[View Article at Source]We should normalize using the word “protectorate” instead of “ally.” It will help in objective and achievable foreign policy results. The post Daddy Issues appeared first…

'Spaceballs' is so awful and AMAZING

The boys from Oklahoma… are across the pond. The greatest band in country music, the Turnpike Troubadours, are headlining a show at London’s Islington Assembly Hall tonight… well, it’s not tonight anymore in England. But another Okie, Zach Bryan is also in Europe for a run of shows, first in Ireland last weekend, and then he’ll be headlining BST Hyde Park Saturday and Sunday in London. And let’s just say the fans at Turnpike’s show got way more than they bargained for when Zach and JR Carroll (JR opened the show, but also plays in Zach’s band) stepped on stage for a performance of “The Bird Hunters.” The song was of course released on their 2015, self-titled album, and while not necessarily known as one of the major hits, it’s become a fan favorite among the diehards. Honestly, if there was ever a weekend to make a Eurotrip… this was the one: The post Zach Bryan & JR Carroll Join Turnpike Troubadours In London For “The Bird Hunters” first appeared on Whiskey Riff.

Politics The New York City Mayor Race Is Wide Open The Democratic establishment is not finished with Mamdani. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had no choice. He had to say something. And so, on the morning following Zohran Mamdani’s shock upset in the New York City Democratic primary for mayor on Tuesday, the firebrand leader of the Democratic Party in Congress tepidly entered the chat.  The aging Senate minority leader, who earlier in the day was treated for dehydration at a local DC hospital, announced on X that he had spoken with Mamdani, the city’s newly selected Democratic nominee for mayor. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) followed suit, congratulating Mamdani for what he called a “a strong campaign that relentlessly focused on the economy and bringing down the high cost of living in New York City.” Both Jeffries and Schumer have made plans to meet with Mamdani in person.  Though characterized by his liberal critics as a too-far-left progressive nepo baby who annihilated the New York political establishment in one fell swoop, Mamdani told MSNBC on Wednesday that he is hopeful to receive full endorsements from both Schumer and Jeffries in the months ahead of November’s general election.  Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), in an announcement to X, called Mamdani’s triumph in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor a “seismic election that I can only compare to Barack Obama’s in 2008.” The former president Bill Clinton also chimed in, wishing Mamdani “much success in November and beyond.” Mamdani’s wild upset victory over the former New York governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday night has led to open speculation that a sea-change moment might be underway in a political party that has long associated with socialists but has never permitted them to hold power.   But in fact Mamdani and the far left’s ascension to the mayorship of New York City is not complete—far from it. There are still four full months of campaigning ahead, during which Mamdani will face the concentrated and coordinated efforts of political action committees, both left and right, who are determined to keep the burgeoning socialist out of high office. Though Cuomo initially signaled a hesitancy to continue his mayoral campaign, a source close to the governor’s campaign announced on Friday that Cuomo intends to compete with Mamdani and the current mayor, Eric Adams, on the general ballot in November.  Adams, who was spotted puffing hookah in a Queens lounge on Sunday, is the immediate winner following Mamdani’s upset on Tuesday. The former police officer, whose office has been dogged by corruption scandals, launched his re-election bid on Thursday. In a speech given in front of hundreds of supporters chanting “four more years,” Adams called Mamdani a “silver-spoon” socialist.  “It’s a choice between a candidate with a blue collar and one with a silver spoon,” Adams said. “I’m not interested in slogans, I’m interested in solutions. I don’t work with special interests, I work for the people.” The New York Times writer Ross Barkan noted that there was “more organic energy here” than at any of the Cuomo campaign stops he had covered in the runup to Tuesday’s primary.  Despite New York magazine’s assessment that Cuomo’s undoing represents “the Death of Centrism,” and despite underwhelming enthusiasm for Cuomo on the campaign trail, a Honan Strategy Group poll of 817 likely voters taken after Tuesday’s primary finds Cuomo leading Mamdani in the general if Adams drops out in the run-up. Even if Adams remains in the field, which he is likely to do, Cuomo is predicted to be in a dead heat with Mamdani come November.  Though the frantic and chaotic end of the Democratic primary race focused on Mamdani’s views of Israel, the 33-year-old state assemblyman now enters the part of the election cycle where his progressive social and economic ideas will be heavily scrutinized. His economic ideas, from freezing the rent to providing no-cost childcare to city-owned grocery stores, are not new and have struggled to find success in cities that have implemented them. Despite the New York Post’s screeching headlines this week about how billionaires and luxury real estate brokers are threatening to leave the city in the wake of Mamdani’s primary victory, the Democratic electorate saw no issue voting for a young man who is speaking earnestly to their concerns about cost and housing issues in the city.  