Well, of course. The news has been filled with stories like this, below, from Democrat leaders: House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries, in January 2025, on the Trump agenda: “That’s not acceptable. We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We’re going to fight it in the streets.” Then there was this, as reported in Axios after interviewing Democrat lawmakers: “What we’re hearing: The grassroots wants more. ‘Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot’ when visiting ICE facilities or federal agencies, a third House Democrat told Axios.” And then there was this, also from Axios, after talking to House Democrats: “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” the lawmaker said. “A fourth House Democrat said constituents have told them ‘civility isn’t working’ and to prepare for ‘violence … to fight to protect our democracy.’” And then there was this from NBC News: “Out of power, Democratic lawmakers take to the streets to rally opposition to Trump.” Stories like this litter the Internet. And now? Now, having urged leftists to “prepare for violence” and that “there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public”? Now the Dems have gotten their wish. In this instance, the demand from Democrats that “there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public” has been answered. In this instance, the answer comes in the form of the blood of a 37-year-old protesting mom named Renee Nicole Macklin Good. Good had driven into a protest area. This report, from MSN and accompanied by video, says: “Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that Macklin Good tried to run over immigration officers with her as ‘domestic terrorism.’” For those who were around in the long ago, the memory stirs of another shooting of protesting left-wingers. That would be in May of 1970, when left-wing college students of the day, infuriated by the news that then-President Nixon was sending in U.S. troops to Cambodia to assist in the neighboring Vietnam War, took to the streets and college campuses en masse to try and shut the country down. In the protest at Ohio’s Kent State University, the protest was out of control enough that it had the governor of Ohio summoning the Ohio National Guard to the campus to restore order. Alas, not unlike this recent Minneapolis shooting, things got out of hand, and the National Guard wound up firing on Kent State’s protesting kids, killing four and wounding nine. And then all h..e..double L role broke loose, shutting down hundreds of universities and colleges across the country. As a college student myself at Pennsylvania’s Franklin and Marshall College, classes were called off early, and my fellow students and myself sent home, ending the spring semester early. All of which is to say, the American left has a predilection for inviting violence when their point of view is not winning the day. And this inevitably ends badly. The bottom line here is both simple and old. It’s perfectly acceptable for any group to oppose an agenda they don’t like legislatively or in the courts. Protests, if peaceful, are fine. But quite clearly, when protests harbor those who want to incite violence, there can easily be bloodshed. And safe to say, when a Democrat member of Congress tells an Axios reporter that “there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” it is almost inevitable that they will get their wish. Now, they have. That would be the blood of a 37-year-old Mom who apparently listened to the siren call of Democrat leaders and chose to put herself in the middle of a protest that quickly turned violent. One would hope that at least one result of this tragedy is the need to stop violence in these protests, whether they are in Minneapolis or anywhere else in America. And no matter the subject of the protest. The answer? That would be, among other things, to stop the calls for people to get shot. Stop the calls that there “needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public.” Stop it. Stop it, stop it, stop it. Now. And oh yes. An apology from Hakeem Jeffries would be appropriate. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Trump Rescues Venezuela The Trump-Kennedy Center Kerfuffle A Conservative’s Christmas Reading List

In the short 12 months since Donald Trump became president for the second time, his tenure thus far can be defined in economic and political terms: a successful tariff-driven economic program and effective efforts at cementing his legacy as the “peace president.” The public’s perceived success of these two agendas will significantly influence the balance of Donald Trump’s presidency — the midterm elections in November will determine whether the president can continue his domestic and foreign policy initiatives relatively unimpeded by Congress. The Peace President With regard to his image as a peacemaker, considerable time and effort have been devoted to ending complicated and in some instances protracted foreign conflicts. But “Number 47” is headed into the new year with a hefty burden of unresolved