In January 1989, I was too busy playing soccer in the schoolyard. But something astonishing happened. Ronald Reagan gave his farewell address from the White House, and nobody wanted him to go. Most politicians don’t leave; they’re kicked out. Nobody wanted to kick Reagan out, except for fools and communists, which are one and the same. Reagan did his job. America shone. And it was free. And the West was illuminated by the light of America’s freedom. Mission accomplished. The great Republican president simply had to leave because of the law, but the America he left behind was infinitely better. His farewell speech feels more like an effort to comfort and keep citizens from crying over his absence than an attempt to justify himself. Maybe because when you do things right, you don’t need to keep insisting on how well you did them — unless you’re a writer or journalist (without an OnlyFans channel) in the 21st century, in which case you have no choice if you want anyone to pay attention. Even the most hostile media reported that Reagan’s approval rating at the end of his presidency was over 60 percent. That’s more than you’d find in the happiest marriages if you asked people how much they value their partner’s actions. That’s more than your best friend loves you. That’s more than the joy a cold beer brings in the middle of a desert. Reagan said goodbye, claiming he had achieved a restoration of traditional American values. I can’t think of anything more urgent today. Conservatism is simple: less government, lower taxes, giving wings to individual initiative, and rediscovering pride in your own flag. It’s simple, but you have to want to do it. “And how stands the city on this winter night?” Reagan said, “more prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We’ve done our part.” On patriotism, the president admitted that younger generations didn’t always receive patriotic fervor through the usual channels: family, school, or popular culture. That’s why he wanted to make freedom the banner of patriotism: “America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise.” However, he was also very clear about how young people should be educated: “We’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important.” It’s a good reminder for American conservatives. Reagan knew that America’s light was freedom, not old, heroic history books. Maybe because freedom endures over time and we all experience it throughout our lives. Nazism was horrific, the Soviet revolution was abominable, and defeating those totalitarian regimes was an immense feat, but without survivors of those great victories, new generations can only form a strange, distant idea of what they meant. It’s nothing like their lives. Freedom, on the other hand, is their lives. Teenagers understand freedom better than anyone, as soon as Dad tells them they can’t stay out past 10 at night unless they want to sleep in the doghouse. The thoughtful kid glances at the dog for a moment, and the dog, in cahoots with Dad, lets out a growl, showing a fang. The kid then realizes he’s completely free to do everything Dad tells him to. But above all, he understands that freedom is a conquest. That one day, when he’s an adult, Dad will hand over the freedom he’s been holding in trust, and it will forever be the most precious thing to protect. Seen this way, I can’t understand how some people end up giving up freedom to embrace socialism. It’s like coming home before 10 and choosing to sleep in the doghouse. Maybe we should all read more Reagan: kid, “man is not free unless government is limited.” Reagan did his job. America shone. And it was free. And the West was illuminated by the light of America’s freedom. Mission accomplished. Now more than ever: Donald Trump has a great opportunity to leave the White House in a few years the same way. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Spy Technology No Longer Leaves Anything to the Imagination. An Honest Reflection on Summer America’s Enemies Are Back (And There Are Fewer of Them Than Before) The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Since the ceasefire between Israel and Iran came into effect life in Israel has more or less returned to normal. Reserve soldiers who have been in the field for months on end have returned home to their families and many are now taking well-deserved vacations. All this would not be happening if not for the fact that, by any reasonable and objective standard, Israel’s operation Rising Lion, together with America’s Midnight Hammer strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, had not been a spectacular success. Some critics have claimed that this blindness is due to the fact that both Trump and Witkoff have financial interests in Qatar. Think of it: during a period of 12 days, the Israel Air Force (IAF) made a thousand sorties moving from west to east ever deeper into Iranian airspace. It destroyed nuclear installations, missile launchers, missile and drone factories, anti-aircraft batteries, fighter jets and took out numerous high ranking military commanders and nuclear scientists all without losing a single aircraft. Similarly, with complete impunity the USAF’s Midnight Hammer strikes dealt a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. But it must be noted that despite President Trump’s bravado, Midnight Hammer probably would not have taken place had the IAF not laid the groundwork. As distinguished military historian Victor Davis Hanson noted in his Blade of Perseus blog of June 26, “For Supreme Leader Khamenei, it was hard to swallow that U.S. bombers got their permission to fly into Iranian airspace from the Israeli air force.” Given the ongoing necessity of playing to the audience back home, where naysayers are forever predicting another forever war, Trump’s renaming of Israel’s Rising Lion operation as the “12 Day War” is understandable. But it is nevertheless unfortunate