YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #nightsky #biology #moon #plantbiology #gardening #autumn #supermoon #perigee #zenith #flower #rose #euphoria #spooky #supermoon2025
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Alexander Rogge
Alexander Rogge  shared a  post
2 w

Donte Money to Conservative Voices

.


Amount

$
Search by username or email
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

The NBA’s Gambling Scandal
Favicon 
spectator.org

The NBA’s Gambling Scandal

“The NBA’s Gambling Scandal,” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator on Oct. 24, 2025.
Like
Comment
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Finnerty: Dems shut government down just to 'gain edge' over Trump
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

Finnerty: Dems shut government down just to 'gain edge' over Trump

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
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

NASA's Mysterious Delay: Are They Hiding Evidence of Extraterrestrial Life? | Finnerty
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

NASA's Mysterious Delay: Are They Hiding Evidence of Extraterrestrial Life? | Finnerty

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
Like
Comment
Share
Worth it or Woke?
Worth it or Woke?
2 w

Oddballs (season 2)
Favicon 
worthitorwoke.com

Oddballs (season 2)

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.The post Oddballs (season 2) first appeared on Worth it or Woke.
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
2 w

The song John Paul Jones called the first version of ‘Stairway to Heaven’
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

The song John Paul Jones called the first version of ‘Stairway to Heaven’

The first glimpses of greatness. The post The song John Paul Jones called the first version of ‘Stairway to Heaven’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

