the seventeenth century, so the Chinese will undoubtedly do the same in this century.

After all, how can the United States produce competitive products, even for domestic consumption (much less export), if our costs for energy, the basic component of every economic activity, become double those of our competitors? Simply put, it won’t be possible.

If, however, when Donald Trump’s term in office is done, this country moves quickly to recover its capacity for economic rationality, it should be able to regain some version of its place in the world economy. For once the United States rejoins the green energy revolution, it can use its formidable engineering ingenuity to accelerate the development of this transformative technology — simultaneously reducing the CO2 emissions that are choking the planet and securing the livelihoods of average American workers in the bargain.

The post Ozymandias on the Potomac appeared first on LewRockwell.

Lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas; lie down with neocons, you wake up with wars.
–Me

So goes President Trump’s 28 point peace plan to end the Russia/Ukraine war. Revealed at the end of last week, the plan initially received a cautious but cautiously optimistic reception in Moscow.

It was hardly a dramatic tilt toward the Russian position. Many of the plan’s points ranged from the implausible to the bizarre. For example the idea that President Trump would be crowned some sort of “peace czar” overseeing the deal, and that Russia would agree to use its seized assets to rebuild Ukraine. Then there is the one that Russia should accept a demilitarized “buffer” zone taking up a good chunk of Donetsk (which itself would be “de facto” part of Russia but not de jure – and thereby subject to the vicissitudes of Western electoral politics). And of course there was the part where the US would share the “profits” from Russia’s paid reconstruction of Ukraine.

Very Trumpian, very weird.

Nevertheless the flawed plan (in terms of Russian acceptance) dropped like an atom bomb on the US neocons and their European counterparts. Trump’s peace plan was “entirely dictated by Putin,” the UK Independent breathlessly tells us. Yes, that is how propagandistic the western mainstream media really is. And suddenly we are back to Russiagate and accusations the Trump is acting as Putin’s puppet – or at least stenographer.

At the political level, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas pretty well summed up the level of delusion among the European elite: “We have not heard of any concessions from Russia. If Russia really wanted peace, it could have agreed to an unconditional ceasefire a long time ago.’”

Yes, Kaja “Sun Tzu” Kallas. Military history teaches us that every army making rapid gains on the battlefield periodically pauses to make concessions to the losing side. Otherwise it wouldn’t be fair and not everyone would get a trophy.

President Trump’s demand that Ukraine’s acting president, Zelensky, accept the terms by Thanksgiving or face a cut-off in US military and intelligence assistance put the Europeans and US hawks in panic mode. It appeared Trump was finally tired of playing Hamlet after the framework he presented in Alaska in August was agreed upon by Russia and then abandoned by Trump himself after receiving an earful from said Europeans and US neocons.

This time, by golly, Trump was finally going to step up and end a conflict nearly a year after he promised to end it 24 hours.

And then Rubio walked in.

The one lesson Trump 2.0 did not learn from Trump 1.0 is that the personnel is the policy, particularly with a president who appears uninterested in details and disengaged from complex processes. Trump 1.0 was dragged down by neocon albatrosses John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, among others.

Even a Col. Douglas Macgregor brought in in the 4th quarter at the two minute warning to throw a “Hail Mary” pass to get us out of Afghanistan was tackled behind the line of scrimmage by Robert O’Brien, Trump’s final National Security Advisor and neocon dead-ender.

Neocons are wreckers. That’s the one thing they are good at.

The inclusion of new blood in the person of Vice President Vance ally, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll – who supplanted terminally clueless Trump envoy Keith Kellogg – offered the promise that finally the realist faction in the shadows of the Trump Administration would have their shot.

Then the rug was pulled. Again.

Rubio jetted off to Geneva to help lick the wounds of the European “leaders” who are dedicated to fighting the Russians down to the last Ukrainian.

Politico lets us in on what happened next, in a piece titled, “Rubio changes the tack of Trump’s Ukraine negotiations after week of chaos.”

Before Rubio showed up in Switzerland, it largely felt like Vice President JD Vance, via his close friend Driscoll, was leading the process. By the end of the weekend, Rubio had taken the reins because the conversations became more flexible, the official said.

“Flexibility” means that we are back to square one, with a reversion to the Kellogg/Euro view that the side winning a war should unilaterally freeze military operations in favor of the losing side.

Politico continued:

Rubio’s participation in the talks produced much more American flexibility, the four people familiar with the discussions said. Rubio told reporters on Sunday night that the aim is simply to finalize discussions ‘as soon as possible,’ rather than by Thanksgiving.

That loss of momentum and destruction of the sense of urgency means we have returned to the endless bickering of the eternally deluded voices who even in the face of rapid recent Russian advances believe that Ukraine is winning – or could win with a few hundred billion more dollars – the war against Russia.

Never mind the golden toilets. Suddenly that’s out of the news.

At the end of the day, all the drama changes little. As President Putin himself said while meeting with his own national security council (h/t MoA):

Either Kiev’s leadership lacks objective reporting about the developments on the front, or, even if they receive such information, they are unable to assess it objectively. If Kiev refuses to discuss President Trump’s proposals and declines to engage in dialogue, then both they and their European instigators must understand that what happened in Kupyansk will inevitably occur in other key areas of the front. Perhaps not as quickly as we would prefer, but inevitably.

And overall, this development suits us, as it leads to achieving the goals of the special military operation by force, through armed confrontation.

In other words, Russia is happy to achieve its objectives through negotiation, which would save lives and infrastructure especially in Ukraine. But it is also willing to continue its accelerating push to achieve those objectives militarily. And no fever dreams of war with Russia from the likes of former NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen is going to change that.

Marco Rubio is a pretty bad Kissinger, and Kissinger was bad enough. At some point – and that point may have now passed – the Russians are going to rightly conclude that they have no negotiating partner in a US still dominated by people like the former Senator from Florida whose first love is regime change in Venezuela and Cuba.

Whatever the case, Trump should be pretty miffed that Marco threw a spanner in what would have been a world record, unprecedented, universally-praised, like-nothing-the-world-has-ever-seen, solving of NINE wars in just his first year in office!

This article was originally published on The Ron Paul Institute.

The post Rubio Neo-conned Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan appeared first on LewRockwell.

As a national holiday, Thanksgiving originated as war propaganda.

It was Abe Lincoln in November 1863 who made Thanksgiving a national holiday.  The Union Army under Grant had finally won a battle at Shiloh, and the victory called for celebration.