because it distorts reality. Israel’s hot war with Iran and its proxies has been going on now not for 12 but rather for some six hundred days. And while America has been involved from the get-go, the immediacy of the Iranian threat to Israel’s existence has mandated that Israel do the heavy lifting. While the U.S. helped block some of the Iranian missiles shot at Israel in April and October of 2024, Israel, by necessity, intercepted the vast majority. It is with the resupply of critical military hardware that America has played its most crucial role. It must be remembered that during the Biden administration bought and paid for munitions and spare parts were withheld or slow walked. It was only after Trump took office that the IDF was massively resupplied, speeding up shipments and, consequently, bringing the war to its present point. That being said, it is impossible to exaggerate the amount of effort that it took for the IDF to plan and coordinate operation Rising Lion. Preparation for this operation had been going on for 30 years and every branch of the Israeli military and security apparatus, especially Mossad intelligence and special ops, were intensely involved. In practical terms this means that many personnel spent entire careers in the planning effort. Now that that mission has been accomplished all efforts are focused on Gaza which is the last meaningful front in the war that started on 10/7. Formerly, Israel’s tactic in Gaza was essentially one of raiding and then retreating. Its new tactic is to take and keep ground while at the same time taking control of the distribution of humanitarian aid in order to help starve Hamas. At this point Israel controls about 75 percent of the Strip and has moved most of the civilian population out of harm’s way. Hamas’s last stronghold is Gaza City where its last effective leader, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, is holed up. Though his whereabout are known to Israeli intelligence, he never appears in public and has ruthlessly surrounded himself with hostages which makes him very difficult to eliminate. One cannot predict how Trump’s new ceasefire proposal will play out, but we’ve seen this movie before. The bottom line is that for Israel to achieve its war aims Hamas must be completely destroyed. It is impossible to overstate the importance of achieving this goal. The whole world is watching. Other states such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia will probably not make peace with Israel until she finishes the job. Hamas is not merely a terrorist organization. It is also an embodiment of the extreme Islamic ideology known as Wahhabism, and ideologies are much harder to eradicate than men and military equipment. That is why it is shocking that President Trump keeps inviting Qatar, which is the foremost fount of Wahhabism to the negotiating table between Hamas and Israel. Egypt also does not come to the table with entirely clean hands — who can forget that she smuggled arms into Gaze — but at least Egypt abhors the Muslim Brotherhood which is one of Wahabism’s main conduits and organizing mechanisms. The Qataris are the guys wearing nice suits but, as Khaled Abu Toameh wrote at Gatestone on June 3, “After America’s attack on Iran’s nuclear sites on June 22, journalists and those who shape public opinion in Qatar condemned the U.S. and President Donald J. Trump…. Qatar’s government newspapers took to social media to slam the U.S. and Trump, calling him a ‘brazen liar, ‘the leader of a modern crusade,’ and a ‘war criminal’ who has ‘revealed his ugly face’ and is ‘looking for false personal glory.’ By now in the Middle East few entities like Iran, but neither do they like Qatar. In 2017 four Arab states — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates — severed ties with Qatar and imposed a sea, land, and air blockade on it. They accused Qatar of supporting various terrorist groups and extremist movements, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and demanded the closure of Al-Jazeera. However, without American support nothing came of it. However this war ends, whether through the implementation of President Trump’s most recent ceasefire proposal, which calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages, lay down its arms, and leave the Gaza enclave, or when the IDF has achieved these goals by force, it is obvious that Israel will have to retain security control of the strip for the foreseeable future. Now that their Hamas jailers no longer control the exits, Gazans have already been leaving the Strip for other parts of the world. Part of Trump’s ceasefire proposal is that a number of Arab nations will oversee and administer the postwar rebuilding. These legitimately include the UAE and Egypt, but Qatar has also been mentioned. Under no circumstances should Qatar be included. Its true colors have been known to its neighbors for decades, and by now America also knows or should know what they are. For some reason President Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff have turned a blind eye to what Qatar really is, a state sponsor of terror equal to Iran but with a pretty face. Some critics have claimed that this blindness is due to the fact that both Trump and Witkoff have financial interests in Qatar. One would like to think that this criticism is baseless. Whatever the case may be, the constant engagement with Qatar has become a blot on Trump’s legacy and, if it continues, will make Israel’s job after the war much more difficult and dangerous. For those who have eyes to see, there will be a cloud over Trump’s foreign policy until the end of his term — and it just ain’t worth it. READ MORE from Max Dublin: Leaders of the Free World: We’ve Been at War With Iran Since 1979 Elections Have Consequences for Canada The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