The Republicans are a complete afterthought in the general election. Curtis Sliwa, the 71-year-old, beret-wearing leader of the community watch group Guardian Angels, has no chance to win the race. His best opportunity to dethrone the Democrats came in 2021, at the height of Covid lockdowns and mandates, and even then he couldn’t scratch 30 percent against Adams. The billionaire Bill Ackman, a pro-business centrist who some are calling to lead the GOP ticket in NYC this November, refused to endorse Sliwa in a tweet confirming that he also has not endorsed Adams following Mamdani’s win.  And so, as it stands here at the end of June, New York City will consider three Democratic candidates to become the next mayor of New York City. The cretinous Cuomo, as my colleague Jude Russo so eloquently put it, against Hizzoner Adams and the radical Mamdani. If likeability is the measure, Mamdani, with his big smile and lack of scandals, appears in pole position to take down the establishment and reset the modern Democratic Party.  The post The New York City Mayor Race Is Wide Open appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Daddy Issues We should normalize using the word “protectorate” instead of “ally.” It will help in objective and achievable foreign policy results.  Credit: Kin Cheung/Getty Images There’s a certain observable pair of traits that dominate President Donald Trump’s foreign-policy calculus: He understands good and daring optics, but he hates protracted attritional conflicts. He likes a performative display of short-term strength; he hates the idea of Americans dying under his watch, and has no interest in joining a fray that might lead thither.  We saw these traits at play when Ukraine scuttled the peace talks with Russia, after a long-planned decapitating drone strike that took out a third of the Russian strategic bomber fleet. The president was clearly impressed by the Ukrainian strikes, even when it actively nixed his diplomacy. He appreciated the Israeli first strike on Iran. But he was also very impressed by Iranian missiles, which required a lot of American assets to shoot down. A visible show of strength simultaneously appeals to him and deters him from long term engagement. He likes those who pay their “fair share.” He hates those who freeride and leech. The man loves a “deal.” Nowhere was this more visible than at the NATO summit that just concluded in Europe, where the NATO secretary general, the classic wily Dutchman Mark Rutte, managed to mollify Trump and have a drama-free summit that advanced a potential European promise of 5 percent of GDP in defense spending—a non-binding target that goes from the current aspirational 2 percent of GDP to 3.5 percent by 2035, and 1.5 percent additional for infrastructure and other defense-related outlays. Progress will be reviewed by the time of the next American general election.  All he had to do was call Trump “Daddy.” For what it’s worth, he didn’t directly call him that. Rather, when Trump described Israel and Iran as two errant children, Rutte mentally translated what was perhaps a great joke in his mind, and landed in a weird pickle, further proving the political rule of thumb not to let Northwestern Europeans (other than Anglos) ever joke at a political summit. Britain pledged to buy nuclear-capable F-35s, pushing their second strike capabilities to air for the first time since the end of the Cold War. But Spain refused to pledge 5 percent of their GDP to defense, and rightly so. They face no threats from Russia; the very idea is absurd. “Rachel Ellehuus, director of the defence think tank Rusi sees evidence of a spending split within Nato, along geographical lines,” the BBC reported.  The NATO commitment was desacralized after the Biden years, but was still deemed “ironclad” by the United States. Europe pledged to underscore “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine,” a far cry from the heady days of 2022, when Ukraine was the battle for democracy. “The summit’s official declaration mentioned nothing about Ukraine joining the alliance, a longstanding point of discussion. A meeting between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump yielded no specific promises about peace talks, although Mr. Trump said it was possible that the United States would send more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine,” reported the New York Times. It is unclear why the U.S. should send Patriots to Ukraine when it was the Ukrainians who ended talks between the U.S. and Russia, but no one was there to remind Trump of that, given the Iran–Israel business.  For all these words, no business was settled at the summit, nor did any reorientation of the fundamentals of U.S. grand strategy happen, because the basic theoretical tension remains within the American foreign policy. The reality is that hegemons do not have allies; they have protectorates. Normal empires and normal great powers have allies and limited interests based on geography. The British Empire was an ally of the U.S. when NATO was formed; it had comparable manpower and military heft. Alliances show some form of relative power and independence of foreign policy. Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire were not equals, but they were allies. Britain and France today are allies. But the U.S. and the rest of NATO are not allies.  Some Western European countries, especially France, but also Britain and Germany, perhaps have the capability to undertake occasional independent actions, but they have not been willing to do so, with the exception of France in Africa. The rest are basically protectorates. Same in the Middle East. There are no hegemonic challenges to the U.S. in either region.  Protectorates are either good or bad. Good protectorates are force multipliers. A hegemon might come to save them when they are threatened or attacked for in return for some structural benefits during peacetime—raw materials and mining, or manpower and manufacturing. Bad protectorates are those who want to chain-gang you into a war of choice. Most U.S. “allies” are, by that definition, basically bad protectorates.  Using the term “protectorates” instead of “allies” is useful, as it makes it clear which affiliates are beneficial and which are corrosive. It puts the burden on those who want American protection to make themselves useful to America. It deters them from dragging their hegemonic protector into their petty ethnic or regional rivalries, begging for protection when the inevitable retaliations materialize. It prevents the development of an Electra complex in foreign policy. It is a true, objective, and quantifiable measure of determining which countries are useful and which are not. And officials around Donald Trump, or aligned media influencers, should start using the term to influence the president’s decision-making more.  Great power equilibrium is the greatest virtue in international relations. It is also the most truly conservative position of all. As in Eastern Europe, so in the Middle East; the greatest cause of instability is reckless protectorates frustrating efforts toward peace.  The post Daddy Issues appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Should Trump Give Up on the Iran Deal? Sometimes diplomacy isn’t worth the candle. Credit: saideex/Shutterstock President Donald Trump still wants a nuclear deal with Iran, and Iran still wants one with him. That, at least, seems to be the case, even after a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran that ended Tuesday. The war opened with an Israeli surprise attack, built to a climax with American bombs pummeling Iranian nuclear sites, and reached its finale when Trump shouted to reporters that Tehran and Jerusalem “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing!” The past two weeks hardly laid a stable foundation for a resumption of U.S.–Iran diplomacy. The two sides had been trying to reach an agreement that would give Iran sanctions relief in exchange for more restrictions on its nuclear program. Two weeks ago, when Israel launched its attack on Iran, many observers deemed negotiations to be dead. Yet Trump announced Wednesday that the U.S. and Iran will meet next week. The Islamic Republic is split over whether to resume negotiations, but as the New York Times reports, “The faction that appears to have the upper hand at the moment is pushing for moderation and diplomacy.” As explained below, I’m starting to think Trump should give up on the goal of striking a new Iran nuclear deal. But Iran-watchers I reached out to told me that a deal remains achievable and negotiations worthwhile. Jamal Abdi, President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said that Washington can still get a deal, since Tehran’s moderate president, Masoud Pezeshkian, still supports negotiations. “The problem,” Abdi said, “is the alternative is just ‘mowing the lawn’ and bombing Iran every time they rebuild” their nuclear program. Trump wants to avoid another forever war in the Middle East, and Pezeshkian doesn’t want the recent “12-day war” to become a biannual event, so both sides have an interest in reviving direct diplomacy.   In the wake of U.S.-Israeli aggression, Tehran has another reason, beyond the fear of more bombing, to resume negotiations: Iranians blame Israel much more than the U.S. for the destructive war they just endured, and they appreciate that Trump played a role in ending it. Amirdaryoush Youhaei, a political science student who lives in Tehran, told me on Wednesday that, among his countrymen, “the anger is mostly toward Israel.” Youhaei noted that Trump, after announcing a ceasefire, pushed Israel to honor it. “Tehran really liked the way he treated Bibi yesterday,” Youhaei said, using the nickname of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who for decades has prodded the U.S. into attacking Iran. Eldar Mamedov, a longtime professional diplomat, also thinks that Trump’s willingness to stiff-arm Netanyahu opens new possibilities for diplomacy with Iran. Trump, Mamedov pointed out, has “said no to Israelis more often than his predecessors.” In Mamedov’s view, Trump can and should rebuff Israel again and get a deal with Iran that puts its nuclear program in a box. But would Tehran actually be willing, at this point, to restart talks? Ryan Costello, Policy Director at NIAC, conceded that “Iranian decisionmakers undoubtedly feel badly burned after being bombed while at the negotiating table.” Though negotiations will not be easy, Costello said the volatility of the present moment makes them necessary for both sides. “Diplomacy should be aimed at finding a modus vivendi with Iran, which could entail trading sanctions relief for bringing Iran’s nuclear program back under some degree of inspection.” These Iran-watchers all made valid points, and they know a lot more than I do about such matters. Still, America needs to have a conversation about whether Trump’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran is worth the candle.  