American Indians, or native Americans as some prefer, give no thanks for the Europeans’ arrival or for Lincoln’s victory over the Confederacy.  No sooner than Sherman and Sheridan had raped and pillaged the Confederacy than they were sicced on the Plains Indians,  Ralph K. Andrist chronicles their extermination in his book, The Long Death:  The Last Days of the Plains Indian.

The invasion of the Confederate States of America by the Union has been incorrectly labeled a “civil war” by court historians.  It is completely clear that there was no civil war.  A civil war is when contesting sides fight for the control of the government.  The Confederacy had its own government in Richmond and no interest in the one in Washington.  It was the North that invaded the South by sending an army into Virginia where the Union army was defeated at the Battle of Bull Run.

I have often wondered how corrupt historians got away with calling a war that began with an invasion of one country by another a “civil war.”

I have also wondered how the same corrupt historians got away with falsely claiming that the war was fought for the purpose of freeing black people from slavery when Abe Lincoln made it completely clear that he initiated the war in order to preserve the union.

I have also wondered how the liberal/left and black studies departments in universities got away with demonizing white Americans for slavery when the greatest casualties in American history were the consequence of a four year war allegedly fought to free black slaves. Altogether 594,000 white men died in a war allegedly fought to free the slaves.  Where, then, does the charge of white racism come from?

I have also wondered why the Union preferred one people of color over another.  Allegedly, the Union suffered 642,427 dead and wounded in a four year effort to free the black slaves, and then immediately on the cessation of the war began with merciless attacks a war on the Plains Indians.

I have also wondered why Lincoln’s army was called the Union Army if it was not fighting to preserve the Union but to free the slaves.  Why wasn’t it called the Black Freedom Army?

The facts are so clear and simple.  Yet they are denied.  Slavery existed for thousands of years prior to the colonization of the New World.  The South did not create slavery.  The South inherited slavery as the agricultural labor force.  The black slaves in America were enslaved by the black king of Dahomey who sold the excess as slaves.  It was the main business of his kingdom.

All races and ethnicities suffered enslavement.  It was President Thomas Jefferson who had to send the US Marines to the Shores of Tripoli in order to stop North Africans from enslaving US citizens.

When one looks at the total mess historians have made of the War of Northern Invasion and slavery, one cannot help being sympathetic with Henry Ford’s dictum that “history is bunk.”

The post Thanksgiving’s Origin as a National Holiday appeared first on LewRockwell.

Given the high visibility of the Israeli genocide being carried out in Gaza, for the first time many among the American general public are beginning to ask why a rich country like Israel should be getting billions of dollars from the United States taxpayer to pay for waging its war when many Americans are struggling. Inevitably, of course, the press coverage of the questions being asked about the cash flow and what is playing out in Gaza have failed to discuss the real magnitude of the “aid,” which go far beyond the $3.8 billion a year that President Barack Obama committed to America’s “best friend and closest ally.” In fact, over the past two years, Washington has given Israel more than $21 billion in weapons and cash and just last week the 1,000th US transport plane filled with weapons landed in Israel. On top of all that, there are trade concessions, co-production “defense partnership” projects and dicey charitable contributions from Zionist billionaires that our federal and many state governments shower on the Jewish state, easily exceeding $10 billion in a “normal” year without Israel claiming having “greater need” as it goes about violating ceasefires and killing Gazans, Lebanese and Iranians.

The fact that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have enabled Israel’s slaughter without so much as the slightest hesitation should in itself be damnable, but the average American is fed a steady diet of propaganda favoring Israel through the devastatingly effective Jewish media control that prevails nationwide. Interestingly, however, as the American public is beginning to tire of the Israeli lies, the Israel Lobby in the US is following the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu, who has declared that his country will be fighting eight wars – seven against all of its neighbors and one to control the United States’ increasingly negative opinion of what Israel represents. As a result, laws like the Antisemitism Awareness Act are being passed to silence “freedom of speech” critics of the Jewish state and criminalize what they are saying.

During his 2016 campaign Donald Trump swore that he would be the best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House, a pledge that some viewed skeptically as Trump was also committed to bringing the troops home from “useless wars” in Asia, most of whom were in the Middle East supporting Israeli interests. More recently Trump admitted that America was in the Middle East to “protect Israel” and he has indeed proven to be the great benefactor he promised to be in responding fully to Netanyahu’s wish list. In his first term in office, Trump increased tension dramatically with Iran, moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, and basically gave Israel the green light to do whatever it wants on the Palestinian West Bank, including getting rid of the Palestinians.

And currently as all that has already played out the Israelis have attacked and killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, Syria and the West Bank with impunity, protected by the US veto in the UN Security Council against any consequences for their actions while a subservient Congress gives Netanyahu fifty-six standing ovations and bleats that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Trump has made the United States completely complicit in Israeli war crimes and has added a few unique touches of its own to include the widely condemned assassination of the senior Iranian official Qassem Soleimani while on a peace mission in Baghdad in January 2020.

Israel more-or-less openly admits that it controls the actions of the United States in its region, Netanyahu having boasted how the US federal government is “easily moved” when it comes up against the Israeli Lobby. Nor is there any real secret to how the Lobby uses money to buy access and then exploits that access to obtain real power, which is then used to employ all the resources of the US government in support of the Jewish state. The top donor to the Democratic Party, Israeli-American Haim Saban has stated that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel. This single-minded focus to promote Israel’s interests at the expense of those of the United States makes the Israel Lobby the most formidable foreign policy lobby in Washington.

One of the tools used by Trump to facilitate the virtual slavery under the Israeli yoke is the appointment of passionately Zionist US Ambassadors to Israel, where they often behave as if they are there to represent Jewish interests rather that those of the United States. Trump’s first term appointment David Friedman was a personal lawyer with no diplomatic or international experience, so he inevitably endorsed with some enthusiasm every extreme proposal coming from Netanyahu, which he then went on to sell to Trump. Friedman, now retired, has a home in Jerusalem and has reportedly opted to spend much of his time in Israel.

Friedman was, however, somewhat of a gem compared to the current ambassador Mike Huckabee, an Israel-Firster Baptist preacher from Arkansas, who repeatedly expresses his love for the Jewish state and white-washes whatever it does. For what it’s worth, on October 13th, 2025, Friedman and Huckabee performed a rendition of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s hit song Sweet Home Alabama in Jerusalem but with altered lyrics that promoted Zionism and the city of Jerusalem itself. Friedman played guitar while Huckabee played bass. Trump, of course, is similar in his overweening embrace of Israel, whether it be because he is being blackmailed, or honestly believes in what he is saying, or even because he has converted to Judaism in 2017, as some believe. In any event, the theatrical duet performance by the two Israel-loving ambassadors failed to provide any benefit to the United States of America.