How Trump 45 Paved the Way for 47
Favicon 
spectator.org

How Trump 45 Paved the Way for 47

Editor’s Note: Beloved American Spectator contributing editor Dov Fischer died on September 29, 2025. This is the essay he wrote for the American Spectator’s fall print magazine. By now, the Biden–Harris years cannot be prevented, only undone. Even so, the scandalous hyphenating of the Trump presidency into two terms, separated by a quadrennium, now appears to have been a critical component of what has made the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term so extraordinarily consequential. Instead of wallowing after 2020, the president and his closest advisers leveraged the four-year interregnum to look back on lessons learned and plan for the second round with extraordinary acumen and perspicacity. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2025 print magazine. There can be no denying that Trump 45 was subjected to a viciously unscrupulous and unprecedented frontal assault. His hapless opponent, unable to internalize that the American people had rejected her yet again, as they had when she lost the 2008 Democrat primary to Barack Obama, set about to destroy Trump after his incontrovertible election with a fabricated patchwork of lies alleging that Vladimir Putin had conspired with Trump to hand him the presidency. It was an absurd premise, built on the notion that Putin would have preferred opposing Trump for four years to contending with the Hillary of Benghazi infamy. By now, we all know the story and the names of the plotters and conspirators: the secret money, the Steele Dossier, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Perkins Coie, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Robert Mueller, the FISA Warrant, the Mueller Report, Rod Rosenstein, James Clapper, John Brennan — a whole slew of filth from the deepest depths of The Swamp. And behind so much of it was Obama himself. Trump 45 was subjected to a viciously unscrupulous and unprecedented frontal assault. They all were politically gunning for him, even before Trump 45 arrived in D.C. Television networks had audio of casual talk Trump had exchanged with a news correspondent off-camera in a trailer about women. A myth circulated virally that he is Hitler-like, fascistic, and inferentially racist and antisemitic. The press corps, led by a remarkably brazen CNN provocateur, Jim Acosta, treated the president of the United States with manifest contempt. Trump 45 indisputably had won the 2016 electoral vote but not the popular vote. By strategy, he focused on campaigning for electoral votes in the Midwest — the Democrats’ so-called “Blue Wall” — while his opponent foolishly squandered excessive time and money running up her popular votes in California and New York. Yet, by Trump’s winning “only” in electoral votes and not popular votes, a Democrat–media canard arose that “Trump did not really win the election.”  Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our latest print magazine. This time, Trump aimed at decisively capturing the popular vote, too, leaving no room to question the legitimacy and scope of his blowout win. That enabled him to enter the White House this time with greater authority and legitimacy. The voters had seen him impeached twice, investigated for “Russian collusion” by Robert Mueller, investigated by the Nancy Pelosi–Liz Cheney January 6 Committee, subjected to a year and more of Democrat lawfare from Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida; Fani Willis and Nathan Wade in Atlanta, Georgia; and Letitia James and Alvin Bragg in New York City. Trump had been subjected to Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, a half-billion-dollar illegal fine and thirty-four “felony convictions,” and so much more. Yet, after all that, opposed by a Kamala Harris campaign that spent more than $1.5 billion — buying celebrity endorsements at $1 million a pop — Americans elected Donald J. Trump to be their 47th president. To gain more legitimacy, Trump 45 had played it “safe” and opted to designate a Cabinet and inside team of “highly qualified experienced professionals,” Republicans with long years of party credentials and revered titles. Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general. Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell’s wife) as secretary of transportation. Other well-regarded names: Four-star General John Kelly as chief of staff. James “Mad Dog” Mattis for defense secretary. Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, for secretary of state. From the outset, Trump proceeded to check off the boxes at a blazing pace: the Keystone XL pipeline, Dakota pipeline, building the wall, cutting off money to “sanctuary cities,” deporting illegals who had committed crimes, restricting immigration from terror-laden countries, freezing nonmilitary government hiring, laying a groundwork for assuring the integrity of voter registration rolls, withdrawing from the Obama–Kerry multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership, saving jobs at Carrier, GM, Ford, and Boeing, ordering a hiring freeze in the executive branch, ordering a moratorium on new federal regulations, ordering the Commerce Department to formulate “Made in America” rules for all steel used on pipeline construction, ordering an end to aid to any international agency that promotes or provides abortion services, and so much more.  