I long supported an Iran nuclear deal and believed that Trump was well-positioned to strike one. But I now suspect that U.S.–Iran negotiations have caused more problems than they’ve solved. Trump’s tendency to make maximalist demands raises tensions with Iran, while any concessions he offers agitate Iran hawks and stimulate their clamoring for war. The whole process, I fear, puts the spotlight on Iran in a way that increases the odds of catastrophe. While Abdi supports a resumption of nuclear talks, he also cautioned: If the White House continues to demand that Tehran cease enriching uranium on its own territory, an agreement likely isn’t achievable. There’s the rub. Negotiations were progressing when the White House sought limits rather than a ban on enrichment. But fierce pushback from Israel and its American supporters prompted the administration to adopt the more hardline position, a nonstarter for Iran. Trump has not only settled on a demand that Tehran finds unacceptable but said the alternative to Tehran’s accepting it is war—a disconcerting combo. Now that he’s bombed Iran, Trump could withdraw from negotiations and say that the stated alternative, military action, has set back Tehran’s program to his satisfaction. Alternatively, with the program degraded, the president could now accept Iran’s right to enrich uranium. But I haven’t seen any signs he’ll do that. I’m also skeptical that Trump is willing and able to fend off Netanyahu, who would go to great lengths to prevent a détente between Tehran and Washington. Indeed, Wednesday evening brought evidence that Trump wholeheartedly supports the Israeli leader. Trump posted a long message on Truth Social enthusing over Netanyahu and calling for corruption charges against him to be dropped. “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump wrote. Recurrent signs of a Trump–Netanyahu rift excite critics of Israel and endear them to the U.S. president, but the two leaders have long been close partners, a fact that must worry the Islamic Republic. Tehran also has newer reasons for doubting Trump’s intentions, which I laid out in my column earlier this week:  As the Israel–Iran war escalated, Trump made a series of provocative moves that undoubtedly inflamed Tehran’s antipathy toward the U.S. The president threatened to kill Iran’s supreme leader; called on all residents of Tehran (more populous than New York City) to “immediately evacuate”; used the word “we” when describing Israeli military operations in Iran; and endorsed regime change in Iran. In international politics, distrust is a perennial problem that often hampers diplomacy, but the suspicion with which Tehran must now regard Trump’s overtures greatly exceeds even the baseline wariness that states display.  Terror, not trust, is driving Iran back to the negotiation table, and even if Washington and Tehran somehow struck a deal, it would lack credibility. Trump essentially held a gun to Iran’s head and then, when Iran didn’t acquiesce, shot it in the stomach. Tehran’s hardliners would slam any deal negotiated under these circumstances, and they’d have a point. And if negotiations failed to produce a deal, hardliners in Iran who oppose diplomacy would again seem vindicated. For now, Iran’s moderates have the upper hand, but their position is precarious. If Trump pulls the Persian rug out from under them again, the hardliners might gain power and keep it for decades. Reaching a stable modus vivendi with Iran, as Costello recommends, doesn’t require a grand new deal that puts more restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program, beyond its existing obligations. Indeed, Trump will be lucky if, by the end of his term, Iran’s program doesn’t have fewer restrictions than before. After the 12-day war, Tehran is contemplating a departure from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog.  Perhaps Trump, rather than trying to strike a new agreement, should urge Tehran to continue abiding by the NPT and cooperating with the IAEA—filing reports about its nuclear program and allowing inspections, among other measures. Accomplishing even that minimal objective could prove difficult, but if Trump succeeded, America would continue to have insight into Iran’s nuclear activities. Next week, assuming the U.S. and Iran actually meet, we’ll learn more about the viability of constructive nuclear diplomacy. If Washington relaxes its “no enrichment” demand or if Tehran unexpectedly agrees to it—and if Trump determines a deal can be signed without too much delay—then he should go for it. Otherwise, the president, who has other important matters to attend to, should consider moving on. The post Should Trump Give Up on the Iran Deal? appeared first on The American Conservative.