The complete contempt that the Israelis and Israeli supporters in the US – to include the Ambassador Huckabee – have for other Americans and their interests has been on full display recently and it involves the most significant espionage operation that Israel has ever “run” inside the United States. Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in American history, stole for Israel the keys to accessing US communications and information gathering systems, which gave the Jewish state access to all US intelligence as it was being collected. He was Jewish and a US citizen, his father a professor at Notre Dame University. As a student at Stanford, where he completed a degree in 1976, Pollard’s penchant for dissimulation was already noted by other students. He is remembered for having boasted that he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, claiming to have worked for Mossad, to having attained the rank of Colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (even sending himself a telegram addressed to “Colonel Pollard”), and to having killed an Arab while on guard duty at a kibbutz. All the claims were lies.

Physically Pollard was also unappealing, overweight and balding, seemingly an unlikely candidate to become a US Navy intelligence analyst which he accomplished after having failed a polygraph test when trying to join CIA. One review board determined that he had been hired in the first place under pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to an intelligence agency after-the fact-damage assessment “Pollard’s operation has few parallels among known US espionage cases…. his first and possibly largest delivery occurred on 23 January [1984] and consisted of five suitcases-full of classified material.”

Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote a forty-six page review of the Pollard case that remains largely classified and redacted to this day, detailing what incredible damage Pollard had done. Part of the document states: “In this case, the defendant has admitted passing to his Israeli contacts an incredibly large quantity of classified information. At the outset I must state that the defendant’s disclosures far exceed the limits of any official exchange of intelligence information with Israel. That being the case, the damage to national security was complete the moment the classified information was given over. Ideally, I would detail…all the information passed by the defendant to his Israeli contacts: unfortunately, the volume of .data we know to have been passed is too great to permit that. · Moreover, the defendant admits to having passed to his Israeli handlers a quantity of documents great enough to occupy a space six feet by ten feet… The defendant has substantially harmed the United States, and in my view, his crimes demand severe punishment… My foregoing comments will, I hope, dispel any presumption that disclosures to an ally are insignificant; to the contrary, substantial and irrevocable damage has been done to this nation. Punishment, of course, must be appropriate to the crime, and in my opinion, no crime is more deserving of severe punishment than conducting espionage activities against one’s own country.”

Pollard was detected and arrested in 1985, convicted in 1987, and imprisoned. The case sent shockwaves through both Washington and Tel Aviv at the time of the conviction. Pollard pled guilty, confessing to selling the thousands of pages of secret documents to the Israelis for cash, vacations to Europe, and promised future payments to be wired to a Swiss bank account. A federal judge correctly dismissed pleas for clemency.

In 2015 Pollard was released from prison under parole which required him to remain in the United States. But in January 2021 Pollard was released from the parole conditions and was allowed to fly “home,” meeting Netanyahu as he disembarked from a private plane that had departed from Newark New Jersey before being given a hero’s welcome. The Pollard trip to his “home” occurred because Donald Trump had obligingly lifted the travel restrictions on him the week before, one more favor to Israel, which apparently came about when Huckabee pleaded with Trump to show “mercy.” At the airport, Pollard and his wife knelt to kiss the Israeli soil before Netanyahu handed him an Israeli citizen ID and welcomed him. The 737 luxury-fitted executive jet Pollard and his wife flew on belonged to Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, then the chief donor to the Republicans and to Donald Trump. Adelson was married to an Israeli, Miriam Adelson, who now survives him and continues the donations to the Republicans. Sheldon famously once said that he regretted having worn a US Army uniform when he was drafted in World War 2, much preferring instead that he might have done military service in the Israel Defense Forces.

But the Pollard story does not end there. In July Jonathan Pollard was a guest at the US Embassy in Jerusalem, where he met with Ambassador Mike Huckabee. The meeting was his first with US officials since his release and immigration to Israel. It was a break with precedent and the move by Huckabee, even all these years after the crime, still alarmed American intelligence officials even though, as it was Israel, media coverage in the US was minimal. John Kiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, has argued that Pollard should have been detained by the Marine guards at the American Embassy in Jerusalem and should not have been allowed to meet with the ambassador. “[Pollard] has called for Jewish Americans who have security clearances… to begin spying for Israel, just like he did… So for him to be welcomed into the American Embassy is a bridge too far. If anything, he should have been snatched when he entered the American embassy.” Kiriakou also cited an interview Pollard gave to Israeli media while Joe Biden was still in office, urging Israel to “nuke” the United States if Biden were to make any attempt to force Israel to mitigate its slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza. Biden, of course, did no such thing.

The Trump administration was apparently not consulted regarding the planned get-together between Pollard and Huckabee. “The White House was not aware of that meeting,” Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt claimed. It was reportedly left off the public schedule of the ambassador, suggesting at a minimum that it was a terrible decision by Huckabee acting on his own which he made some attempt to conceal. And yet, when the story broke the Trump administration still condoned the actions of the ambassador, who reportedly had a friendly chat with the spy who had done most grave damage ever to the United States. “The president stands by our ambassador, Mike Huckabee,” Leavitt added, “and all that he’s doing for the United States and Israel.” She did not elaborate on what he has been doing for the United States.

After the story broke, Pollard accused “anti-Israel and isolationist elements within the US government of leaking that he met off-the-books with US Ambassador Huckabee in a bid to discredit and oust the pro-Israel envoy.” He claimed that “The New York Times story was part, or is part, of an effort to discredit the ambassador and have him removed. I think the people behind this are anti-Israel elements within the Trump administration, the neo-isolationists… and others, perhaps pro-Saudi, pro-Qatari elements within the administration that would like to see a person like Ambassador Huckabee sent home.” Pollard later gave an interview in which he named Steven Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner as likely culprits “representing Saudi and Qatari rather than US interests” in brokering the Gaza ceasefire, and he added that he “despises them” for daring to “carry on with terrorists.” Pollard added his view that the 20-point ceasefire plan, leaving the door open to the possibility for Palestinian statehood, threatens Israel’s security and “undermines our independence,” and the October 9th truce-hostage deal that is based on that plan would have been worthwhile only had Israel “unleashed… hell on Hamas” following the October 13th release of the last 20 living hostages from Gaza.