The Deep State, initially knocked off balance, regrouped and worked to sabotage his programs and destroy him personally. Although Trump knowingly had promised to “Drain the Swamp,” he soon discovered that its depth sank deeper than expected. Democrats started running to Obama judges and Clinton judges; scouring the Ninth Circuit in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland; and amassing nationwide injunctions stopping almost every Trump initiative. They kept spreading lies and falsehoods about him through their media accomplices and cooking up scandals — anything. In time, they found themselves a Michael Cohen, a Stormy Daniels, and a Michael Avenatti. Any cartoon character they could find to divert Trump from his agenda would do. They attacked his mental acuity and threatened to invoke the 25th Amendment, something they never would replicate in four years under a doddering Joe Biden. They accused him of abusing the presidency simply to accumulate personal wealth, an accusation they never hurled at Biden or his son when Hunter Biden started collecting $50,000 monthly from a Ukrainian oil and energy company, Burisma, or when Hunter started selling his “paintings.” And then, once the Democrats gained the House majority, came the annual impeachments. They knew their two impeachments — both thrown out by the Senate — would never gain the necessary votes for conviction, but they pursued them as part of their effort to tie him up, obstruct his agenda, and shred his reputation. There is no way for future historians fully to grasp how remarkably successful Trump 47’s first year has been without also regarding what his would-be destroyers taught Trump 45.  He and his team had four years to reflect “in the wilderness,” empowering Trump 47 to begin with many advantages he had seeded for himself the first time. For example, Trump 45 executive orders had been stymied regularly by Obama or Clinton judges’ nationwide injunctions and would linger in the queue as they wound their way up to the Supreme Court. But they did get there eventually, and the Court frequently reversed the Democrat district judges and appellate panels that initially had obstructed him. Consequently, Trump 47 entered office with a slew of legal obstacles already set aside. Therefore, as soon as the money would be allocated by Congress, the “big beautiful wall” could be completed. Illegal aliens could be deported so much more rapidly. ICE could function at once, with the benefit of four years that were devoted to mapping out new strategies to overcome “sanctuary” cities and states. That popular vote validation he received this time gives him room to bring in his loyalists. He is no longer restricted to “respectable” people with “impressive lifetime resumes” and “impeccable credentials.” This time, he has loyalists upon whom he can rely when the going gets tough. Pam Bondi, in Justice, is more scrappy than the elegantly dignified Jeff Sessions and seasoned Bill Barr, but scrappy he needed. Pete Hegseth, in the newly named Department of War, is a tough guy whom the media united to destroy over his sketchy past, but whom Trump believed had matured from mistakes and who shares Trump’s “warrior culture.” There’s also Marco Rubio in State, and more. Trump 47 learned from Trump 45 that he is no impostor, knows the job well, can execute the job splendidly, and will best succeed by ignoring the well-meaning Republican “practical” people whose advice historically has contributed to the mess. This time, for instance, he put a Kash Patel at the FBI instead of a Christopher Wray, who was “experienced from the inside.” He also has a Tom Homan and a Kristi Noem — and she can ride a horse at the border. Just a solid team of loyalists who were prepared and ready to make history from day one with an agenda learned from four years of Trump 45 experience. Trump 47 learned from Trump 45 that he is no impostor. Trump has learned to handle press meetings differently. There is no more abuse. The troublemakers and disrupters have been thrown out. There are no special privileges for “legacy media” if they misbehave. In this, he was helped by fortuitous timing. CNN’s ratings collapsed, humbling their brazen behavior at pressers. MSNBC’s did as well. Major hecklers have been terminated or otherwise neutralized from the networks’ insides and by their own missteps: Don Lemon, Brian Stelter, Acosta, Joy Reid, and others. George Stephanopoulos stepped into a mess of his own making. CBS’s 60 Minutes, too. They all have paid heavily, upending the balance of power in the press room. When 45 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved America’s embassy there from Tel Aviv, all the “experts” warned him he was igniting a regional war, possibly even World War III. However, he followed his instincts, and there was no actualized pushback. That confirmed for Trump 47 that he has remarkable instincts. If he believes tariffs will not set off runaway inflation, then he need not fear “common wisdom” and doing what seems obvious to him after he has consulted with his loyalist advisers. Sure enough, the tariffs have not generated runaway inflation and an international trade war