With the end of the 12 day war, the question of regime change in Iran remains central. There are many scenarios, highlighting different factors and views. Analysts contrast the sweeping 1979 revolution that deposed the Shah and brought the Islamic Republic to power with the failures of major protest movements to trigger a counter revolution. Pessimists predict that the regime will survive, continuing to impose its control over the lives of 90 million citizens, while attempting to rebuild the military and terror capabilities to attack Israel. In the case of the Soviet Union, the erosion of legitimacy took place steadily during four years until the final collapse. Alternative scenarios highlight the humiliation following the war in which the Israeli Air Force had complete freedom of action over all of Iran. As the scale of damage, in contrast to the regime’s propaganda, becomes apparent across the country, the challenges to the legitimacy of the leadership are likely to increase. This process could trigger a collapse from within, including defection by officials of the regime, and eventually, a loss of control. To assess and analyze this scenario, it is useful to consider the collapse of the Soviet Union that began with the catastrophic accident at the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in April 1986. The Kremlin leadership was already ossified at the time, much like its Iranian counterparts now. The explosion and its aftermath, including many deaths and large-scale radiation exposure, were clearly visible throughout the area and far beyond the borders of the USSR, but Moscow tried to cover-up the disaster to avoid embarrassment, like the response in Tehran. Immediately after the explosion at Reactor No. 4, authorities sent teams of technicians and firefighters without protection, who were immediately exposed to lethal radiation. Moscow’s foolish attempt to control the narrative meant that the nearby city of Pripyat (with 50,000 residents) was not evacuated for 36 hours, despite extremely high radiation levels. Media coverage within Russia was heavily censored, but as casualties increased, word of the disaster spread quickly. It was only on the third day that the USSR leadership issued a formal public statement, announcing what everyone already knew — that a “nuclear accident” had occurred. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev did not publicly address the Soviet people until over two weeks after the explosion. The Chernobyl catastrophe symbolized a closed and incompetent political system that endangered the entire population, and the institutions lost legitimacy, power, and control. Estonia and Lithuania moved out of the Kremlin’s orbit; in 1989, Germans broke down the most visible symbol of repression — the Berlin wall — without any resistance or response. Less than two years later, what remained of the Soviet Union imploded and disappeared.  As Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, acknowledged, the collapse began with Chernobyl. In examining the prospects of a similar scenario in Iran, many of the factors are evident. The regime maintains power through repressive power and secrecy, but the Israeli military and security forces quickly destroyed Iran’s defenses, followed by 12 days of continuous attacks, highlighting the government’s vulnerability and incompetence. Numerous Iranian military and security officials, including in the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and key figures in the nuclear weapons program, were targeted in the first hours of the Israeli operation, and the regime could do nothing to protect them. For a political collapse, millions of Iranians would have to overcome decades of fear and repression, and join the courageous protestors — particularly the women who have defied the regime and led the opposition. Seeing the ruins of bombed-out military installations, interior police headquarters, and destroyed walls of the infamous Evin prison where regime opponents were tortured, could, like the images of the Chernobyl catastrophe, empower the protest movements. Similarly, in the coming weeks and months, the damage to basic services such as gasoline supply and the banking system will make day to day life far more onerous, and add to the anger at the regime’s failures. As in the Soviet strategy after Chernobyl, Tehran’s propaganda platforms, including statements by the Supreme Leader, are desperately attempting to control the narrative by denying the blatant failures and making absurd claims of a great victory over the Zionist enemy. In Russia, the public greeted such efforts with sarcasm and derision, and the same might well occur in Iran. In the case of the Soviet Union, the erosion of legitimacy took place steadily during four years until the final collapse. For Iran to follow this route, signs of opposition could emerge in the coming months, leading to an accelerating spiral. And while there is no guarantee of regime change, the openings have been created. READ MORE: Basic Thoughts on Iran Exclusive: Anti-Regime Iranians Speak Out, Discuss Widespread Discontent With the Mullahs’ Rule The writer is President of NGO Monitor and emeritus professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