Pollard described his meeting with Huckabee as “personal” and “friendly” and confirmed that it was his first meeting with a US government official after his release by Trump from travel restrictions. He concluded that “A lot of people seem to think that I harbor an anger toward the United States, which I don’t. There were specific people that lied about me, that lied about Israel, that tried to use me as a weapon to undermine the US-Israel special relationship, and those are the people I have problems with but certainly people like Ambassador Huckabee, and others, I have absolutely no problem talking to. If I could guess, I would say it’s that community, particularly the CIA station in the embassy, that probably was the one that initiated this whole effort to discredit the ambassador.”

Pollard clearly is promoting a false narrative that makes himself look like some kind of honorable and valiant defender of Israel when in reality he did what he did for the most base of reasons, i.e. for money. Money is indeed how the Israeli boosters in the United States have been able to flat out corrupt America’s political process to attain the dominance that has enabled them to promote the Israeli agenda. They have bought or intimidated every politician that matters to include presidents, congressmen and even those in state and local governments. Anyone who criticizes Israel or Jewish collective behavior in support of the Israeli state is subject to character assassination and blacklisting a la Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massie. Those who persist are denounced as anti-Semites, a label that is used liberally by Zionist groups. Now Pollard is portraying himself as some kind of Israeli hero. The end result is that when Israel kills civilians in violation of a ceasefire in Gaza and is allowing rampaging armed settlers to destroy Palestinian livelihoods the United States government chooses to look the other way and instead showers the rogue state with money so it can continue to do its dirty work. Providing that political cover for Israel is in part the real dark side of Huckabee’s job as he sees it, not to engage over real American interests.

And then there are the hot buttons a-la the lies about Israel being advanced by Pollard and his ilk which, if the US actually had a functional government that is responsive to the people, should have been pushed long ago. “Best friend” Israel is ranked by the FBI as the number one “friendly” country in terms of its spying against the United States. Pollard is an exception who was actually punished since his crime was so dramatic and damaging, but Israeli spies are routinely slapped on the wrist when caught and never face prosecution for that crime, as one might note in the current “investigation” of Jeffrey Epstein, which was undoubtedly a major MOSSAD intelligence operation.

And there are also the MOSSAD agents who were the “Dancing Shlomos,” celebrating while the twin towers went down on 9/11, who were allowed to go home and various assassinations including JFK and even Charlie Kirk that have an Israeli back story. And Israel has never truly paid any price for the horrific bombing and torpedoing of the USS Liberty fifty-eight years ago, which killed 34 Americans and injured over one hundred and seventy more. The completely unprovoked attack took place in international waters and was later covered-up by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Congress. May they burn in hell. The few remaining surviving crew members are still waiting for justice.

Good riddance to scum like Jonathan Pollard and the Israel-Firsters who enable him. It is reported in Israel that Pollard is now preparing to run for the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, which explains his demeanor and phony narrative. It also all means that it is past time to get rid of folks like Ambassador Mike Huckabee who prefer to advance Israeli interests rather than those of his own country because, he believes, God is telling him to do so. More generally speaking, it is well past time to get rid of the special relationship with Israel, sanctified in the halls of Congress and by a Jewish dominated media, which does nothing good for the United States and for the American people. Israel’s constant interference in the US political system and economy comes at a huge cost, both in dollars and in terms of actual American interests.

So, let’s all resolve for 2026 to do whatever we can to pull the plug on Israel. Let Israel, which is now seeking a 20 year commitment of even more cash annually from the US taxpayer, pay its own bills and take care of its own defense. American citizens who prefer the Jewish ethno-religious state to our constitutional republic should feel free to emigrate. In fact, they should be encouraged to leave. Lacking Washington’s backing, Israel will also be free to commit atrocities and war crimes against all of its neighbors but without the US United Nations veto it will have to begin facing the consequences for its actions. But most of all, as Americans, we will no longer have to continue to carry the burden of a country that manipulates and uses us and also has a certain contempt for us while doing so, witness how Trump’s kid-glove handling of Jonathan Pollard has played out. And maybe just maybe freeing the United States from Israel could lead to an end to all the wars in the Middle East that Washington has been waging in spite of the fact that we Americans are threatened by no one in the region and have no real interest whatsoever in prolonging the agony of staying engaged there.

Reprinted with permission from The Unz Review.

The post Ambassador Mike Huckabee Secretly Meets Top Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard appeared first on LewRockwell.

Looking back on the the Schleswig-Holstein wars in the mid 19th century, Lord Palmerston quipped:

The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.

Palmerston was making a joke of the fact that in many of Europe’s conflicts, the belligerents don’t understand what they are fighting about.

Britain, France, and Germany have never understood Russia, and their policies towards Russia have always been bloody-minded, murderous, and stupid. Consider that the rationale for the Crimean War (1853-56) was to reduce Russia’s growing influence within a region that had long been controlled by the Ottoman Empire. In other words, the geniuses in London preferred the weak rule of Ottoman slave traders in the Black Sea to that of the Christian Czar Nicholas I.

In 1812, Napoleon’s advisor, Armand-Augustin-Louis de Caulaincourt, as well as his ex-wife Josephine (whose counsel he had usually valued) begged him not to invade Russia, but he refused to listen to them.

Because of his obstinate pride, he failed to recognize the obvious trap that Russian commander General Mikhail Kutuzov set for him—namely, that of strategic retreat deep into Russia with winter setting in, thereby overextending the French supply lines and letting the Russian winter do most of the grim work on French soldiers.

After declaring war on Russia in August 1914, Germany and Austro-Hungary established the Eastern Front in the Austrian territorial possession of Galicia, which is now part of western Ukraine. In June 1916, the Russian Army launched the Brusilov offensive, inflicting approximately one million casualties on the German and Austrian armies. I suspect that few if any members of the E.U. Parliament even know about the Brusilov offensive.

In 1941, intoxicated by his easy victory in France, Hitler decided to launch Operation Barbarossa, thereby committing the German Army to the same misery the French had suffered in 1812. German Chief of Staff, Franz Halder, strongly advised him against it, but the “Little Corporal from Austria” refused to listen to him.

Now we come to Ursula von der Leyen’s Nov. 25, 2025 speech before the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, which may be the most nonsensical address ever uttered in the history of Europe.

Ursula’s paternal line is from the Electorate of Hanover, whose House of Hanover produced Mad King George III and his imbecilic sons George IV and “Silly Billy” King William IV.