after all, but have massively increased government receipts. He laser-beamed toward the radical woke universities that exposed themselves as hotbeds of anti-Americanism, DEI immorality, and Jew-hate, and he struck at their vulnerable pocketbooks and their foreign student cash cows. He attacked immediately so that he would have time to fight them through the courts and repair the campus problem within his four years. In tandem, Trump 47 learned from Trump 45 that anything new he would launch would be blocked again by the network of Obama and, now, Biden judges. So, instead of proceeding at a measured pace, Trump 47 issued as many executive orders and ignited as many battles as he could because they all would be halted soon enough by the Obama and Biden judges, and a frustrating pause would ensue while each appeal would wind its way through the appellate circuits up to the Supreme Court. But he now knew from hands-on experience that, despite the way left-wing media would report, a steady stream of lower-court reversals and obnoxious judicial tongue-lashings and threats of contempt ultimately would augur and prove nothing. While the New York Times and Washington Post gleefully would be calling him a tyrant being reined in by the courts, he now knew from Trump 45’s experience that his perfectly legal executive orders ultimately would be upheld by the Supreme Court. The sooner he would issue them, the sooner the Obama and Biden judges would nullify them, and the sooner the Supreme Court would green-light them. On foreign affairs, he mixed his demand that European NATO countries fork over more money for defense with his determination to keep America out of Europe’s problems and our boys out of others’ wars. His simple solution: Let the Europeans spend more on defense, particularly on buying American weapons that they, in turn, can hand over to Ukraine. In that way, instead of America paying for Volodymyr Zelensky’s war, we profit financially and our boys remain home while Europe bears its load. Having gained experience in international diplomacy and peacemaking when he crafted the Abraham Accords as Trump 45, his 47 counterpart has crafted peace between Thailand and Cambodia, India and Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia, Rwanda and the Congo, and on several other fronts. With Iran vowing to wipe the “Little Satan” (Israel) and then “the Great Satan” (America) off the map, he methodically let Israel bear the yeoman’s burden of the Twelve-Day War with Iran and then delivered the finishing blow by demolishing Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, something only America is capable of doing.  On domestic policy, too, Trump 47 gained wisdom from Trump 45. Last time, he had to deal with Antifa and blue Democrat mayors inciting destabilizing street violence in situations like the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. Counterintuitively, mayors who should have been putting out the fires to protect their citizens played Democrat politics: They let their own cities burn for a while, disseminating dramatic scenes of a country ablaze and out of control, therefore suggesting a need for new national leadership that could better handle Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Accordingly, Trump arrived this time with a striking new plan: send in the National Guard when blue Democrat mayors and governors try to inflame their streets to destabilize his governance. Do not rely on them to do what they were elected to do. They won’t. They will undercut and sabotage law enforcement. So police the streets for them by sending in the National Guard just as Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson had done. Yes, this strategy would be tested through the Obama and Biden judges, so he had to act quickly — at the first opportunity — to allow time for the cases to work their way to the Supreme Court. Then smooth sailing. Trump 47 arrived ready, locked and loaded. He had in hand the court rulings from Trump 45 to secure the border and deport illegal aliens, even before gaining new congressional financing to finish the wall. His tariffs were ready to implement: He knew which countries to hit hardest, which to let slide, and on which products to focus. He knew what needed to be done to rebuild the military into a Department of War and recruit a new generation of warriors to fight. And after four years of Biden–Harris, he also benefited unintentionally by entering after a particularly weak, brittle, and doddering president was being shown the door. People could not wait for Joe and Jill to leave. Kamala and Doug had blown their way through a billion and a half dollars and had left the Democrat Party in tatters, without a plan, an identity, or a clue.  Trump 47 also learned one more critical thing from Trump 45: The midterms carry all the weight in the world. A Republican win ensures his agenda for the duration of his term. By contrast, if Democrats come in, almost everything stops, and it is back to impeachments, investigations, chaos, and mayhem. Last time, he did not treat the 2018 midterms as life or death. He has learned and owes so much to Trump 45. Subscribe to The American Spectator to receive our fall 2025 print magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Pop Music Isn’t as Popular