Or at least he briefly thought they had.

"Every single person we called wanted to do it”. 

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: In early 2021, the entire European Union was under lockdown. Governments were prohibiting citizens from participating in society without the vaccination, and the EU’s largest supplier at the time, AstraZeneca, was unable to meet production needs.  European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen awarded Pfizer a €35 billion contract, personally, […]

Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) is widely expected to announce he’s running for South Dakota governor on Monday. Johnson has served as the state’s lone House representative since 2019. News: Rep. Dusty Johnson plans to make a “political announcement” in Sioux Falls on Monday, per an advisory Comes as he is speculated to be running for governor, and AG Marty Jackley told @dcexaminer he is “preparing to run for the House” in 2026. pic.twitter.com/ahecHDHezt — Rachel Schilke (@rachel_schilke) June 27, 2025 Johnson is the latest congressional Republican to mount a bid for a higher office. POLITICO shared additional details: He’s been a key player in major deals on Capitol Hill in recent years as the head of the Main Street Caucus of Republicans. Johnson, long expected to mount a bid for higher office, will make the announcement in Sioux Falls. Johnson is the eighth House Republican to announce a run for higher office in 2026. Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona, Byron Donalds of Florida, Randy Feenstra of Iowa, John James of Michigan and John Rose of Tennessee are also seeking governor’s offices; Reps. Andy Barr of Kentucky and Buddy Carter of Georgia have announced Senate runs. Critics have called Johnson “anti-Trump” and a “Liz Cheney ally.” “I’m hearing that Liz Cheney ally Dusty Johnson @RepDustyJohnson, a current GOP Congressman from South Dakota, is announcing his run for Governor of South Dakota,” investigative journalist Laura Loomer said last month. SCOOP: I’m hearing that Liz Cheney ally Dusty Johnson @RepDustyJohnson, a current GOP Congressman from South Dakota, is announcing his run for Governor of South Dakota on Monday, May 26th. This is Dusty Johnson. pic.twitter.com/g5Drn97q9W — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) May 21, 2025 “Anti-Trump, Liz Cheney-aligned Congressman Dusty Johnson is expected to (finally) announce his Governor bid on Monday,” another X user commented. Anti-Trump, Liz Cheney-aligned Congressman Dusty Johnson is expected to (finally) announce his Governor bid on Monday https://t.co/vzjNiT1q9V — Brian Lewis (@BrianLewisSD) June 27, 2025 According to Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman, Johnson’s expected announcement comes as no surprise. DUSTY JOHNSON will run for governor, it seems. Shocking no one. https://t.co/PjV6ZqrnSn — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 27, 2025 Meanwhile, South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is expected to run for the state’s at-large congressional seat in the midterm elections. Breaking: Current South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is planning to run for South Dakota's lone seat in the U.S. House in 2026. I spoke with him a few moments ago about his plans.https://t.co/4PYpI5gLMl pic.twitter.com/2eTML02RA1 — Dan Santella (@KELODanS) June 27, 2025 Per South Dakota Searchlight: With just under a year to go before the 2026 primary election, Republican political dominoes have begun to fall in South Dakota. U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson said Friday that he’ll make a “political announcement” Monday — widely expected to be a run for governor. Earlier Friday, state Attorney General Marty Jackley said he’s “preparing to run” for the seat Johnson will apparently vacate. Jackley made his announcement to KELOLAND News in a story published Friday morning, saying “the fight is in Washington.” “From fentanyl and methamphetamine pouring across the southern border to public corruption and wasteful spending in Washington, I want to work with President Trump to find solutions,” Jackley said in a KELO video. In a later interview with South Dakota Searchlight, Jackley said he’ll run as a “straightforward, very limited-government type of conservative” while opposing abortion and supporting gun rights. He also said he’ll run on his “record of action,” which he said includes “not just advocating but winning in the courts” on numerous issues while serving as attorney general.