Ursula is able to persist in making ruinous decisions for Europe because she is never held accountable for any of them. During the pandemic she had private discussions by text message with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla (see Did Ursula von der Leyen & Albert Bourla Mix Business with Pleasure?) to poison all of Europe with his mRNA shot. To this day, she has never been compelled to disclose these messages to the public. She also recently Likened Free Speech to an Infectious Disease.

Now she wants to keep the war going in Ukraine and to continue sending EU taxpayer money to the corrupt, larcenist, money-laundering dictatorship in Kiev.

President Trump should tell her that it is simply not in the interest of the United States to keep this war going with Russia, and that he and he alone is going to negotiate with the Russians to end it.

While he’s at it, he should remind dunderhead Chancellor Merz that the U.S. still has 35,000 armed men stationed in Germany to prevent its government from doing stupid things like starting another war with Russia.

Increasingly, it seems to me that Europe’s “leaders”—Starmer, Macron, Merz, and von der Leyen—perceive that they need to keep the war with Russia going for their own political survival.

I wonder if they are afraid that—if the Zelensky regime collapses and Zelensky is obliged to join his “wallet,” Timur Mindich, in fleeing to Israel—the precise mechanics of their participation in this monstrously corrupt enterprise will be revealed.

The reality of the war in Ukraine is that Russia was deliberately and systematically baited into launching its military operation. The purpose of this Russian Bear Baiting was to bleed Russia and to provide Western “leaders” with a pretext for:

1). Diverting attention from the COVID-19 fiasco that they themselves created.

2). Destroying the Nord Stream Pipeline to promote the U.S. LNG industry.

3). Looting their treasuries and enriching their cronies in the military-industrial complex.

4). Destroying Russia, whose increasing power as an independent nation state has long been a matter of sore resentment for the Satanic globalists who wish to acquire dominion over the entire earth.

5). Seizing Russian mineral assets to collateralize another round of enormous credit expansion in the West, whose governments are now insolvent.

This article was originally published on Courageous Discourse.

The post Ursula von der Leyen is Completely Dissociated From Reality appeared first on LewRockwell.

For those of us who have lived through past recessions, this latest development comes as no surprise: as the US economy worsens, we’re now being told that consumers are hurting the economy because they are saving too much money.

This is a pretty common trope among the regime economists whose job it is—apparently—to incessantly harangue the American consumer into spending every last dime he has on corporate America’s trinkets. After all, if the consumer saves “too much” money this will send the US economy into a liquidity trap. At least, that’s how the official narrative goes.

Regular readers of mises.org won’t be shocked to hear that the alleged liquidity trap isn’t real, and it’s not at all a problem if consumers save money rather than spend it. After all, real economic progress depends on a sustainable foundation of saving and investment, and not on consumers frittering away their retirements on another round of luxury cars and Caribbean cruises.

Back in 2001 in the days of the dot-com bust, then-vice president Dick Cheney said that Americans who were falling on hard times ought to “support the troops”—remember that worthless propaganda phrase?—by spending more money on retail goods. If you saved your money, then the terrorists won.

As the 2008 recession got underway the story was the same, but with less jingoism. Paul Krugman, for example, promulgated the usual Keynesian gospel with an article titled “When Consumers Capitulate“ and explained how saving is a bad thing because “individual virtue can be public vice” and “attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off.”

In other words, saving money will backfire so you’re hurting America by spending less.

So, just as we might look for daffodils to emerge from the snow as a sign of the coming spring, we look for signs of a worsening economy in the form of patronizing columns telling consumers that they’re not spending enough money.

Perhaps the earliest sign of this phenomenon in the current cycle was April’s Wall Street Journal article—titled “Your New Lunch Habit Is Hurting the Economy“—lecturing consumers for brown-bagging their lunches. But it certainly didn’t end there. In a Sunday column for CNBC, Kevin Williams trots out the creaky old Krugmanian “arguments” and wrings his hands over the fact that Americans aren’t spending as much money on smartphones, and that it’s “costing the economy.” He writes:

If you are holding onto your aging printer or cracked smartphone longer than you had planned, you are not alone. …

The average American now holds onto their [sic] smartphone for 29 months … and that cycle is getting longer. The average was around 22 months in 2016.

While squeezing as much life out of your device as possible may save money in the short run, especially amid widespread fears about the strength of the consumer and job market, it might cost the economy in the long run…

How exactly is it “costing” the economy? Well, it seems that if you’re not spending every last nickel on a new iPhone—remember, they don’t make pennies anymore, thanks to inflation—then you are losing milliseconds of lost “productivity.” The solution? Go further into debt for a $900 phone so that you can more quickly stay up to date on AI-created cat videos.

The economics “experts” tell us that if you’re saving your money instead of buying more “efficient” tech, then you’re not an optimal cog in the machine of the corporate tax farm we call “the United States.”

Of course, one may ask, how do the “experts” know if I’m better off buying a new phone, or if I’m better off saving that money for other priorities? How do they know if it’s more “efficient” for me to spend my money on a phone now, rather than on, say, tuition for my child’s education? The answer is they don’t have a clue what makes any consumer better off.  The usual media-quoted economists only claim to know these things because they have been trained to mindlessly come up with new reasons as to why it’s always better for regular people to spend as much money as possible, at all times.

Again, this new call to buy newer smart phones is just the first sign of what is to come, as it becomes increasingly clear that consumers are tapped out. The early signs are there, such as rising delinquency rates for automobiles and credit cards. Hiring is essentially flat, and the unemployment rate is rising, even as immigrants self-deport by the hundreds of thousands. October foreclosures were up, year over year, by 32 percent.

We can expect more articles like this CNBC column moving foreword, with “warnings” about how consumers should spend more or else fall prey to the savings-induced evils of “inefficiency” or even outright recession.

Now is a good time to remind ourselves, though, of why these calls for maximum and immediate spending get it wrong. They key to economic growth has never been spending as much money as possible on existing products and services right now. Rather, a vibrant economy can come from saving and investment which will turn become essential capital that is transformed into productive enterprises in the future.  

That is, a better economy in the future requires saving and investment now. There is no need to worry about the consumers saving their money “too much.” Bob Murphy explains:

[I]t will be useful to spell out exactly what happens in a market economy when consumers decide to save more of their income. The first thing to realize is that people do not decide to “spend” or not; rather, they decide whether to spend in the present versus in the future. For example, imagine that thousands of couples in a large city one day decide to skip their weekly restaurant outings in order to save up for a summer cruise. At first, it seems that this would hurt the economy. After all, local restaurants see their sales drop, and so they buy fewer items from their suppliers and lay off some workers. The suppliers and workers in turn have less income to spend, and so sales are hurt elsewhere too.