In one of his Spectator A.M. letters this week, our Dan Flynn noted that Taylor Swift occupies eight of the top ten slots on the current Billboard Hot 100. That’s astounding.  I was certainly struck by that. Not because I’m struck by Taylor Swift. I’m not a Tay Tay boy. I suppose that’s more the role of so-called “soy boys,” or the special role of Tay Tay’s boy, Travis Kelce, a.k.a. “Mr. Swift” — or as the most excellent Aaron Rodgers has dubbed him, “Mr. Pfizer.” Nothing against Ms. Swift, but her tunes just aren’t my thing, and neither are her politics. Now if Ms. Sydney Sweeney starts singing, I might become a fan boy. I’m a fan of her politics as well as her genes. Though I will not be buying her used bath soap. In fact, as a loyal husband, father of three daughters, 58-year-old man, and good Catholic boy, I attempt to avert my eyes from her jeans videos, avoiding a trip to the confessional. But I digress! I was speaking of Swift before being distracted by Sweeney. And my primary focus in this column is not Tay Tay’s tunes but pop music — today and back in the day. In my humble opinion, the heyday for the Billboard music charts was the late 1970s and early 1980s, captured uniquely by the iconic “American Top 40” broadcasts delivered on thousands of stations coast to coast by the legendary Casey Kasem. Thanks to Sirius XM’s 1970s station (plus iHeartRadio), I listen to these re-broadcasts while on the road during long drives. They keep me awake. Even when I (frequently) don’t like the song at hand, I’m occupied by the nostalgic trip down memory lane. The old shows have become history to me as much as music. But what always strikes me when listening is the stark contrast between pop music then and now, evident in their respective top 40/100 charts. In the late 1970s, a singer would not have had eight of the top 10 records. No one dominated like that. As to how Taylor Swift today could be so dominant, Dan Flynn rightly notes: “The chart’s formula differs dramatically, for better and worse, from when it started 67 years ago. Digital buys and streaming, rather than the heavy emphasis on singles sales and radio airplay, now heavily influence placement. This formula allows for album tracks to invade the charts.”  And many if not most of these songs need not be particularly good or memorable. Dan adds: “Dating back decades prior to the start of my life, I can hum or sing one, a few, or all of the songs in any given top ten. More than five decades after my birth, I cannot hum a one. Popular music is not as popular as it once was.” Indeed, it is not. My theory, admittedly not based on scientific analysis, is that the competition for the likes of Swift today is nowhere near what it was at the height of pop music in the latter 1970s. If you’re a fan of that era, try this experiment: When you hear a big song from that period, Google it to see whether it hit No. 1. Oftentimes, it did not. Why? Because it was squeezed out by so many competitors. I could give many examples. Sticking I suppose to pretty blondes (an unintentional motif here today), consider my favorite: Olivia Newton-John. A bunch of her songs that you probably figured hit No. 1 surprisingly did not. It wasn’t that they weren’t good enough or liked enough or sold enough copies. They were simply blocked by a plethora of other wildly popular tunes. That includes some of her best from the brilliant Grease soundtrack, including “Hopelessly Devoted to You.” As another example (shifting from blondes, I guess), the beautiful Crystal Gayle had a smash hit with “Don’t It Make My Brown Eyes Blue.” Would you believe that song never made No. 1? How? Because Debby Boone’s “You Light Up My Life” occupied the top spot for 10 weeks in 1977.  And if Debby Boone was not keeping an artist from No. 1, it might be a group like the Bee Gees, which had over a half dozen No. 1 songs in the latter 1970s, or another favorite of mine (not blonde), Donna Summers, who had four No. 1 songs in 1978–79. (Summers, incidentally, was a conservative Christian Republican and Reagan supporter.) The other day, I caught Jefferson Starship’s “Miracles.” Terrific melody. I wondered how many weeks it was at No. 1. I looked it up. The answer: zero. It never got higher than No. 3.  One would think that many of these ’70s tunes would be an easy No. 1 today, given the sheer lack of rivals.  Again, I have no hard data on this, but I’m guessing that the era of steepest competition must have been the late 1970s. Though I’m actually more of an ’80s kid (Butler High School class of ’84), I don’t enjoy the American Top 40 re-broadcasts from the late 1980s. The music wasn’t as good. Frequently, I’ll catch the top five from a certain week in, say, 1988, and shriek at my radio, “I hated these songs! These songs suck!” (That’s how we Butler dudes talked.) They didn’t face the crowded field occupied by the diddys of the ”70s. Either way, in those days, pop music was more popular. Young people might think that older guys like myself are merely uninformed about today’s music. But I would tell them that you had to live through my era to appreciate the perspective. Pop music pervaded everything, from your car to boombox, transistor radio, the portable cassette and eight-track players you toted around to the park or beach, or wherever. Teens flooded record stores in malls and bought albums and 45s. Every kid had a stereo and record player. Pop groups and soloists like The Osmonds, Jackson 5, The Carpenters, Tony Orlando & Dawn, Sonny & Cher, Andy Gibb, and John Denver had their own TV shows or specials (many were corny, but also refreshingly innocent).  The pop music environment today is not as saturated. Youth have many more options for entertainment, especially via video. And frankly, it’s surely a good thing that pop music no longer has the same influence. Much of that music and its messages were gobbledygook. Many love songs were sappy and silly, so much so that Paul McCartney wrote one of the best songs of the decade under the title, “Silly Love Songs.” Much of it was twaddle. You hummed and tapped your toes, but the lyrics were stupid. But that aside, pop music is not as popular as it once was.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Problems in Canada’s Constitution Lead to Land Grab for Cowichan Tribes