foreign policy baggage: a persistent war in Ukraine, a Gaza peace plan facing a still armed Hamas, a truculent Iran and now the, ostensibly at least, democratically-elected leader of Venezuela (legitimately or otherwise) along with his wife snatched from sovereign Venezuelan territory and flown to the U.S. to stand trial for alleged crimes against America. (RELATED: The Toppling of Villains Has Begun in Earnest. It Must Continue.) And there are few signs Trump is planning to avert his attention from geopolitics: the annexation of Greenland, continued warnings to Russia and Ukraine about stopping the war, nuclear issues with Tehran, trade issues with China, concern about the BRICS de-dollarization in trade, and its advocacy with the Global South for a new multipolar world order. Such preoccupation risks colliding with a midterm election expected to be dominated by Americans’ concerns about the cost-of-living — in other words, themselves. Some Republican lawmakers were, even before the Venezuelan military intervention, already growing concerned about the “America First” president’s interest in resolving foreign conflicts. Polls have repeatedly shown voters continue to worry about domestic economic issues approaching the midterms. Trump is on record saying that the U.S. will “run the country” of Venezuela until it can lock in a transition of power — no timeframe was offered. But the president must be cautious in his statements and actions regarding the future of Venezuela, its leadership, its substantial natural resources, and America’s role in any of it. (RELATED: You’ve Never Heard of the Citgo Six, and We’re Going to Change That Right Now) Twenty years ago, the U.S. strained to defend against accusations that the Iraq War was about oil. Trump announced recently that “very large United States oil companies” will go in, “fix the badly broken infrastructure … and start making money for the country.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened Sunday, clarifying Trump’s comment that the U.S. “will run the country” — he said it actually meant “running policy.” Yet, the president has also remarked that the US was not averse to putting “boots on the ground” in Venezuela — a troubling statement from the America First president. (RELATED: The Experts Were Wrong About Pete Hegseth) The military intervention taken this past week by the president is already being compared not only to the $2 trillion misadventure in Iraq, but the 10-year failed effort to halt communism in Southeast Asia, calling it “Trump’s Vietnam.” (RELATED: Yes, Trump’s Action Against Maduro Was Legal) With midterm elections arriving this fall, the last thing the president needs is the electorate’s perception of an open-ended military initiative to “nation build” in South America, where American troops have intervened several times during America’s attempt to contain communist infiltration there in the ’50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s. It’s the Economy, Dummy President Trump will enter 2026 with a resounding, “I told you so,” concerning the success of his much-maligned tariff agenda. For a program that mainstream economists and the legacy media predicted would fall flat, it not only served its stated purpose of substantially cutting America’s trade deficit, but it also continues to collect billions for the U.S. (RELATED: Trump Proved ‘Experts’ Wrong About Tariffs) Treasury. No, it did not increase inflation or dampen economic growth as was alleged would occur. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported that its CPI gauge of inflation had declined from a Biden administration high of 9 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 2.7 percent. Moreover, the Commerce Department just released a third-quarter annualized GPA growth figure of 4.3 percent after economists’ predictions of no more than 3.2 percent. (RELATED: Economists Complain About Trump’s New Inflation Figures) The president will need to take advantage of the positive momentum coming from his economic policies if he and the Republican Party are to prevail in the coming midterm elections. Second-term presidents always seek to foster their foreign policy initiatives to, hopefully, ensure a legacy in history. But the American people have their own priorities, and that continues to be about now, today: cost-of-living, housing, electricity, utilities, education, health care, groceries — the things that count in their lives every day. Trump will spend the balance of 2026 with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, assuming resignations don’t take their toll in the House of Representatives. But those majorities will be on the ballot in November’s midterm elections. If Republicans lose control of either house of Congress, it will be no small task for Trump to do anything legislatively for the remainder of his presidency. All 435 House seats and about a third of the Senate are up for reelection this November. The economy is likely to be the biggest issue in 2026. This is especially true of inflation and the cost of living, where Trump, given the recent positive economic data, should have the advantage. But if Democrats win either house of Congress, it will be difficult for Trump to further influence the direction of the economy. Moreover, the fate of Trump’s tariffs, which have been challenged at the Supreme Court, is also uncertain. Trump heads into 2026 with a job approval rating of 43.4 percent, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. That’s comparable to where former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush were at this point in their second terms, although Trump is unusual in that his terms aren’t consecutive. On the economy, Trump’s approval rating averages roughly 40.7 percent. That’s a considerable improvement over former President Joe Biden for most of his term. Moreover, there has also been a slight improvement in the public’s view of the direction of the country. Except for an uptick in unemployment in November (4.6 percent), the performance of the economy under Trump has been stellar, way beyond expectations. And the unemployment figure can be explained by more people entering the job market and increasing business investment in and commercial implementation of AI — a circumstance controlled more by corporate CEOs seeking reduced labor costs, than the 47th president of the United States. President Trump needs a favorable outcome from the midterms — the future of his “America First” agenda is at stake — it needs not to be sacrificed over the serving of an arrest warrant on a dictator 2,797 miles away in Venezuela. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Britain’s New Economic Policy: Get Used to Being Worse Off Trump’s Economy Grows 4.3 Percent, Dashing Economists’ Lower Expectations Economists Complain About Trump’s New Inflation Figures

Four “genocide scholars,” including two former presidents of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, told the publication Important Context this week that the U.S. is in the early stages of committing a genocide against transgender Americans. One former president of the IAGS, Dr. Gregory Stanton, said the U.S. is currently engaged in a “genocidal” attempt “to destroy a gender group.” Another former president of the organization, Dr. Henry Theriault, said he is “concerned” about a genocide against trans people “in the near future.” For her part, Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, the founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, said the U.S. is in the “early-to-mid stages of a genocidal process against trans and nonbinary and intersex people.” “And so I do think it’s genocidal,” explained Stanton. “I think that the objective here is literally, physically to destroy this group.” In Theriault’s perspective, the question is not “Will genocide happen?” but rather “we got to stop it from happening.” The “expert” evidence for this supposed genocide is state laws prohibiting people from using the bathroom that belongs to the opposite biological sex, state laws prohibiting minors from receiving cross-sex hormones and surgeries for the purpose of “gender transition,” the NIH’s rollback of “LGBTQIA+-related research,” and the President Donald Trump’s executive orders related to healthcare; this includes his order forbidding hospitals receiving federal funding from participating in “gender transitions” for minors. The publication also pointed to Michael Knowles’ 2023 comment, “Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level,” as evidence that conservatives are bent on genocide. It also mentioned the elevated suicide risk among those who identify as transgender. (RELATED: Away With the Absurdity That the Left and the Right Are Equally Vicious) One “genocide expert,” Haley Brown, who spoke to Important Context, said, according to the publication, that laws requiring bathroom usage based on biological sex “effectively give non-state actors tacit approval to commit violence.” Brown explained: “It’s always been about policing. It’s this idea that I am going to create and reinforce my ideal values of society and the state, down to the very physiological characteristics and features of the humans that exist within that state.” In this way, the supposed genocide against those who identify as transgender operates by ending identification with transgenderism. The “experts” somewhat acknowledged that genocide typically refers to large-scale atrocities aimed at destroying a religious, national, or racial group. But they countered that the U.N.’s definition of genocide is too narrow in that it does not include “socially defined” groups. And they further supplied that Republican efforts are aimed at “destroying identities,” which they said can have the effect of ending a “gender group.” In this way, the supposed genocide against those who identify as transgender operates by ending identification with transgenderism. (RELATED: Defending Nigeria’s Christians from Islamist Genocide) “The genocidal process is really about destroying identities, destroying groups through all sorts of means,” said Von Joeden-Forgey. But Von Joeden-Forgey also seemed to take things further, stating that this could just be the pretext to mass killings. According to Important Context, she said that genocides that result in “mass deaths” have, in her words, “started out with other techniques that are less violent — at the beginning.” Von Joegen-Forgey further claimed that “once genocide is in the mix,” then “[t]he state in question will commit other mass atrocities.” For his part, Stanton said that the belief that sex is binary is “totalitarian” and driven by “Nazi ideology.” The Nazis, he explained, according to Important Context, “also held a binary view of men and women and killed many LGBTQIA+ individuals.” Important Context hammered his point home for him, noting that the percentage of Americans who identify as transgender is roughly equivalent to the percentage of Jewish people in Nazi Germany. This is not the first time in recent years the Left has weaponized the term genocide for its own purposes. Last year, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the organization that two of Important Context’s “experts” formerly led, passed a resolution declaring that Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza. The resolution was filled with factual inaccuracies and utilized Hamas statistics on combatant and civilian deaths to “prove” Israel has killed that number of Palestinians. (RELATED: The New York Times Sets a New Low on Israel) It later emerged that anyone could join the International Association of Genocide Scholars, so long as they paid $30, and that the membership rolls were filled with non-academic-affiliated “experts” from developing countries, particularly from the Middle East and Africa. In response to backlash that the organization received over the ease of joining it, it explained that it errs “on the side of inclusivity.” The organization said: “We aim to be inclusive and democratic by keeping the door open to artists, advocates, independent scholars, Indigenous scholars, global majority scholars, marginalized communities, and survivors. The goal is to include voices of those who may not have PhDs, official institutional affiliation, or the financial means to access ‘conventional’ education that often privileges Global North forms of expertise.” Perhaps the large contingent of African and Middle Eastern activists is the reason the International Association of Genocide Scholars as a whole has not voted to recognize a “genocide” against people who identify as transgender in the United States. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Canadians Fear US Invasion After Maduro Seizure New York Times Reaches Whole New Level of Willful Blindness Expert Raises Grave Fears of a ‘Christmas Massacre’ in Nigeria

French author Michel Houellebecq has a well-earned reputation for prophecy. His 2001 novel Platform seemingly imagines the 2002 Islamic terrorist bombings in Bali. His 2015 novel Submission, published on the date of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, foretells numerous since-realized developments related to Islam, demographic change, and politics in late-stage liberal France. Too often overlooked is Houellebecq’s 2019 novel Serotonin, which uncannily envisages an EU-Mercosur trade deal and European farmer protests. Among the key events is a violent, suicidal showdown between protesting farmers and riot police. The narrator muses, “Things had always toppled at the last minute towards the triumph of free trade, towards the race for higher productivity.” Houellebecq’s France is indeed a key player in the present-day EU-Mercosur trade deal and its concomitant farmer protests. All but one French parliamentarian voted against the deal last summer. Under the sham-democratic procedures of the European Union, though, citizens will have little ability to affect the proceedings, and EU officials are determined to push forward. The most realistic way to scuttle the agreement is the formation of a so-called “blocking minority” of at least four member states representing 35 percent of the EU population that are opposed to the deal. France, Italy, Hungary, and Poland were tentatively inclined toward blocking the deal in December, just as Ursula von der Leyen hoped to fly to Brazil for a signing ceremony. Backroom political talks and farmer protests will resume this month, beginning on January 9. Especially symbolic in these proceedings is the role of Poland, a model case of economic transition and sometime-skeptic of EU federalism. These tensions play out weekly in the political sphere, where Polish citizens have been subject to steady turmoil. From 2015 to 2023, a right-wing sovereigntist coalition headed by the Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość — PiS) party governed in Warsaw. In 2023, voters handed power to an unwieldy coalition of pro-EU liberals, centrists, and leftists, united only by antipathy to PiS. In the ensuing two years, the government had forcefully sought to remake the media, judiciary, and other institutions. Political opponents have been dramatically arrested, and a former government minister lives in exile in Budapest. Last year’s fiercely contested presidential election kept the veto-wielding presidency in conservative hands, limiting the government’s ability to reshape the country through the legislative process. (RELATED: What Next for Poland After Nawrocki Victory?) Tusk’s government has maintained a tepid opposition to the trade deal, as Polish farmers are among the most obvious likely victims… Presiding over this combustible mix is Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a eurocrat’s eurocrat, and a former president of the European Council. On issues like migration and the ongoing Mercosur trade talks, the experienced political operator must resort to Realpolitik, balancing liberal desires with a voting public that enjoys, by European standards, a remarkable set of alternatives. Tusk’s government has maintained a tepid opposition to the trade deal, as Polish farmers are among the most obvious likely victims, though analysts suggest Tusk hopes not to cast a deciding vote. “[The trade deal] is not perfect, but it is not bad,” said the prime minister recently. Polish farmers staged protests throughout 2025, objecting to the Mercosur deal and the ruinous impact of Ukrainian agricultural imports. On December 30, they demonstrated at over 120 locations near major roadways across the country without blocking traffic. “This protest is not only against the European Union’s policy under the EU-Mercosur agreement,” farmer Damian Murawiec said in a television interview, “but also because we see the passivity and ineptitude of the Polish government in building a blocking minority against this agreement. Politicians responsible for agriculture have been telling us for many months that it is impossible to build this blocking minority … They have raised the white flag in this regard.” The next major protest is scheduled for January 9 in Warsaw. Several right-wing opposition parties have contested the proposed trade deal. Anna Bryłka, a Member of the European Parliament from the right-wing Confederation (Konfederacja) political alliance and expert on agricultural policy, has been a tireless advocate for the farmers. Following the December 30 protests, she wrote: “Farmers from Mercosur countries produce food according to standards that are prohibited in the EU: different plant protection products, growth hormones, lack of real environmental standards. Polish farmers are expected to compete with cheaper production, which is simply not allowed in our country.” Resistance to the proposed trade deal is concentrated in countries with large agricultural sectors, and a willingness to oppose EU dictates, something many small member states are unwilling to risk. Germany, Spain, and the Nordic countries are especially keen to finalize the deal, as are EU federal bureaucrats. Analysts have speculated to what degree the deal is meant to boost struggling German industry and feed the insatiable EU leviathan. “For some time now, when it became apparent that Germany was ineffective without cheap Russian gas and oil, and therefore, as the leader of Europe, instead of defending Europe and withdrawing from absurdities such as the Green Deal, it wants to act like a parasite,” said Dr. Mieczysław Ryba, a professor at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, in a recent interview. “Not to push the EU forward, but to suck the juices out of it. This is what the Mercosur agreement is all about. They don’t know how to deal with it any other way.” Recalling the EU’s origins and its increasingly authoritarian bent, he added, “For many decades, the common agricultural policy has been the foundation of European policy, and suddenly we are destroying it. We are undermining the whole logic. If we apply such high sanitary and climate requirements and suddenly ruin everything just because Germany is struggling, everyone can see it. This is a giant step towards the collapse of the EU as such.” Though von der Leyen and company were temporarily frustrated, they aren’t finished yet. Italy is the likeliest weak link of the “blocking minority.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reportedly supports the deal in principle but seeks to shore up support from Italian agricultural interests, and von der Leyen has said she plans to return to Brazil this month. Italy has recently signaled it will agree to the deal after obtaining certain promises from Brussels. Tusk might very well have his wish and be absolved of casting a decisive vote. “My interlocutors weren’t fighting for their interests,” realizes Houellebecq’s narrator, “or even for the interests that they were supposed to defend, and it would have been a mistake to believe as much: they were fighting for ideas; for years, I had been confronted with people who were ready to die for free trade.” READ MORE from Michael O’Shea: The Extinction of Icelanders Ireland Is a Democratic Late Starter It’s Past High Noon for Poland’s Liberals Michael O’Shea is an American-Polish writer and translator. He is a Danube Institute visiting international fellow.