However, so long as the entrepreneurs involved in the cruise industry anticipate the eventual increase in demand for their services, they will exactly offset the above effects when they hire more workers and other items in preparation for the busy summer months. The new savings (which were previously spent on restaurants) drives down interest rates, perhaps allowing the cruise operators to borrow money and pay for an additional liner. Thus the decision to save more doesn’t reduce total income or employment, once everyone adjusts to the new spending patterns. It is really no different from a scenario where thousands of people become health conscious and decide to spend their money on vegetables rather than fast food.

CNBC would have you believe “the economy” suffers when we don’t buy more new phones. In reality, it’s just iPhone sellers who suffer. The economy and Apple are not the same thing.

In any case, no consumers should ever allow himself to be convinced that he hurts either himself of “the economy” by saving money. Lew Rockwell notes:

But this also defies everything we know about family finance. The path to a secure prosperity is delaying consumption. One should spend as little as possible and save as much as possible for the future, and let that money be used in the service of investments that yield a solid rate of return. Those who have chosen a different path now see the folly: they are being burned in the soft housing market, for example.

The lesson is also true for the nation at large, because the logic doesn’t magically change when moving from the family budget to the national stage. Just because something involves “macroeconomics” doesn’t mean that we should throw out all good sense. But that is precisely what people have done with regard to the economy, since J.M. Keynes somehow convinced the world that up is down and left is right.

In a recession or a crisis, the right approach for individuals is to save. So too for the national economy. A looming recession will prompt a pullback in consumer spending as a rational response to the perception of economic troubles. This action does not cause the economy to fall into recession any more than more spending can save it from recession. The downturn is a fact that cannot be avoided. We don’t blame umbrellas for floods, and, in the same way, we shouldn’t blame tightfisted consumers for recessions.

So, there is no liquidity trap and saving doesn’t cause recessions and we can safely ignore all the future media articles about how saving money is bad news for the economy.

The post We’re Approaching the ‘Blame the Consumer’ Stage of the Boom-Bust Cycle appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Johnny Kramer.

The post Have you heard of a little thing called Ozempic? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Eric Zuesse:

The economic genius Yanis Varoufakis tallies it all up in this extraordinary 27-minute talk:

The post The $10 Trillion-Plus Costs of Trump’s Imperialism appeared first on LewRockwell.

John Leo Keenan wrote:

I felt the doctor was too strong in this title, that it’s not so for Mises, whom Dr. Njoya quotes to back this title up.  In the quote she gives of him, it’s implicit that Mises grants History is a science in its own right.  Her Mises quote says the following, and I highlight the implied definition of history as being a science:

“This is not a field for understanding. It is a task to be accomplished by the employment of the tools provided by all nonhistorical sciences. The phenomena are gathered by cautious critical observation of the records available.… What a historian asserts is either correct or contrary to fact, is either proved or disproved by the documents available, or vague because the sources do not provide us with sufficient information. The experts may disagree, but only on the ground of a reasonable interpretation of the evidence available.”

If history weren’t a science to him, he would have written “by all sciences,” “the sciences” or something like that.  He implies there that history is a science to him.  It’s something to improve on that she doesn’t see the fact in the quote.  Without critical thinking we’re done for (as simple as that in my opinion).  She should check Google AI for this.  (It knows more than Njoya about Mises.)  I asked it, “did Ludwig von Mises think history is a science too and do we have a quote about it?”  It answered what I remembered about Mises (not as categorically), that he believed it’s “one of the two sciences of human action.”  She should not have used him to back up her title because it’s not so.  The correctness of AI Overview’s answer is also history and science, and in the last quote it gives at the end, the point of history being a science of human action is implied more heavily than in her quote.  Google’s AI Overview (copied and pasted):

“Ludwig von Mises did not consider history to be a science in the same way that he defined the theoretical, a priori science of human action, praxeology. Mises viewed history as one of the two sciences of human action, but he drew a sharp distinction in their logical character and methods. 

Mises’s View of History and Science

• History as a Science of the Past: Mises defined history as an empirical science of the past, dealing with unique, unrepeatable events and their concrete causes and effects. Its purpose is to understand the specific meaning and motivations behind individual human actions in a given context (a task Mises associated with a branch of history he called “thymology”).
• Praxeology as the A Priori Science: In contrast, Mises developed praxeology (of which economics is a part) as a theoretical, a priori science that uses deductive reasoning from the fundamental axiom of human action. Praxeology aims to discover universally valid laws and principles that are not derived from or falsifiable by historical experience.
• Distinction from the Natural Sciences: Mises argued that the methods of the natural sciences (like laboratory experiments and induction to find general laws) cannot be applied to human behavior because human action involves conscious choice and meaning, which are not present in the physical world. 

Relevant Quote

While Mises did not provide a single, widely circulated quote that “history is a science,” he made numerous statements highlighting the limitations of history in generating universal laws, contrasting it with praxeology. 

A key quote from his work Theory and History that encapsulates his view on what history can and cannot teach us is:

“If historical experience could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.” 

However, a more direct quote regarding the methodological limitations of history in a scientific context is:

“History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law”.

He further clarified the nature of praxeology (and thus, how it differs from history) with this quote: 

“Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts.” 

The post Re: “History Is Not a Science” appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Wayne Goodfellow.

KW News

The post Gold or Stocks? appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

Antiwar.com

The post The Ecocide of Gaza appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

The Intercept

The post War in Venezuela, Brought to You By the Same People Who Lied Us Into Iraq appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, John Smith.

Middle East Eye

The post The UAE is buying the West’s silence over its ‘race war’ in Sudan, says top general appeared first on LewRockwell.

George Giles wrote:

In Hong Kong there is a high rise building on fire for many hours and has not fallen down.

CBS News

The post Fire in Hong Kong high-rise complex appeared first on LewRockwell.

Writes Bill Madden:

I’m currently reading about Singapore’s health system.  They always rate in the top five of all countries in the world for health care excellence and the cost of the system is about 30% of ours.

The man running the country after it received independence was committed to helping the people so we will probably never have a similar system without a revolution.  Their system uses competition and other incentives to optimize the factors of cost and quality.  In our country, “profit” is not a dirty word for Corporate America, “competition” is.