When I returned to Canada in 1981, after having lived in the United States for 15 years, then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was in the process of what was called “repatriating” the Canadian Constitution. I remember being appalled by the process and the final result. To be clear, a good argument could be made for doing what the PM was doing. At the time Canada already had a constitution, it was called the British North America Act of 1867, but it was an act passed by the British Parliament when granting Canada independence and as such could only be amended by said Parliament. Since it stemmed from the constitutional tradition of England, the British North America Act was not that bad for what it was, but the idea of devising a made-in-Canada constitution had a lot of merit both because it would give more independence to the country and also provide an opportunity for Canada to craft a formal Bill of Rights that could be referenced moving forward. But, as ever, the devil was in the details and on this score the process and the result were seriously flawed. What bothered me most about the process was the lack of grassroots participation and open public debate. Canada has no equivalent of The Federalist Papers, which contributed so much to the framing of the American Constitution. Instead, the prime minister and the premiers of the provinces, with advice from government lawyers, hammered things out among themselves with little to no input from ordinary Canadians. The crown jewel of the Act was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the Canadian equivalent of the American Bill of Rights but without its two most prominent pillars, the First and Second Amendments. So today the Carney administration, as well as that of Justin Trudeau before him, has busied itself with enacting legislation that entail both censorship and the confiscation of legal arms. The repatriation also enabled judicial review of parliamentary legislation, which in Canada, as in the United States, has resulted in judicial activism. Most notably in 1988 in its Morgentaler decision, the Supreme Courts struck down Canada’s abortion law on the basis that it violated the Charter, and, to this day, Canada has no abortion law whatsoever. To be clear, the decision did not enunciate a right to abortion, but it removed all obstacles to abortion on demand at any point of gestation, which for all intents and purposes has had much the same effect. Therefore, in Canada, unlike, say, in Europe, where abortion is generally quite restricted after the first trimester, abortion is available up to the moment just before birth. Moreover, fearing backlash from the pro-choice lobby, since Morgentaler no party has had the courage to try to pass any abortion legislation whatsoever. There were other lobbies that came into play during the hammering out of the Canadian Constitution. Two special interest groups, namely the aboriginal and women’s rights lobbies, insisted on being given special recognition within the document. Moreover, when it was proposed that property rights be enshrined in the Constitution, the New Democratic Party (NDP), Canada’s socialist party, came out adamantly opposed to it, and so this never happened. It must be remembered that the right of the citizen to own property is a prominent feature of classical liberal philosophy going back to the 17th century Enlightenment. Thus, in his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke wrote: Though the earth, and all inferiour creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. This principle is what underpins the process of homesteading, of pioneering, and generally of “settling the land,” to use an expression so hated by the Marxists and World Economic Forum (WEF) — “you will own nothing” — types. Anyone who has read about the extreme hardship of homesteading, or of pioneering life in general, knows how backbreaking was the labor needed to make a claim to ownership of the land.  On the other hand, this philosophy naturally has no meaning to peoples who live a nomadic life. Theirs is rather more like the life of campers. They arrive somewhere with their portable living quarters, exploit the environment by hunting, fishing, and foraging, and, when they have depleted it, move on to repeat the cycle elsewhere. Therefore, the idea of private land ownership and of boundaries is foreign to them. This is not to say that nomads never fought over a particular territory. On the contrary, fighting over and displacing one another from a territory that was particularly fruitful was a feature of this way of life. During the early days of settling of Canada by Europeans, the relationship between the colonists and the Aboriginal population varied over time and place. It was collaborative during the era of the fur trade and discordant at other times, but eventually the settlers became dominant and treaties were written and signed to settle disputes. But they were never properly settled. This issue came up recently in a case in British Colombia where an aboriginal band made claim to a huge area in and around the city of Richmond. In Juno News, lawyer Peter Best writes: The worst thing that can happen to a property owner isn’t a flood or a leaky foundation. It’s learning that you don’t own your property – that an Aboriginal band does. This summer’s Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision presented property owners in Richmond B.C. with exactly that horrible reality, awarding Aboriginal title to numerous properties, private and governmental, situated within a large portion of Richmond’s Fraser River riverfront area, to Vancouver Island’s Cowichan Tribes. For more than 150 years, these properties had been owned privately or by the government. The Cowichan Tribes had never permanently lived there. But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young ruled that because the lands had never been formally surrendered by the Cowichans to the Crown by treaty, (there were no land-surrender treaties for most of B.C.), the first Crown grants to the first settlers were in effect null and void and thus all subsequent transfers down the chain of title to the present owners were defective and invalid. So, this is where the negotiations have begun, and who knows where they will end. The evidence for this claim provided by the Band is all hearsay and oral tradition, and, in making her decision, Justice Young acknowledged this fact, but, flouting the normal evidentiary demands of Canadian law, accepted it anyway. Best also observed, “She thanked Aboriginal witnesses with the word ‘Huychq’u,’ which she omitted to translate for the benefit of others reading her decision.”  One cannot help but imagine that this judge must have felt good about herself in writing this decision. After all, she’s in the vibe. Canada is big on “land acknowledgments.” One hears them preceding most public events and even some private ones. There’s nothing like the warm and fuzzy feeling that some folks get in their chests from this type of virtue signaling. But it’s not all about feeling good. As one can see from this case in British Colombia, this kind of thinking and feeling can have enormous consequences when translated into action in the real world. And not for the common good.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Putin’s Long Game and Trump’s Peacemaker Illusion

