Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

The first months of the new Trump Administration have laid bare the web of government technocrats and NGO activists and their public funding. It has never been easier to disregard the narratives these actors have concocted. Hungarians, then, largely rolled their eyes when Transparency International released its 2024 “Corruption Perceptions Index” earlier this year, and they found themselves tied with Burkina Faso, South Africa, and communist Cuba in the 82nd spot. South Africa’s corruption is manifested in national power outages, a result of theft and mismanagement at the public utility firm. Burkina Faso experienced its last coup d’état in 2023; previous coup attempts occurred in 2022 (two), and each year from 2014 to 2016. The country currently lives under a military regime that has banned French media and contended with jihadist insurgencies. The assertion that Hungary keeps this company should immediately disqualify these rankings. If corruption existed on the level of Burkina Faso, Cuba, or South Africa, it would color Hungarians’ daily lives — It doesn’t. (RELATED: Lessons for Trump from Orbán, Hungary’s ‘Comeback’ Prime Minister) According to the 2024 Eurobarometer survey of member states’ corruption perceptions, Hungary ranks seventh in the EU in citizens’ confidence in anti-corruption measures, while Transparency’s list suggests it should rank last. This self-ranking doesn’t prove anything, of course; but corruption doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and a deeply corrupt society inevitably hampers its citizens. Split the difference, if you like, and assume Hungary ranks 17th in the EU in corruption measures. That is not close to Burkina Faso territory. Similarly, Slovakia — which in late 2023 elected a sovereigntist government in place of an unelected, technocratic placeholder — dropped five points and 12 spots in the 2024 Transparency rankings. Bratislava’s sins during that year included calling for an end to the conflict in Ukraine and criticizing EU mandates on migration and social policies. Take these rankings for what they are. Transparency International receives much of its funding from USAID, the European Commission, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Governments across the Western world, including most of the highest-ranked, also contribute. (RELATED: Are the Protests in Slovakia Due to NGO and USAID Interference?) Freedom House, another prominent supplier of these rankings, includes Hungary in the “Partly Free” category of its “Global Freedom Status” score, the only EU country to suffer this indignity. Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Ukraine share this distinction. The EU hopefuls of the Balkans also rank in the “Partly Free” category, a critical standing as future policy concessions go. The cast of characters funding Freedom House includes USAID, the U.S. State Department, the Open Society Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and governments across Western Europe and Canada. For an American perspective, consider Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World 2019” report, which depicted President Trump fanning the flames of “democracy in retreat” with the likes of Putin, Xi, and Ayatollah Khamenei. The U.S. State Department partially funded that report. In its democracy index, the Economist implies a stamp of journalistic integrity, which is arguably suffering a credibility crisis comparable to that of the NGOs. The newspaper, to its credit, is more sweeping in its criticisms: virtually all of Central Europe joins the likes of the United States, France, and Italy as “flawed democracies” in the latest index. Yet, when “full democracies” like the United Kingdom and Germany are criminalizing speech and seeking to ban opposition parties, one must wonder what a “full democracy” rating signifies. These developing-world antics don’t occur in Belgrade, Bratislava, or Budapest. As is often the case, the positive-coded term “democracy” obscures the true subject at hand – liberalism. (RELATED: Letter to the Editor: A Report From Germany — Censorship and Hope, Vance’s Speech in Munich) These rankings rest on the dual assumptions that democracy must look a certain way (read: progressive-liberal) and corruption must look a certain way (anti-liberal). On both counts, public figures named Clinton, Biden, and von der Leyen are subject to a more favorable set of rules. Even explicitly right-leaning metrics warrant some skepticism. The Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom” ranks Ireland number three, for example. Observers in Dublin, Washington, and beyond have noted the country’s economy is a house of cards built on American multinational tax arrangements. Careless jabs at the new Trump administration, profligate government spending, and runaway immigration all point to the pain ahead for Dublin — and that would be the second time in less than two decades. The assertion that Irish economic principles are worth emulating is dubious. (RELATED: Ireland Imposes Draconian ‘Hate’ Laws) Far more than national pride is on the line when these freedom and democracy rankings make their annual appearance. For EU members, these contain increasing financial relevance. Brussels can point to unfavorable findings from NGOs that it partially funds and withhold financial disbursements to member states with sovereigntist governments. Hungary is currently enduring these financial penalties, and Slovakia is on notice. Poland was subject to these maneuverings until it elected a government led by former European Council President Donald Tusk in 2023; Brussels removed the sanctions even before the new government enacted any legislation. (RELATED: Poland Continues to Arrest Political Opponents) For a non-EU member like Serbia, these are reminders that the economic benefits of membership come with a social price tag. Sign on to migration schemes and NGO activities in schools, and elect pliable liberal governments, or remain outside the club. Serbia’s democracy metrics — and, thus, its achievement of EU accession criteria — hinge on matters like these. A 2024 European Parliament report on Serbia, predictably, cites the Freedom House ranking as one of its reasons for concern. These rankings are omnipresent and enjoy a veneer of respectability. For speechwriters, policy analysts, advisers, and politicians themselves, it is far easier to take them at face value than to stay abreast of events in every region of the world. Nor is this limited to Washington. The business community also leans on these reports to ascertain whether something is rotten in the state of Denmark (number one on Transparency International’s list). By all means, highlight corruption in