Good, old Charlie agreed.

The post Health Care appeared first on LewRockwell.

Thanks, Ginny Garner.

Need to Know News

The post Candace Owens Announces Assassination Hit Put on Her appeared first on LewRockwell.

Click Here:

Palestinewillbefree.substack.com

The post How Israel abducted a Gaza doctor — and then his daughter — to force false confessions appeared first on LewRockwell.

La traduzione in italiano dell'opera scritta da Wendy McElroy esplora Bitcoin a 360°, un compendio della sua storia fino ad adesso e la direzione che molto probabilmente prenderà la sua evoluzione nel futuro prossimo. Si parte dalla teoria, soprattutto quella libertaria e Austriaca, e si sonda come essa interagisce con la realtà. Niente utopie, solo la logica esposizione di una tecnologia che si sviluppa insieme alle azioni degli esseri umani. Per questo motivo vengono inserite nell'analisi diversi punti di vista: sociologico, economico, giudiziario, filosofico, politico, psicologico e altri. Una visione e trattazione di Bitcoin come non l'avete mai vista finora, per un asset che non solo promette di rinnovare l'ambito monetario ma che, soprattutto, apre alla possibilità concreta di avere, per la prima volta nella storia umana, una società profondamente e completamente modificabile dal basso verso l'alto.

____________________________________________________________________________________

(Versione audio della traduzione disponibile qui: https://open.substack.com/pub/fsimoncelli/p/il-mandato-di-milei-largentina-punta)

Domenica 26 ottobre il partito del presidente argentino Javier Milei, La Libertad Avanza, ha ottenuto una grande vittoria alle elezioni di medio termine del Paese. Nella Camera dei Deputati ha ottenuto il 50,4% dei seggi disponibili con una maggioranza del 40,7%; nella Camera alta, il Senato, ha ottenuto tredici dei 27 seggi disponibili, con un guadagno netto di sei.

Molti dubitavano di un simile risultato un mese fa quando, secondo Polymarket, le probabilità del partito di vincere la maggior parte dei seggi erano scese al minimo del 52,5%, dall'89,5% del 19 agosto. L'Argentina era, allora, nella morsa di una delle sue perenni crisi economiche, con il pèso in calo e i rendimenti obbligazionari in aumento. Il tentativo di Milei di raddrizzare l'economia del Paese riportando in equilibrio il bilancio con profondi tagli alla spesa – che, come ha osservato Noah Smith a luglio, avevano eliminato il deficit di bilancio e ridotto l'inflazione da un tasso mensile del 25% al ​​2,4% – era in bilico.

La causa dell'ultima crisi economica argentina si è verificata il 7 settembre, quando, con la sorella di Milei coinvolta in uno scandalo di corruzione, La Libertad Avanza ha subito una pesante sconfitta elettorale per mano del partito di centro-sinistra Fuerza Patria. “I mercati sono andati nel panico”, ha riportato The Economist, “preoccupati che questo segnalasse la fine del sostegno popolare alle sue riforme e il potenziale ritorno dei perònisti spendaccioni. È iniziata una forte svendita di pesòs, mentre gli investitori hanno abbandonato i titoli di stato argentini”.

Sebbene l'Argentina non sia l'unica a risentire delle difficoltà fiscali derivanti dall'aumento dei rendimenti obbligazionari, oggigiorno sono pochi i Paesi che si preoccupano seriamente dei propri tassi di cambio, ma l'Argentina è diversa.

La necessità e il pericolo dei prestiti in valuta estera

La causa ultima della crisi argentina è la sua lunga storia di cattiva gestione fiscale e monetaria. Il Paese è stato inadempiente sul suo debito sovrano nove volte, tre delle quali negli ultimi due decenni, e ha subito ripetuti periodi di elevata inflazione. Di conseguenza nessuno presterà pesòs al suo governo a un tasso di interesse accessibile, perché potrebbe non essere rimborsato affatto (hard default), o essere rimborsato in una valuta che vale molto meno di quella del momento del prestito (soft default).

Quindi per prendere in prestito i pesòs necessari a finanziare le sue operazioni, il governo argentino prende prima in prestito dollari che poi converte in pesòs. Ma un governo che prende in prestito dollari deve essere in grado di rimborsarli, quindi, come fa un governo che prende in prestito in una valuta che non emette a ottenerla? Ha due modi.

La tassazione è il primo. Il governo argentino potrebbe imporre tasse alla sua popolazione pagabili in dollari, ma ciò non farebbe altro che trasferire il problema di reperire quei dollari dal governo ai contribuenti. Per farlo questi ultimi dovrebbero vendere agli Stati Uniti (o a chiunque altro sia disposto a effettuare transazioni con loro in dollari) più di quanto acquista da essi. In breve, l'Argentina dovrebbe registrare un surplus delle partite correnti, cosa che ha fatto solo raramente negli ultimi anni.

Il secondo è il prestito. In questo caso il governo argentino sta di fatto acquistando dollari con pesòs ed è per questo che il tasso di cambio – il prezzo in pèso del dollaro – è importante. Ad aprile 1.000 pèsos equivalevano a 93 centesimi; il 21 settembre equivalevano a soli 68. Il governo di Milei aveva bisogno di più pèsos per acquistare la stessa quantità di dollari e questo, come ha osservato The Economist, ha sollevato il familiare spettro della stampa di moneta e dell'inflazione, con la conseguente fuga dai pèsos e dal debito denominato in essi, come i titoli di stato argentini, oltre al deprezzamento della valuta e l'aumento dei rendimenti obbligazionari.

La follia dei tassi di cambio fissi

Per proteggersi da una situazione del genere, il governo argentino ha cercato di fissare il tasso di cambio, ma questo approccio ha dei limiti.

Se il pèso aumenta rispetto al dollaro, la banca centrale argentina, essendo colei che li emette, può stamparli in quantità illimitata, utilizzandoli per acquistare dollari, facendo così scendere il prezzo relativo dei pèsos e aumentare quello dei dollari.

La situazione è molto diversa quando il pèso è in calo rispetto al dollaro. In tal caso la banca centrale argentina deve abbassare il prezzo del dollaro rispetto al pèso vendendo dollari in cambio di pèsos, facendo così aumentare il prezzo relativo di questi ultimi. Ma la banca centrale argentina ha accesso solo a una certa quantità di dollari, quindi ci sono limiti a quanto può perseguire questa linea di politica. Questa è la grande asimmetria al centro di tassi di cambio fissi come quello argentino; come scoprirono gli inglesi nel 1992, è facile indebolire una valuta relativamente forte, ma non rafforzarne una relativamente debole.

Nel periodo precedente alle elezioni, l'Argentina ha prosciugato le sue riserve in dollari nel tentativo di difendere il cambio fisso del pèso. Quando ha esaurito le munizioni, è intervenuto il presidente Trump. Per quanto utile, affidarsi a lui non è una strategia macroeconomica a lungo termine.

Le prospettive per l'Argentina

Milei mira a tenere sotto controllo l'indebitamento dell'Argentina, in modo che sia meno vulnerabile alle oscillazioni del tasso di cambio. L'elettorato argentino gli ha espresso la sua fiducia. A differenza degli elettori di altri Paesi, potrebbero aver avvertito un livello di sofferenza economica tale da indurli a riconoscere la necessità della medicina di Milei.

Con questo mandato c'è ancora molto da fare. “Il problema principale è che l'Argentina ha uno stato sociale ipertrofico, date le dimensioni e il livello di sviluppo della sua economia, e un sistema fiscale e di trasferimenti sociali altamente distorto che lo finanzia”, ​​ha dichiarato l'economista politico Jean-Paul Faguet a Newsweek a settembre. “Riesce a rimanere stabile solo nei periodi di prosperità; una cattiva situazione economica a livello internazionale, o specifici shock internazionali, la sbilanciano e la mandano in crisi”. Le ultime elezioni sono state uno shock positivo, con il pèso e i prezzi delle obbligazioni in aumento e i rendimenti in calo. Finché persistono i problemi strutturali dell'Argentina, però, l'economia – e il Paese – rimarranno vulnerabili. Il suo stato sociale, come quello francese ad esempio, deve essere proporzionato alla capacità dell'economia di sostenerlo e questo comporterà ulteriori tagli. Milei, in lizza per la rielezione nel 2027, ce la può fare ma ha ancora molto lavoro da fare.

[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: https://www.francescosimoncelli.com/

Supporta Francesco Simoncelli's Freedonia lasciando una mancia in satoshi di bitcoin scannerizzando il QR seguente.

Negotiations between the US, Ukraine and Europe over the 28-point proposed framework reportedly has produced agreement on 19-points, which will be presented at sometime in the near future to the Russians. However, despite a ton of positive spin coming out of Geneva (where the talks were held) the actual substance of the supposed agreement is a dumpster fire.

The first point of confusion is the authorship of the 28-point plan. The Washington Post reported on Monday that:

Rubio “made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said during the Halifax International Security Forum. “It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan.”

Rubio denied the senators’ statements hours later, writing on X: “The peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations.”

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called the senators’ comments “blatantly false.” In separate statements, Pigott and the White House said the plan “was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.”

Here is one problem: the “Russian input” did not come from any Russian official… It was reportedly provided by Kiril Dimitriev, who is an informal advisor to Vladimir Putin but holds no weight within the Russian Foreign Ministry nor in the Russian National Security Council. Moreover, as I reported in my previous analysis of the 28-point document, there is very little in that purported peace plan that actually reflects Russia’s stated positions on a variety of issues.

Yuri Ushakov, a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin’s foreign policy advisor, commented on the proposed US peace plan for Ukraine during an interview today (Monday, 24 November) with the state news agency TASS. Ushakov, who coordinates Russia’s international relations and has been involved in key diplomatic efforts (including the 2022 Istanbul talks), described the plan as partially aligned with Moscow’s interests, but emphasized that no formal negotiations have occurred. So far, the only document that Russia has reviewed was the one presented at the meeting in August at the Anchorage, Alaska meeting between Trump and Putin.

According to Ushakov, Russia is familiar with an original version of the US peace plan (stemming from the August 2025 Alaska summit between Putin and President Trump), but “no specific negotiations” have taken place on it. He noted multiple versions are now circulating, but his comments focused on the one reviewed by the Kremlin. Ushakov added that the Kremlin views the EU’s alternative peace framework as “completely unconstructive” and unsuitable, as it fails to meet Russia’s core interests, such as weakening NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe.

Donald Trump is too weak politically to secure a deal that will be acceptable to Russia without igniting a firestorm among Republican and Democrat legislators, not to mention the strong opposition from the Europeans and Ukrainian officials. Here’s just a sample of the pushback:

U.S. lawmakers worried the initial proposal would further destabilize global security by rewarding Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine — raising questions over why Trump needs the deal signed so urgently, even if it comes at the expense of American and Ukrainian interests.

“Some people better get fired on Monday for the gross buffoonery we just witnessed over the last four days,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) posted on X on Saturday. “This hurt our country and undermined our alliances, and encouraged our adversaries.”. . .

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), the former majority leader, on Sunday cautioned against the Trump administration “pressuring the victim and appeasing the aggressor” as a way to bring about peace. He questioned “which difficult concessions” the U.S. had asked of Russia.

“Allies and adversaries are watching: Will America hold firm against aggression or will we reward it?” McConnell wrote on X.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia) sharply criticized the early plan, telling ABC on Sunday morning that “Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler [before] World War II looks strong in comparison” and that the plan resembles a set of “Russian talking points.”

An overwhelming majority Washington politicians and European leaders are still in denial about the dire situation confronting Ukraine… They genuinely believe that Russia is under great pressure from a supposedly failing economy and staggering losses on the battlefield. Both are lies. Russia is wasting no time in continuing to attack and destroy Ukrainian fortifications and electrical infrastructure all along the line of contact. Putin, along with Kremlin spokesman Peskov and Ushakov, continue to feign interest in a diplomatic solution, but understand that Trump will fail to produce a proposed deal that Russia would find acceptable.

If Ukraine was winning on the battlefield and Russia was failing economically and militarily, we would not be seeing the panicked effort by the US and Europe to secure an agreement with Moscow that would end the fighting… Hell, the West, along with Zelensky, would be popping champagne corks and celebrating.

Once Rubia comes up with a proposal that satisfies Ukraine and placates Europe, it will be presented to Putin’s Foreign Ministry, who will make all of the appropriate diplomatic gestures, carefully read the document, and then politely reject it or call for a meeting between Trump and Putin. All of this will take time, and Russia is in no hurry to secure an agreement because of its accelerating success on the battlefield.

Reprinted with permission from Sonar21.

The post Trump Administration Is Letting Europe Kill Its Proposed Russia/Ukrainian Peace Plan appeared first on LewRockwell.