In recent months, what seemed to be a hardening U.S. position on Russia suddenly softened again. After a two-hour phone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in mid-October, whose contents were never disclosed, Trump’s tone changed markedly.  Soon after, he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky but declined to provide Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles — an aid package many analysts saw as essential to helping Kyiv defeat Moscow.  Zelensky returned to Kyiv empty-handed, having traveled far in hopes of securing the long-range weapons, only to face rejection in a tense White House meeting described by Zelensky as “positive” but ultimately fruitless.  The episode illustrates a familiar pattern. Each time Trump expresses firm resolve against Moscow — such as threatening to supply advanced missiles — Putin reaches out, and the tension eases. What they discuss remains secret, but the result is predictable: the Russian leader stabilizes his position while Trump steps back from action, as seen in their stalled plans for a second summit in Hungary following the October call, where Putin reportedly demanded major territorial concessions from Ukraine.  Putin’s strategy is to prolong the war. He fights and negotiates alternately, never closing the door on “peace talks,” but never committing to real peace — often issuing empty overtures that drag discussions without resolution, extending the conflict by years. Trump, motivated by his desire to end wars and cast himself as the global peacemaker — having claimed to resolve seven conflicts since his second inauguration — is easily drawn into this cycle.  His own ambition, including subtle nods from allies toward a Nobel Peace Prize, has blinded him to the fact that Putin is manipulating that very image, using vague promises to retract threats like the Tomahawk missiles, citing fears of escalation despite initially wielding them as leverage.  Trump believes his personal charm and deal-making prowess bring results, but Putin sees it as an opportunity. Every time Trump engages, it ends with delays or withdrawals of support for Ukraine, giving Russia time, space, and confidence. This merchant-like approach, prioritizing short-term gains over moral principles, has allowed Putin to exploit Trump’s peacemaker illusion, binding U.S. policy to erratic swings that ultimately prolong the war and weaken Ukraine’s hand.  The Divided Democracies and the United Autocrats While the United States and Europe hesitate, the authoritarian bloc acts in concert. North Korea has already sent thousands of soldiers to assist Russia, with estimates ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 troops deployed in regions like Kursk, where they operate reconnaissance drones and provide frontline support.  Cuba has dispatched thousands more — Ukrainian intelligence identifying at least 1,076 Cuban nationals fighting for Moscow, with broader estimates suggesting 4,000 to 25,000 recruits, often lured by financial incentives and visas, though Havana officially denies involvement.  Beijing has not publicly committed troops, but reports indicate covert involvement, including Chinese nationals captured fighting for Russia and surging exports of dual-use technologies like fiber optic drone components that bolster Moscow’s military capabilities. Furthermore, by purchasing Russian oil and supplying materials, China provides Moscow with a steady stream of hard currency — money that sustains its war machine.  The logic of this alignment is simple. For the autocracies, Russia’s survival is a collective interest. If Moscow falls, the rest of the authoritarian world trembles, risking a domino effect on regimes in Pyongyang, Havana, and Beijing. For them, the war in Ukraine is not just about territory but about regime security. They share intelligence, manpower, and logistics because they share a fate — one of mutual survival against democratic pressures.  By contrast, the democracies are fragmented. Each Western country has its own calculations — how much aid to give, how much involvement to risk, how much domestic political capital to spend. The result is hesitation disguised as prudence: strong rhetoric from the U.S., UK, and EU, but delays in decisive action, such as direct troop deployments or unrestricted weapons transfers. The West wants Ukraine to win, but without being drawn into the war; it wants to take the moral high ground, but without the will to defend it fully.  Putin and Xi Jinping have understood this weakness perfectly. They know that the democratic world’s unity is conditional and easily tested, allowing the authoritarian axis to outpace them in cohesion and commitment.  Ukraine’s Lonely Battle In this environment, Ukraine fights largely on its own. The Western alliance provides words and limited aid, but not the decisive measures needed to change the course of the war — such as the withheld Tomahawk missiles that could enable deeper strikes into Russian territory.  Britain and Europe issue statements of support; Washington debates every weapons shipment, even as Russia escalates attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure ahead of winter.  Meanwhile, North Korean and Cuban troops are already deployed in Russia, and Chinese support continues quietly through economic and technological channels.  Zelensky’s situation is increasingly precarious. Without long-range missiles and other advanced weapons, Ukrainian forces cannot effectively strike Russia’s infrastructure or logistics, as evidenced by ongoing grinding battles where Russia gains minimal territory at high cost.  Each delay in Western assistance erodes Ukraine’s position and strengthens Moscow’s hand, leading to prolonged attrition that consumes lives, resources, and morale. Yet, Ukraine persists: Recent drone strikes have targeted Russian oil refineries and fuel depots, disrupting energy production and economic lifelines, potentially shifting the balance if the war drags on.  The longer the conflict endures, the more it becomes a test of endurance — and endurance favors the side willing to pay the price, with Ukraine relying on its resilience and innovative tactics like unmanned aerial assaults on Russian strategic sites.  The Need for a Consistent Strategy The democratic world still looks to Washington for leadership, and within Washington, Trump remains the central figure shaping its direction. But leadership requires consistency. A strategy that swings between confrontation and accommodation — such as threatening missiles only to retract after a secretive call — only confuses allies and emboldens adversaries.  Putin has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted. His diplomacy is tactical, not sincere; his peace overtures are pauses, not solutions, as seen in rejected ceasefire proposals demanding Ukrainian concessions.  If Trump truly seeks peace, he must understand that genuine peace requires leverage, not just personal relationships — abandoning pressures on Zelensky to cede occupied territories, which undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and reward aggression. The West must recognize that the war in Ukraine is not only a regional conflict but a contest between two political systems — one authoritarian and expansionist, the other democratic but uncertain of itself. If the democracies remain divided and hesitant, they will lose not only Ukraine but also the credibility of their own values.  Peace built on illusion is not peace; it is delay. The task before Trump and the West is to replace illusion with strategy, and sympathy with resolve. Only then can peace have meaning — and endurance. Ukraine’s self-reliance offers hope: through determined resistance and strikes on Russian vulnerabilities, it may yet expand its gains and prevail, proving that in a world short on moral clarity, victors speak loudest.  Shaomin Li is a professor of international business at Old Dominion University. READ MORE: On the Frontlines of the War That Will Change Europe From Alaska to Ukraine: Russia’s Empire of Imagined Returns The Art of the Deal, Russia–Ukraine Style
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Trump’s White House Makeover Rankles Washington