Central Europe, the United States, and everywhere else it exists. Advocate for democratic resilience in its true meaning. These oft-cited rankings, though, are merely guardrails for the liberal order. As with the USAID nation-building projects that have garnered headlines lately, taxpayer dollars ought not to keep them afloat. Much work lies ahead, as exemplified in this National Endowment for Democracy (NED) press release celebrating a partial restoration of its funding. Having won a short-term battle over the Trump Administration, NED vows to “begin stabilizing operations and resume grantmaking.” As long as organizations like these are allowed to define friend and foe, our activist nation-building will continue. READ MORE from Michael O’Shea: Poland Continues to Arrest Political Opponents The Lies Are No Longer Uttered with Impunity: Vance’s Speech and Poland’s Crucial Election Are the Protests in Slovakia Due to NGO and USAID Interference? Michael O’Shea is an American-Polish writer and translator. He is a Danube Institute Visiting International Fellow. The post Time to Ditch the Media and NGOs’ Freedom and Democracy Rankings appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At first blush it almost seems rational: placing U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland, a NATO member that spends nearly five percent of its GDP on defense would enhance deterrence against a potential Russian attack. And Polish President Andrzej Duda requested it. The move would reassure Poland that the United States “will fully honor its security commitment” under NATO’s Article V and will “ensure NATO’s deterrence is real, credible, and available when it matters,” so writes Peter Doran of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Polish pilots and aircraft, Doran continues, should be certified to “carry out deterrence missions” with America’s B-61 tactical nukes. What could possibly go wrong? U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are already deployed in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey. But why limit this move to Poland? If stationing nuclear weapons in NATO countries enhances deterrence, why not put them in Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic? What about Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Why not enhance deterrence in Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovakia and Slovenia? And what about the newest members of NATO — Finland and Sweden? But Doran doesn’t advocate that. Nuclear sharing, he writes, is “[r]eserved for America’s closest and most capable partners.” Apparently, some NATO countries deserve better deterrence than others despite what Article V says (an attack upon one is an attack upon all). Wouldn’t Russia understand that, too? Wouldn’t this selective nuclear sharing signal to Vladimir Putin that we value Poland more than the Baltic states and those other NATO members that would remain unprotected by American tactical nukes? (RELATED: How Does an Entire Continent Fail?) But should Doran’s enhanced deterrence scheme be limited to Europe? After all, China is a greater threat to our national security than Russia, so perhaps if Taiwan’s democratically elected president requests the U.S. to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to the island, we should do so. And, like Poland, Taiwan’s pilots and aircraft could be certified to carry out deterrence missions. Isn’t that the logic of Doran’s proposal? (RELATED: China’s Threat to Taiwan: Intentions and Capabilities) There is a fine line between deterrence and provocation — and both are in the eyes of the beholder. What we and our allies view as deterrence, Russia and China will likely view as a provocation — and it doesn’t matter which side is objectively correct. (RELATED: Running Out of Cards in Kursk) A dramatic move like that suggested by Doran may produce unintended consequences, and in the nuclear realm, such consequences can be catastrophic. U.S. national security policy has since the end of the Cold War attempted to strengthen deterrence by non-nuclear means. In the 1950s when the United States had nuclear superiority, we relied on “massive retaliation” to deter potential great power adversaries. As our opponents’ nuclear arsenals grew, massive retaliation became less credible and led to a posture of “flexible response” to enhance deterrence by nuclear and conventional means. Then Ronald Reagan used peace through strength and diplomacy to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe (the so-called zero option and INF Treaty). Doran’s proposal would begin to undo Reagan’s work and nuclear weapons would once again populate the “bloodlands.” That is why President Trump wants our NATO allies and Taiwan and our other Pacific allies to provide more for their own defense — especially non-nuclear defense capabilities. The more our allies build up their conventional defenses, the less chance they will have to find out whether an American president — any American president — will trade Washington for Warsaw or New York for Taipei. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Should US Peel Russia Away From China? The Left’s Hypocrisy About the ‘Imperial Presidency’ George Will and Munich The post American Nuclear Weapons in Poland? No. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

President Trump has raised questions about the legitimacy of former President Joe Biden’s pardons, referring to the use of an autopen for Biden’s signature. (RELATED: Autopen on Autopilot) In this episode of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay are joined by lawyer and podcaster Ron Coleman to discuss the legality of Biden’s pardons. Ron discusses with Melissa and Scott the history of presidential pardons and whether the use of an autopen could be justification for a legal challenge. Melissa, Scott, and Ron shift to broader topics and expand on how the Left’s agenda and identity politics have damaged the political landscape. They also expound on recent cultural shifts and the need for a return to traditional American values. Tune in to hear their discussion! Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post <i>The Spectacle</i> Ep. 202: The Legality of the Autopen (Biden) Presidency appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from And We Know: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from BullionStar: The first weeks of President Donald Trump’s second administration have produced a remarkable divergence in the performance of two assets often compared by investors seeking alternatives to traditional fiat currencies. While gold has continued its steady ascent to new all-time highs, Bitcoin has experienced a significant correction from its January peak, challenging the […]