The first hint that the new Amazon Prime movie Heads of State is going to be more than unusually dopey is the title. It’s meant to refer to the two protagonists, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain. Of course, while the former is indeed head of state, the latter isn’t. Halfway through the movie, as if to signal the filmmakers’ awareness that the title is technically incorrect, a supporting character remarks that the UK’s PM is “the only head of state who isn’t really a head of state.” What? No, like the prime ministers of the Netherlands, Spain, and a number of other constitutional monarchies, he’s not a head of state in any sense of the term — he’s a head of government, period. Turns out there’s a big international plot against both the Prez and PM — and NATO. Who’s behind it? Well. not the Chinese, of course — don’t want to get them angry again. Okay, enough about the title (which, by the way, hasn’t kept this picture from becoming #1 on streaming services). On to our heroes. President Will Derringer, a dimbulb who went to the White House after several years as a Hollywood action star, is apparently intended to be a cross between Arnold Schwarzenegger and a younger Ronald Reagan, plus a big dollop of Trump. He’s played by the square-jawed John Cena, who in real life is a former champion wrestler turned star of movies (The Marine, Trainwreck) and TV (Peacemaker). The PM, Sam Clarke, is supposed to be a lot smarter than Derringer, and unlike the Prez, who has been a soldier in movies, he’s really served in the Army. He’s played by Idris Elba, star of the TV series The Wire and of six Marvel comic movies in which he portrayed a character called Heimdall. All of this information about Cena and Elba, I should mention by way of full disclosure, is entirely new to me: before seeing Heads of State I was just barely familiar with these two actors’ names, and could not have picked either of them out of a lineup. To be sure, Cena did make it briefly onto my radar four years ago when his statement to Taiwanese media that Taiwan would be “the first country” to see his film Fast and Furious 9 outraged China, which denies Taiwan’s status as a separate country, and led Cena to issue a groveling apology, in Mandarin to boot: “I made a mistake. I must say right now. It’s so so so so so so important, I love and respect Chinese people. I am very sorry for my mistakes. Sorry. Sorry. I am really sorry. You have to understand that I love and respect China and Chinese people.” Pathetic. But back to Heads of State. A plot summary: after a joint MI6-CIA operation in Spain is spectacularly sabotaged by bad guys, the Prez and PM decide to make a public demonstration of solidarity. They board Air Force One, and for the next few minutes the movie becomes a slapdash rip-off of (what else?) Air Force One, complete with an onboard traitor and an attack by other planes; the Prez and PM parachute to safety just before the plane crashes in rural Belarus. They immediately encounter a gaggle of bad guys, triumph over them in a cartoonish donnybrook involving such weapons as a hammer, a sickle, and a pitchfork, and are then driven by a sympathetic woman to a CIA safe house in Warsaw. Alas, the safe house doesn’t remain safe for long. Suffice it to say that there’s plenty of gunfire, after which the Prez and PM — who have long since been presumed dead in the Air Force One crash — end up riding on a train across Austria, now accompanied by an MI6 agent (Priyanka Chopra Jonas) who proves to be one of those action-movie heroines who keep beating up men twice their size. Later there’s a sequence involving a helicopter and lots of gunfire that brings to mind True Lies, a car chase in Trieste (also with plenty of gunfire) that recalls the car chase in Istanbul in Taken 2, and a terrorist attack on a NATO summit (sheer tons of gunfire) that makes the first act of London Has Fallen look like Tea and Sympathy. Why all this running, chasing, violence? Turns out there’s a big international plot against both the Prez and PM — and NATO. Who’s behind it? Well. not the Chinese, of course — don’t want to get them angry again. And not any Islamic countries, either. Perish the thought! No, the mastermind  — spoiler alert, sort of — turns out to be a highly-placed insider. And the Prez and PM, who at the beginning of the picture can’t stand each other, end up being (of course) buddies. Directed by a Russian named Ilya Naishuller, Heads of State is plainly supposed to be something of a comedy, with the humor theoretically originating from the tension between our two heroes (think 48 Hrs., Lethal Weapon, Die Hard), who keep hurling putdowns at each other. Sorry, no sale. There’s not a laugh in this thing. Not to mention that it feels weirdly out of touch given what’s been going on during the last few years at the White House, at 10 Downing Street, and in the real world beyond. Full confession: I actually gave up on Heads of State about a quarter of the way through. Then I noticed that Cena and Elba had just appeared on Jolly, one of my favorite YouTube podcasts, on which two likeable young British guys sample the grub at restaurants, diners, hotdog stands, pizzerias, barbecue joints, and other eateries, mostly in America. On the episode with Cena and Elba, the two hosts and their guests shared a typical American breakfast in New York and a typical English breakfast in London. Elba actually was a no-show for the London half. But both Cena and Elba — especially Cena — were so off-the-cuff funny (Cena reacting to beans on toast: “1948, I get it. But 2025, why is this still a thing?”) that I decided to give Heads of State another chance, and hung in to the bitter end. (This was, note well, before I’d been reminded that Cena is a jerk.) Alas, I’d been right to bail: the completely impromptu Jolly podcast — four (then three) guys tossing off unscripted quips about hash browns and pancakes and such — turned out to be far more entertaining than the movie, which is credited to three writers (Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec, and Harrison Query), involved location filming in several countries, and cost God only knows how much to put in the can (to say nothing of the promotional budget). Is there a lesson here? What do you think? READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Toni Morrison, Editor Fry vs. Rowling The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

When Elon Musk started bellyaching about the “One Big Beautiful Bill” he revealed why his influence on the Trump administration was destined to be short-lived. Like most billionaires, he is accustomed to getting what he wants when and how he wants it. He has no patience with the excruciating political process and the necessary compromises that must be endured to produce a piece of legislation like the bill Trump signed into law on July 4. In this regard he has much in common with the late Ross Perot, whose destructive foray into national politics proved so disastrous for the Republican Party and the nation at large. Elon Musk’s proposed “America Party” doesn’t need to win any elections to have a profound effect on the balance of power in Washington. Like Perot, Musk imagines himself as the savior who will free us from a profligate Washington establishment in which the two major parties often work together in order to maintain their monopoly on power. On July 5, Musk expressed this delusion on X as follows: “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.” Also like Perot, his “solution” involves forming a new political party that will offer the voters “genuine” choice beyond the two dominant parties. Perot founded the Reform Party and Musk insists he is deadly serious about launching the America Party. Musk has other characteristics in common with Perot, including unpredictable and capricious behavior. Perot for example, abruptly dropped out of the 1992 presidential campaign in July only to return to the race in October. He also accused then-President Bush of plotting to disrupt his daughters’ wedding. As for Musk, he is reported to have “aggressively body-checked” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in the White House during an argument. Such antics, combined with his decision to found a new political party, worries his investors. James Fishback, CEO of the investment firm Azoria, wrote to the Chair of Tesla’s Board: I am writing to inform you that Azoria is postponing next week’s public listing of the Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF. Our decision comes in direct response to Mr. Musk’s announcement that he is launching a new national political party. This creates a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO of Tesla. It diverts his focus and energy away from Tesla’s employees and shareholders … I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO. This won’t be the last such missive the Tesla Board receives. It’s unlikely that the company’s shareholders were happy to see the decline in Tesla’s stock value during Musk’s brief tenure in President Trump’s administration. It’s even less likely that they will welcome his involvement in a rump political party whose sole purpose will be to unseat Republicans who passed a budget he didn’t like. His claim that he is on a righteous crusade against the “uniparty” is self-serving BS. As Eric Metaxas points out on X, “We’re now seeing Elon Musk’s CHARACTER. Brilliant. Also childish & willful. And therefore dangerous & destructive.” If Musk follows through on this America Party nonsense, it will be destructive — to the GOP. As Ross Perot’s two presidential campaigns demonstrated, third party candidates aren’t very good at winning. They are, however, excellent spoilers. In 1992, Perot received 18.9 percent of the vote, George H. W. Bush won 37.5 percent and Bill Clinton got 43.6 percent. If only half of Perot’s votes would have, in his absence from the ballot, gone to Bush — he would probably have been reelected. The conventional wisdom rejects this out of hand, and guilt-ridden Perot voters are still in denial. But the American Enterprise Institute offers this: Bush led handily in polls until Perot declared his candidacy (not shown), then saw his standing ebb. But Bush voters did not go to Clinton. Rather, they went to Perot, at least at first. Clinton was mired at around 27 percent of the vote throughout the spring and summer, at least until Perot suspended his campaign on the eve of the Democratic convention … Tactically, Perot forced Bush into a two-front war at a time where he needed to be hammering away at a badly wounded Clinton campaign.  He also elevated issues that were unfavorable for the Republican, most notably the deficit. But it isn’t necessary to return to the last century to see how third parties can have a real effect on the Electoral College outcome. It’s entirely possible that the winner of the 2020 election was less about election skulduggery than the unusually significant performance of the Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen. She not only outperformed most Libertarian presidential candidates, she garnered more than enough votes in each of the battleground states to account for President Trump’s narrow losses. In Georgia, for example, she garnered 62,000 votes. If half of those votes had gone to Trump, he would have won the Peach State. This obviously suggests that Elon Musk’s proposed “America Party” doesn’t need to win any elections to have a profound effect on the balance of power in Washington. The Republicans control the House of Representatives by such a narrow majority that any third party can peel off a few voters in key districts to hand power back to the Democrats. That means a third impeachment and only God knows what other antics. Why would Musk want this? Perot probably ran largely because of a personal grudge against the Bush family. In Musk’s case, it may be the mere failure to get what he wanted when and how he wanted it. READ MORE from David Catron: Justice Kagan’s Hypocrisy on Universal Injunctions No, Trump Didn’t Violate the War Powers Act The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

The biggest downside to being blocked by progressive former friends — like most in my old Hollywood circle — is I don’t get to observe their total breakdown as the liberal dreamworld crumbles around them. Yet every argument I made to them was exalted last Fourth of July, when President Trump and his gorgeous First Lady danced on the Truman Balcony as fireworks exploded over the incomparable Washington skyline. The couple were not only celebrating the 249th anniversary of the greatest country in the history of Earth but the best two weeks for any presidency in my lifetime. And though I couldn’t see or hear it, I could feel the wailing of my ex-mates all the way from the opposite coast. Stalin…. believed subverting the arts with Marxist ideology was the best way to indoctrinate the masses. And, boy, was he right. They didn’t need social media to read my views over the past five years — overtly communicated in this publication and more subtly in my novels. The latter defied their Hollywoke masters’ rules by depicting clever masculine white men and sexy feminine women who share a mutual attraction minus phony incursions into each other’s forte. The former rejected all their utopian fantasies — such as women can beat up men twice their weight. But it took a two-week tidal wave to drown many of the Left’s sacred cows, while I surfed it. Here are the fatal five. Delusion One — Trump Will Cause Global Chaos The Trump-authorized tactical strike on three Iranian nuclear installations halted, probably forever, the existential threat to Israel and the United States. Instead of provoking World War III (as even some Chicken Littles on the Right shrieked), Iran agreed to a ceasefire with Israel and promised no retaliatory strikes against America. Trump also pressured 31 out of 32 NATO members to increase their spending from two to five percent. Delusion Two – Only Comprehensive Immigration Reform Can Deter Border Crossings Last week (July 2), DHS posted that June had the lowest number of border encounters in history, barely more than 25,000 people. “All it took was a new President,” Trump famously said. Delusion Three — Federal Court Judges Will Delay Trump’s Mad MAGA Agenda The Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges can’t issue nationwide injunctions blocking laws or policies like Trump’s executive actions. Amy Coney Barrett’s incisive skewer of Ketanji “I’m not a biologist” Brown Jackson’s insipid dissent made the decision doubly enjoyable. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. Delusion Four — Trump’s Tariffs Will Create Economic Disaster From June 22 to July 6, gas and egg prices dropped significantly — gas to below three dollars in most states. And the latest BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) jobs report cited a gain of 147,000 jobs in June — 37,000 more than expected. The Unemployment Rate fell from 4.2 to 4.1. The report even humbled CNN. Delusion Five — Transwomen Are Women Not according to the University of Pennsylvania, which last week bowed to Trump’s de-trans executive action. On Tuesday, the school banned “transgender women” — men — from women’s sports teams. It also agreed to restore the swimming records and titles of female athletes displaced by Lia Thomas, and issued letters of apology to the female swimmers he beat. More schools to follow. Trump pulled off one more victory last week over the hapless Democrats. Despite a bare Republican majority in the House, Congress passed the Big Beautiful Bill, although every Dem voted against it, and a couple of bad Republicans. Trump signed it on the Fourth of July, which enhanced the holiday celebration, ending with the President and First Lady dancing on the White House balcony to YMCA. I know who else was dancing — my erstwhile LA comrades — only theirs is the danse macabre. Everything they supported is dying — their principles, their politics, and their careers. The indirect word I’m getting is that as straight white males, they can’t get any work. Because writing or directing different racial characters is deemed cultural appropriation in Hollywoke. And white men are at the bottom of the scale. The irony is hitting them hard. Even director Danny Boyle threw his 2008 hit film Slum Dog Millionaire under the virtue signaling bus — of course well after it earned close to $400 million worldwide and eight Academy Awards. “Yeah, we wouldn’t be able to make that now,” Boyle told The Guardian. “And that’s how it should be. It’s time to reflect on all that. We have to look at the cultural baggage we carry and the mark that we’ve left on the world.” This “cultural baggage” is crushing my old gang. But they rode that train to nowhere after I jumped off it — with a helpful shove from them. Now I have something they don’t — the freedom to write anything I want, the credentials to sell it, and the contacts to make it. I’m writing a script now for a conservative independent producer that would melt down LA even more than the recent fires. I can reveal it here because Hollywood would never touch it. It’s based on a reportedly true story about a KGB plot to assassinate John Wayne in 1950. Stalin thought Wayne was doing too much damage expelling communists from the movie industry. He believed subverting the arts with Marxist ideology was the best way to indoctrinate the masses. And, boy, was he right. But the turnaround has already begun. And I’m happy to be part of it — unlike my former friends. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Male Novel Readers Are Not Fiction My Own Operation Midnight Hammer — Iran The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Consumer freedom is often intangible, but sometimes it looks like a loaf of bread in your fridge. Almost a century ago, in Chillicothe, Missouri, a jeweler from Iowa, Otto Frederick Rohwedder, had a radical idea: what if a whole loaf of bread could be pre-cut and sold? The premise was meant to rectify a minor inconvenience, as slicing bread by hand wasn’t uniform and often damaged its quality. After betting his life savings on a bread-slicing machine and partnering with friend and baker Frank Bench, Rohwedder put his products on the market on July 7, 1928. Consumer freedom isn’t merely the ability to choose among many options, but having that choice with minimal friction and maximum efficiency. Rohwedder understood the hesitancy in his initial marketing, dubbing the invention “startling to some people.” Indeed, early buyers thought the bread slices were messy and would stale quicker than regular loaves. The infant market needed reassurance, and fast, so Rohwedder improved machine packaging. Yet, Rohwedder and Bench capitalized on a core tenet of today’s economic landscape: convenience. Accessibility to new technologies and consumer goods was foreign to the average American during the late 1920s. Consumer debt doubled from 1920 to 1930, and 60 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. Customers today overwhelmingly deem convenience their most significant factor in shopping; most are willing to pay extra for it and abandon items they find difficult to obtain. The two entrepreneurs recognized that providing an alternative solution was not enough. Rohwedder and Bench needed to convey that their food was intrinsically valuable and superior to establishment offerings. Thus, they took to the local newspapers and launched a brilliant advertisement campaign. Rohwedder spun apprehension into intrigue, calling sliced bread a “sound, sensible and in every way a progressive refinement in Baker’s bread service.” He claimed his work was “the greatest step forward in the baking industry” in decades, a feat that resonated with mothers short on time and grocers concerned with food freshness. Catherine Stortz Ripley, a former editor for The Chillicothe Constitution Tribune, noted that the curiosity jolted sales and satisfaction, as Bench’s bakery saw a 2000 percent increase in sales in just a few weeks. Other bread companies were slow to embrace the ingenuity, but the Midwest sales of a baking revolution couldn’t be ignored. In just two years, mechanical slicing spanned coast-to-coast, with 90 percent of store-bought bread sold pre-sliced. The meteoric rise of sliced bread illustrates how advertising can shape consumer preferences during a product’s early stages. Some have argued that slicing didn’t fundamentally change the bread itself, but the “value-added” campaign carried the weight of its success. Good marketing is psychological — it fabricates something seemingly missing from ordinary life and reconfigures it in the image of a product or service. The 1930s sliced bread ads from A&P Food Stores and Stone Baking Company in Atlanta evoked themes of nutrition, cleanliness, and modernity, attributes that enticed potential buyers to indulge in something greater than food. Some may call the practice manipulation; others see it as problem-solving. Research shows that advertising in the pre-launch and beginning phases tends to temporarily uptick consumer interest. Sliced bread defied that trend after Wonder Bread, a market juggernaut, embraced it in 1930, launching a suite of ads that popularized the novelty into an American kitchen necessity, reshaping consumption habits, dietary norms, and how quickly people ate. It even became the subject of a modern metaphor. Entertainer Red Skelton would later dismiss concerns about television, calling the medium “the greatest thing since sliced bread.” The adoration of sliced bread blurred the line between its practical use and symbolic value, and whether customers could distinguish the two. An inability to do so misguides the market by restricting genuine choice. However, a tone-deaf federal order proved consumers truly valued their loaves. In 1943, under the auspices of saving wax paper for wartime production, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Office of Price Administration banned the sale of sliced bread. Local officials threatened to shut down bakeries still using bread-slicing machines, an invasion of private property and commerce. While the measure was meant to counteract another progressive price-raising measure, Roosevelt had a clear message: collective security comes first; individual choice comes later. The backlash against the decision was immediate and “caused a societal meltdown of epic proportions.” Homemakers stormed hardware stores for better knives, with thousands penning their frustration to national news outlets — one even vouched in the New York Times that Rohwedder’s contribution was integral to “the morale and saneness of a household.” Short-term bread sales dropped by 5-10 percent, while the anticipated savings in wax paper were negligible. The government’s intervention failed to recognize the true value Americans placed on sliced bread. Unfavorability and ineffectiveness forced the government to withdraw the ban in less than two months, and nobody wanted to admit fault. The episode demonstrated that consumer appreciation transcended the physical product and any ad messaging: sliced bread was a simple and ingrained means to a smoother routine. When the government removed this instrumental staple, consumers rallied to restore that comfort. Consumer freedom requires a robust and constant defense; only policies that recognize the instrumental and intrinsic worth of markets can flourish in tandem with their customers. Consumer freedom isn’t merely the ability to choose among many options, but having that choice with minimal friction and maximum efficiency. The principle is fundamentally about preserving the space to act on preferences, whether those are for convenience, taste, or tradition. If advertisements and innovation can heighten our awareness of what we value, buyers are uniquely situated to recognize and reassert their worth. The story of sliced bread, its triumphs, and its drama must not be forgotten. For that, it deserves a toast. READ MORE: Gen Z is Clueless When It Comes to Voting America, France, and the Free Market Alex Rosado is a political, cultural, and consumer freedom writer for Young Voices, writing in his personal capacity. Follow him on X @Alexprosado. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

from Mark Dice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Niall McCrea, Activist Post: ‘Events, dear boy, events’. So said British prime minister Harold Macmillan on the fallibility of leaders due to unanticipated, uncontrollable factors. ‘Shit happens’, to use a slang version.  But what if events are neither incidental nor – in some cases – real? Topically, should we believe that Iran had a […]

A major investment firm has just cut off its support from Tesla in response to Elon Musk’s launch of a new political party. The firm, Azoria which focuses on the tech and AI sector, was set to launch a Tesla Convexity ETF next week. However, CEO James Fishback just announced that he is indefinitely postponing that plan, citing that his confidence in Elon Musk’s leadership of Tesla has dropped. Fishback explained his decision in a lengthy post on X: Elon has gone too far. My investment firm (@InvestAzoria) has decided to postpone next week’s public listing of our Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF. Our decision comes in direct response to @ElonMusk’s announcement that he is launching a new national political party. This creates… pic.twitter.com/d4pGCunY6l — James Fishback (@j_fishback) July 6, 2025 The full post reads: Elon has gone too far. My investment firm (@InvestAzoria) has decided to postpone next week’s public listing of our Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF. Our decision comes in direct response to @ElonMusk’s announcement that he is launching a new national political party. This creates a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO of Tesla. It diverts his focus and energy away from Tesla’s employees and shareholders. Azoria believes that Tesla is the most compelling long-term investment in AI. With breakthroughs in robotaxis, Optimus, and full self-driving, no other company is positioned to lead the future like Tesla. In May, when Elon stepped back from his work at DOGE and returned his attention to Tesla, we were encouraged. With Elon fully engaged, he gave shareholders renewed confidence in Tesla’s future. Elon’s announcement today undermines that confidence. Unlike his work with SpaceX or xAI, which complement Tesla’s R&D efforts in AI, automation, and engineering, a political party not only fails to complement Tesla’s mission—it actively undermines it. I just sent the attached letter to Robyn Denholm, Chair of Tesla’s Board of Directors. I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO. I remain hopeful that Elon will return his full attention to Tesla. If not, I trust the Board will take appropriate action. Fishback also sent a letter to the Chair of Tesla’s Board of Directors, Robyn Denholm. In the letter, he called for the board to examine Elon Musk’s political ambitions and determine whether they get in the way with his responsibilities running Tesla. That letter reads in full: I’m writing to inform you that Azoria is postponing next week’s public listing of the Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF. Our decision comes in direct response to Mr. Musk’s announcement that he is launching a new national political party. This creates a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO of Tesla. It diverts his focus and energy away from Tesla’s employees and shareholders. Azoria believes that Tesla remains the most compelling long-term investment in AI. With breakthroughs obotaxis, Optimus, and full self-driving, no other company is positioned to lead the future like Tesla. In May, when Mr. Musk stepped back from his work at DOGE and returned his attention to Tesla, we were encouraged. With him fully engaged, he gave shareholders renewed confidence in Tesla’s future. Mr. Musk’s announcement today, however, undermines that confidence. Unlike his work with SpaceX or XAI, which complement Tesla’s R&D efforts in Al, automation, and engineering, a political party not only fails to complement Tesla’s mission- it actively undermines it. I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Mr. Musk to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO. I remain hopeful that Mr. Musk will return his full attention to Tesla. If not, I trust the Board will take appropriate action. Very notably, James Fishback is the same guy who first suggested the idea of giving DOGE stimulus checks to the American people. For reference, here’s that original post: Will check with the President — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 18, 2025 Up until recently, he appeared to be on very good terms with Elon Musk. In response to Elon Musk announcing his new political party, Fishback said that he was disappointed and declared himself as a FSG (Full Support for Donald) Republican: I’m disappointed. I respected Elon. I advised DOGE. My firm’s largest position is in Tesla. But what Elon’s doing by starting the “America Party” risks handing the keys of power to AOC, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jasmine Crashout Crockett. That’s a disaster for our country—they’ll… https://t.co/iy44Phpag5 — James Fishback (@j_fishback) July 5, 2025 Full text: I’m disappointed. I respected Elon. I advised DOGE. My firm’s largest position is in Tesla. But what Elon’s doing by starting the “America Party” risks handing the keys of power to AOC, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jasmine Crashout Crockett. That’s a disaster for our country—they’ll impeach Trump, defund ICE, and gut the Trump tax cuts. It’s also a disaster for Elon’s own companies. Tesla and SpaceX won’t be spared from the full wrath of government weaponization if this new “party” helps put the Democrats back in charge. Elon is free to do what he wants. But Americans are also free to say: back off—we stand with Trump. I’m not selling my Tesla stock or my Tesla car. I love Full Self Driving (FSD). But there’s another FSD I care about even more: Full Support for Donald. I’m an FSD Republican. It’s time to fight and never apologize for it.