WASHINGTON — The partial government shutdown hit its 23rd day Thursday, yet much of Washington has been consumed with rage because President Donald Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House to make way for his dream Big Beautiful Ballroom. The timing is so convenient for the 47th president that you have to wonder if Trump decided to tear down the East Wing for a new building now because it detracts from the shutdown. Naaah. He doesn’t care. And as I think about it, the real beef critics have with the demolition may be that Trump got the teardown done at lightning speed in a town that is used to a snail’s pace and partisan sabotage. The demo job started Monday was done by Thursday afternoon. Four days — that’s just over a third of the 11 days during which former Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci held the job. The speed of government has accelerated during Trump’s second term. Now that the teardown is done, there’s no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. After his term out of office, Trump apparently committed to doing what he wants first, and not so much as asking for permission later. He left no room for the usual stall tactics that kill housing developments and other big construction projects. When you see the photos of what’s left of the East Wing, beware. The East Wing is not the stately building you’ve seen with the amazing crescent-shaped portico that overlooks the South Lawn. That building is the executive residence. It’s easy to be confused about the building’s name because the residence building with the portico houses the famous East Room, which remains untouched. (Yes, I know Trump has said the project would not “interfere with the current building” — and that turned out to be wrong.) I look at the portico and recall the October evening in 2020 when Trump returned from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for coronavirus treatment. His walk up the winding stairway showed a president on the mend. The East Wing, which was first built in 1902 and rebuilt in 1942, is a less visible building that has served as the traditional site for first ladies’ offices. Trump was able to move at warp speed because he and big donors are funding the teardown and the new building with private money, including, according to the White House, Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and the Adelson Family Foundation. So while the price tag for the project has grown from $200 million to $300 million, taxpayers won’t be stuck with the tab. The arrangement no doubt frosts the perennial Trump opposition, but when you think of how many other projects have burned time and billions, there may be something to be said for the Trump route. I think about the California High-Speed Rail project, which was supposed to link Los Angeles to the Bay Area. In 2008, Californians approved a bond measure to fund $33 billion for a project expected to be done by 2020. Five years after that due date, there is no train to catch. Do I share Trump’s taste for glitter and gilt? No. But the next president will be free to rebuild and redecorate the White House as he or she sees fit. Elections have consequences. And change is inevitable. The Review-Journal is owned by the Adelson family. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 1947 out of 98034
  • 1943
  • 1944
  • 1945
  • 1946
  • 1947
  • 1948
  • 1949
  • 1950
  • 1951
  • 1952
  • 1953
  • 1954
  • 1955
  • 1956
  • 1957
  • 1958
  • 1959
  • 1960
  • 1961
  • 1962
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund