Seattle Mayor-Elect Katie Wilson bragged about her approach to economics which causes the very affordability crisis she is claiming to stop: high minimum wages and high corporate taxes. The spoiled liberal woke white woman, daughter of a rich, privileged family, is coming from ideology, not common sense. These women are dangerous and a threat to […] The post Seattle Mayor-Elect Wilson Plans a Serious Affordability Crisis appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Cracker Barrel rebrand debacle has been one of the most misunderstood corporate wokeness sagas of 2025. For months, it’s been held up as an example of the failures of ‘culture war conservatism,’ a tempest in a teapot that no one really cared about. Yet, we recently received data-driven proof that the backlash to one of America’s most beloved country brands has been anything but imaginary. At first glance, it would appear the outrage from consumers and shareholders was simply about the advent of a minimalist logo. The reality, however, is that Cracker Barrel’s performance has been slipping for years. For example, if you invested $1,000 in Cracker Barrel at the start of 2021, it would be worth less than $300 today. That can’t be explained away by a simple logo change. That’s a major problem, years in the making. But the real test for Cracker Barrel wasn’t whether customers would forgive Uncle Herschel and his wayward brand. It was whether investors would forgive the Barrel’s board of directors, specifically embattled CEO Julie Felss Masino. On November 20, Cracker Barrel held its annual shareholder meeting, and we found out exactly how much investor trust had been destroyed. Simply put: a lot. A large percentage of investor votes are guided by the recommendation of proxy advisory firms, none of which were inclined to let Cracker Barrel walk away from the debacle scot-free. In the lead-up to the meeting, much of the ire was focused on Gilbert Dávila, Cracker Barrel’s compensation committee chair and a marketing and diversity specialist, advising a vote against, with some firms also advising against re-electing Jody Bilney, the chair of the Barrel’s nominating/governance committee. CEO Masino wasn’t spared either, with proxy advisory firm Egan-Jones recommending a ‘no’ vote over the brand’s underperformance. Pay attention to these names — this is how you measure impact. The outcome? CEO Julie Felss Masino failed to gain support from a quarter of shareholder votes. Bilney, the nominating chair, lost almost a third of shareholder support. And Gilbert Dávila, the diversity specialist, barely broke two-fifths of shareholder support, resigning after the meeting. In fact, of the 10 directors up for election, seven of them didn’t break 90% support. That may not sound like much, but in a corporate context, let’s be clear: that’s a vote of “no confidence” from a very sizable number of shareholders. For comparison, in a 2024 pressure campaign against ExxonMobil, left-wing activist efforts successfully brought down vote counts by a single percentage point — to 95%. Exxon’s CEO, Darren Woods, lost maybe 1% percent of investor support over manufactured outrage. Cracker Barrel’s CEO lost around 20% percent investor support as a result of real outrage. If you’ll recall, Cracker Barrel made the risky and seemingly unprompted decision to change its logo in August of 2025. In an attempt to reach a younger, less nostalgia-driven audience, they removed ‘Uncle Herschel’ from the classic logo that had been emblazoned on storefronts since 1969. But that move didn’t proceed as anticipated. The rebrand got all the wrong attention, from ordinary customers to President Trump to a wide swath of conservative commentators, with Rod Dreher deeming the marketing shift “the New Coke of corporate logos.” And Cracker Barrel, to its very limited credit, listened. After a flurry of negative X impressions and customer protests, the company walked back the rebrand. “We hear you,” Cracker Barrel announced, shortly before restoring their old logo, firing their design firm, and embarking on one of the most embarrassing rollbacks in recent corporate marketing history. “We heard clearly that the modern remodel redesign does not reflect what you love about Cracker Barrel.” And then, you might think, the story ends. On the business side of things, however, the apology isn’t the final salvo in any marketing fumble. Customers might forgive a brand — but there was a lot more than a logo change to forgive. Actions have consequences. It’s one of the most foundational principles of business, economics, and politics. In Cracker Barrel’s case, however, an even more foundational principle is being played out in real time: ideas have consequences. Ideas, like allowing political bias to seep into our most prominent corporate institutions, have severe consequences — like a billion dollars’ worth of largely avoidable brand damage. It’s very easy to look at the Cracker Barrel saga and conclude that it’s a non-issue, a side cultural issue invented to invent victimhood where it doesn’t exist. Yet it’s not true. Cracker Barrel’s failure isn’t a MAGA-generated victim narrative, despite what MSNBC hosts like Jonathan Capehart might want you to believe. The company’s struggles have hurt people of all political stripes. Using a historic, valuable brand to test pet marketing theories isn’t just a matter of X debate. It’s a threat to the financial futures of millions of Americans, including Cracker Barrel’s roughly 70,000 employees who depend on the company’s success. Many of those Americans just made their opinions known, sending a clear sign: there’s serious trouble ahead at the Barrel. The rebrand was only the tip of a very large iceberg, and it’s not just going to be hand-waved away, least of all by the CEO and what’s left of the corporate board that allowed it to happen. * * * Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X @IsaacWillour. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek.

WASHINGTON—The Department of Health and Human Services took momentous action Wednesday to protect the rights of parents to know what medical procedures their children are being subjected to. The department opened an investigation into a Midwestern school that allegedly illegally vaccinated a child, ignoring a religious exemption request the parents had submitted under state law. Additionally, HHS issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to health care providers emphasizing that federal law requires them to let parents access health information about their children. The department also ordered its Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to add a grant requirement noting that any funding recipients must comply with federal and state parental-consent laws for any “services or care provided to minors at HRSA-supported health centers as a condition of receiving Health Center Program funds.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said in a statement Wednesday that HHS was “putting pediatric medical professionals on notice.” “You cannot sideline parents,” the HHS secretary said. “When providers ignore parental consent, violate exemptions to vaccine mandates, or keep parents in the dark about their children’s care, we will act decisively. We will use every tool at our disposal to protect families and restore accountability.” The action is particularly momentous given the progressive activist push in recent years to promote “Adolescent Medicine” — the idea that medical professionals should be able to give medical care to children without telling parents. In many blue states across the country, particularly under President Joe Biden’s administration, activists were pushing the notion that young girls and boys struggling with their gender identity should be able to transition without their parents’ knowledge or consent, or that young girls should be able to obtain abortions or other medical procedures their parents were unaware of. HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Paul Stannard told The Daily Wire in a phone interview that the department was first made aware of “Adolescent Medicine” and its dangers through a report issued by “Do No Harm,” a group that fights back against gender ideology, and has raised many concerns about the medical community transitioning children without parental consent. Stannard called this activist push for “Adolescent Medicine” very “concerning,” particularly from her perspective and her role in enforcing HIPAA. US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (L) looks on as President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 2025. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images) “Part of what the HIPAA rules outline are the rights that individuals and their personal representatives have with respect to their health information,” she noted. “And one of those rights is the right to access. Starting in the first Trump administration, we had begun an initiative to enforce the individual’s right to access of their medical records. And so when I saw this, I immediately decided and recommended to the secretary that we further emphasize this particular aspect of the privacy rule in our enforcement efforts under this initiative.” The HHS Office of Civil Rights is reminding health care providers, in very plain terms, of a parent’s right to access their child’s health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule, which states that a parent is the personal representative of their child and has the legal authority to make health care decisions for the child. In the department’s “Dear Colleague” letter, HHS emphasized that parents are indeed their children’s personal representatives and absolutely have the right of access to their child’s health information. Additionally, the HHS Office of Civil Rights says it is initiating compliance reviews of many health care providers to make sure that parents are not just receiving their child’s health information, but are also receiving it in a timely manner. “Both the president and the secretary are very focused on making sure that parents’ rights are respected and enforced,” Stannard explained. “We are investigating the particular healthcare provider, as well as the state, to find out what the facts are and to make sure that the state and the providers understand what federal law requires with respect to parental rights and religious exemptions for vaccination or the vaccines for children program,” noting the investigation into the Midwestern school.  HHS’ Office for Civil Rights will be investigating whether the school, which it did not name, failed to comply with the requirements of the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC). It will also scrutinize how the state agency and the school district are processing religious exemption requests to make sure they are in compliance with state law as they interpret the Vaccines for Children Program — a program which Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary and CDC Acting Director Jim O’Neill says should “never circumvent parents’ rights.” “Secretary Kennedy’s decision to probe potential abuse of the VFC is a necessary step in restoring public trust in immunization policy,” O’Neill said Wednesday.

What do you think?

It’s always the same playbook the hawks use for war.

'I didn't stutter when I said it'

Column Teen Horror Time Machine The Gift That Keeps on Taking: Fatal Secrets  Stop giving the traumatized girl late night shifts at the haunted toy shop! By Alissa Burger | Published on December 4, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share Holidays are stressful: family drama, trying to find just the right gift for that special someone, a jam-packed social calendar. But in Richie Tankersley Cusick’s Fatal Secrets (1992), Ryan McCauley’s holiday season is next-level terrible. Ryan’s sister Marissa came home from college to spend Thanksgiving with her family and while the sisters were walking together in the woods and gathering pinecones for a garland, Marissa told Ryan that she was afraid she might be in some trouble: she stumbled upon someone’s dark secret, and while she has to get a roll of film developed to know for sure, she thinks she has incriminating evidence. Marissa didn’t want to say more, not until she could be sure, but she never got the chance to find out. When the girls argued and set out in different directions, Marissa fell through the ice on a river and though Ryan did all she could to save her, Marissa drowned and her body was never recovered. Now Christmas is just around the corner–but between Ryan’s guilt and her mother’s grief, no one in the McCauley house is feeling very jolly.  Ryan blames herself for Marissa’s death, telling her best friend Phoebe “If only we hadn’t gone up there … if only she hadn’t gone with me” (11). She projects this self-abasement onto her mother as well, convinced that “when Mom looks at me, she’s seeing Marissa and wishing things were all switched around” (11). Ryan’s mother is incapacitated by her own grief, spending hours sitting in Marissa’s room, barely hearing a word Ryan says to her. Ryan and her mom love one another, but right now, Marissa’s absence is all either of them can see or feel.  Though her mother is incapable of offering comfort, Ryan has a pretty good larger support system: her mom’s boyfriend Steve is understanding and does what he can to comfort both Ryan and her mother, even acting as an intermediary between them when needed. Her best friend Phoebe works to cajole Ryan out of her depression, trying to distract her with caroling and thoughts about who Ryan should invite to the New Year’s dance (though Phoebe is prone to flights of boy-crazy distraction that occasionally keep her from seeing when Ryan is really struggling). Phoebe’s little brother Jinx can be pretty annoying, but is always there for Ryan when she needs him, whether it’s to give her a ride home or chase down a would-be intruder he spotted near the kitchen door. A mysterious and handsome boy named Winchester seems to finally be taking an interest in Ryan, and her boss at the toy shop where she works, a little old man named Mr. Partini, looks out for her and dotes on her.  The McCauleys are struggling heading into the Christmas season and things get even more complicated when a young man named Charles Eastman shows up on their doorstep with a pile of Christmas gifts. He tells Ryan and her mother that he knew Marissa: they had a few classes together, were good friends, and had been dating for awhile. They’d done some Christmas shopping together before Thanksgiving break, and when he found some of the gifts Marissa had bought for her family at his place, he decided to bring them by. Ryan’s mom welcomes Charles warmly into their home, desperate for anyone who can get her a bit closer to her daughter’s final days and offer insight to the life she was living on campus, but Ryan is a bit more uncertain, convinced that when she introduced herself to Charles at the door, he said “You’re the one who let her drown” (38), though this could just be a projection of the guilt she feels. When it turns out that Charles has no family and will be spending the holidays alone, Ryan’s mom invites him to stay with them, giving Charles Ryan’s bedroom and decamping Ryan to stay in Marissa’s room. This feels like a callous and insensitive thing to do, but if he’s staying for a while, he can’t very well sleep on the couch and when Ryan suggests that Charles stay in Marissa’s room, her mother becomes nearly hysterical, telling Ryan “I don’t want some stranger sleeping in there, do you hear me?” (59). Between her all-consuming grief and her desperation to hold onto this small connection with Marissa’s life, it doesn’t seem to occur to Ryan’s mom that it might be traumatic for her living daughter to move into the bedroom of her dead one (however temporarily).  Ryan struggles with whether or not she can trust Charles and what his ulterior motives might be and in the meantime, she encounters increasing horrors. One night when she’s home alone, she hears a car horn from the garage where Marissa’s car is parked and when she goes to investigate, she sees her sister’s corpse behind the wheel: “the human figure slumped forward … the head propped on the steering wheel, its face hidden … The long blond hair streaming over its back” (73). This is terrifying enough, but then the corpse begins to move, the lights in the garage go out, and the door jams, leaving Ryan trapped and pursued by the corpse of her dead sister as Ryan “put her hand out and felt heavy, wet fabric … damp human skin … icy cold …” (75). Ryan passes out from fear and when she comes to, Charles has her pulled outside the garage and is asking her what happened. Later, Ryan and Charles go caroling and to a Christmas party with some of Ryan’s friends. When Ryan gets separated from Charles on the way home, stranded in the snowy wilderness, she sees her sister again, this time as a shadowy shape nearly lost in the snow as Marissa calls out to Ryan, asking “why did you let me drown?” and telling her “I can’t come home for Christmas, Ryan … I’m dead” (98). Ryan almost dies again, passing out in the snow in the middle of nowhere, but Winchester comes to her rescue, finding her and taking her to his family’s cabin, getting her warm and fed, and ferrying her home when the storm is over. When she tells people what she has seen, they refuse to believe her, explaining these potentially supernatural horrors away as Ryan’s grief-stricken and overactive imagination, which is once again underscored with Ryan’s overwhelming feeling of guilt and responsibility.  As if being haunted by her dead sister weren’t terrifying enough, Ryan also sees a guy in a ski mask staring in the window of the toy store at her and late one night when Ryan and Phoebe are stranded downtown after someone has slashed the tires on Jinx’s car (which Phoebe borrowed without asking), a nefarious Santa Claus chases Ryan down the street. Someone tries to break into her house when Ryan is home alone and she finds a box in Marissa’s bedroom, a gift addressed to her, which she opens to discover the necklace that Marissa was wearing when she died. One night, when Ryan is at the toy shop late and alone, waiting for a ride home, the man in the ski mask enters the store and when Ryan tries to get away, the toys seem to come to life around her: “the trains started up … slowly at first … then faster … faster … little engines chugging … tiny whistles blowing … around and around … From some forgotten corner a baby doll cried in a tinny, mournful wail—‘Ma … ma … ma … ma …’ … The mechanical Santa Claus burst into insane laughter” (166). Ryan can’t get the door open and in her panic and desperation, shoves her arms through the plate glass. Ryan is traumatized, badly injured, and now, has to deal with everyone—including her mom—believing she tried to take her own life. When the truth of Marissa’s secret finally comes out, Ryan’s entire worldview and the web of relationships that have supported and sustained her are shattered. The film that Marissa had meant to get developed on that fateful afternoon contains evidence of a drug ring, though no one ever sees the pictures. Ryan gets a mysterious call while she’s home alone, from a man telling her that the police think they have found Marissa’s body near an old barn nearby but need someone to come identify her. Instead of calling her mom or asking why they want her to come to a barn instead of the morgue, Ryan goes running pell mell out into the snowy middle of nowhere. It is (of course) a trap and the people behind the drug ring plan to kill Ryan to keep her quiet (despite the fact that she doesn’t actually know what’s going on), orchestrating the murder so that Ryan’s death will look like suicide.  In the dark shadows of the barn, Ryan finally comes face to face with the secret Marissa was keeping—and there are a LOT of faces to face. First, there’s Charles, who taunts Ryan, telling her that she and Marissa will soon “be together again …” (196). But Charles wasn’t acting alone and he didn’t actually kill Marissa, saying “I have more class than to dirty my hands with something so unpleasant—especially when there are other people around who are so good at it!” (197). Those “other people,” it turns out, include Steve, Ryan’s mom’s boyfriend, who is the one who actually attacked Marissa. While Steve has played the part of a loving and supportive boyfriend and potential stepfather, this has all been a ruse, and he cruelly berates Ryan as well, telling her “you were so easy to scare … It takes time to drive someone right out of her mind … to make it believable. You felt so guilty about Marissa, it was almost too easy … The game’s not nearly as much fun when there’s no challenge” (199). While Charles seems to be the brains of the operation and Steve does the dirty work, there’s still the problem of how to transport the drugs without detection and it turns out their ingenious strategy has been to conceal them within Mr. Partini’s old-fashioned toys, which he then delivered to his customers. Of the three of them, Mr. Partini is the only one who seems to feel at all bad about what they have done to Ryan and about her impending murder, lamenting in his stilted English that “I never want to hurt you … I try to keep you out of it” (201), though that doesn’t stop him from seeing Ryan’s death as sad but unavoidable collateral damage. Last but not least, it is Ryan’s potential love interest and occasional rescuer Winchester who handles the local operations of the drug ring, though he does so under duress, with the others threatening to kill his younger siblings and burn down his dad’s service station if he doesn’t do what they tell him. Almost EVERYONE Ryan has turned to for love and support has been in on it all along.  Jinx shows up as Ryan’s would-be rescuer and the barn is getting pretty darn crowded, but while the others are distracted, Winchester helps Ryan and Jinx make their escape. The pursuit is intense and there’s a lot of gunfire. Winchester shoots Charles to save Ryan and Jinx, Jinx is grazed by a bullet, and Ryan is the victim of more flying glass, but they escape, the culprits are arrested, and Winchester agrees to testify against the others, with the truth revealed and the nightmare finally brought to a close.  Cusick keeps readers guessing about what might actually be happening in Fatal Secrets: are the terrifying things happening to Ryan somehow related to the secret Marissa never actually told her? Is this a ghost story, with Marissa exerting a supernatural influence from beyond the grave? Is Ryan a supremely unreliable narrator, with her guilt and post-traumatic stress manifesting in horrifying hallucinations, and if that is the case, can we trust any of her perceptions, including her assertion that she never meant to harm herself? Cusick offers readers a range of interpretations and even once the dark secret is revealed, definitive answers are few and far between. The stalker in the ski mask and Jinx’s slashed tires are pretty straightforward, part of the machinations designed to frighten Ryan into revealing what she knows. Steve gloats about how he and the others manipulated Ryan, telling her how they orchestrated “A few unfortunate accidents … a tape from Marissa’s answering machine at school … some great disguises” (199), though it’s hard to imagine any of these men believably disguising themselves as the corpse of a teenage girl or that Marissa’s answering machine would include anything like the mournful accusations Ryan hears on the snowy night when she gets stranded. It’s possible that Charles, Steve, and Mr. Partini set up the “hauntings” and the toys gone awry just to terrorize Ryan and drive her to irrational and self-destructive behavior, comfortable in the likelihood that no one would ever believe her. But there’s really no definitive confirmation either way—it seems likely that the truth lies in a combination of Ryan’s nightmares, both real and imagined, a volatile synthesis of external dangers and internal suffering.     In Fatal Secrets, Ryan faces down the ghosts of both past and present, as she works to come to terms with Marissa’s death, her own feelings of misplaced guilt, and the terrifying realization that a lot of the people she thought she could trust and rely on actually want her dead. As for the future, it’s pretty uncertain, in both good and bad ways: Ryan and her mother’s relationship seems to be on the mend, but finding out her boyfriend is a drug dealing murderer who killed one of her daughters and tried to kill the other is definitely going to leave a mark on Ryan’s mom. Phoebe’s friendship has been (and remains) steadfast, which hopefully won’t get complicated when she finds out that Ryan has noticed that annoying kid brother Jinx has turned into a pretty handsome and heroic young man, a guy with whom she wouldn’t mind dancing into the New Year. God bless us, everyone, and here’s hoping Ryan’s New Year is a lot less murder-y.[end-mark] The post The Gift That Keeps on Taking: <em>Fatal Secrets</em>  appeared first on Reactor.

Communist China and Japan have been engaging in a serious diplomatic dispute over Taiwan for almost a month. While Japan strives to de-escalate tensions, China’s aggressive stance—particularly toward newly-elected Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—only heightens concerns.  Takaichi made history as Japan’s first female prime minister in late October, drawing parallels to Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister. Both women emerged from working-class backgrounds to reach the zenith of political power. They are recognized for their strong work ethic, decisive leadership, and unwavering commitment to conservative values.   On Nov. 7, Takaichi was asked by an opposition lawmaker in parliament about the potential threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. She responded that such an action would pose a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, according to the country’s 2015 security law. In this critical context, Japan’s constitution allows for the mobilization of defense forces. However, Takaichi also emphasized Japan’s longstanding policy on Taiwan focusing on a peaceful resolution.  Takaichi’s statement echoes a decade of Japanese government policy. Her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, emphasized that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency.” This is due to the proximity of several Japan-controlled islands, including the disputed Senkaku Islands (known as the Diaoyu Islands in China) are located about 60 miles from Taiwan. This close distance means that if China were to attack Taiwan, Japan’s national security would likely be impacted.  Tokyo’s security concerns deepened in 2022 when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire military exercises near Taiwan in direct response to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Five PLA ballistic missiles landed in controlled waters, triggering a decisive shift in Japanese public sentiment toward prioritizing defense spending.  Beijing’s insistence that its actions regarding Taiwan are purely internal affairs has led to a range of aggressive responses to Takaichi’s suggestion of possible Japanese military involvement. Xue Jian, China’s consul general in Osaka, Japan, threatened to sever Takaichi’s “filthy neck” on X.com. Although he deleted his post following wide condemnation, neither Xue nor the Chinese government has issued an apology. Instead, China has repeatedly demanded that Takaichi retract her comments, warning of a “crushing defeat” if Japan intervenes regarding Taiwan.  Despite X.com being banned in China, the Chinese foreign ministry has been waging a “war of words” on the platform under its official account, warning “Whoever dares to challenge China’s bottom line will face a resolute, head-on blow and be shattered against the great wall of steel forged by 1.4 billion people.”  Beijing followed its warnings with various pressure campaigns, including sending four coast guard vessels into Japanese waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands, suspending imports of Japanese seafood, seafood, advising Chinese citizens not to travel to Japan, and ordering China’s major airlines to cancel flights to Japan. Chinese authorities even abruptly canceled several scheduled performances by Japanese artists in China. Following Beijing’s lead, Hong Kong has halted engagements with the Japanese Consulate.   Despite Beijing’s aggressive tactics, Takaichi has upheld her “iron lady” reputation, standing firm in her position. At the same time, she has sought to ease tensions by sending a senior official to Beijing and resisting calls to expel Chinese diplomat Xue.  Yet, China continues to escalate. Chinese U.N. Ambassador Fu Chong opposes Japan’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat, calling Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan “totally unqualified.” He warns in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres that any armed intervention by Japan in the Taiwan Strait would be seen as aggression, asserting that China will defend its sovereignty under international law.  Still, recent developments indicate that Beijing’s aggressive campaigns against Japan may have backfired. Instead of backing down under Beijing’s pressure, her government is moving forward to deploy a medium-range surface-to-air missile unit on Yonaguni, an island just 68 miles off Taiwan’s east coast, to boost Japan’s national defense. Takaichi’s unyielding style earns her strong public support in Japan.  Asian neighbors also welcome Japan playing a bigger role in regional security. Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, noted in a public forum, “All Southeast Asian countries endorse Japan’s expanded role in our region, especially in terms of security, as it significantly enhances stability.” Wong clearly understands that China’s aggressive stance toward Japan reveals the risks of a China-dominated world order to other nations.   In his appeal to France, Wang Yi, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, sought condemnation of Takaichi but was met with disappointment, as the French government declined to act on his request. Most notably, the United States remains unwavering in its support for Japan.  The U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass highlighted support for the country on social media, stating, “Coercion is a difficult habit for Beijing to break. Just as the United States stood with Japan during China’s unjust seafood ban, we will support our ally again.” Additionally, the Trump administration announced a $330 million arms sale to Taiwan in mid-November, ignoring Beijing’s complaints.  A desperate Chinese leader Xi Jinping sought to pressure Takaichi by calling President Donald Trump just before Thanksgiving, claiming “Taiwan’s return to China is an essential component of the postwar international order.” Trump promptly informed Takaichi about the call, and didn’t ask Takaichi to retract her remark, according to the Japanese government spokesperson, signaling the U.S.-Japan alliance remains strong.   China’s monthlong aggressive tactics have failed to intimidate or humiliate Takaichi, and instead have backfired on Beijing, creating significant implications for future Taiwan discussions. For years, China claimed its control over Taiwan was a domestic issue, labeling external dialogue as “interference.” However, by voicing its grievances to the U.N. and other global entities, China has internationalized the issue. Japan-based expert Yaita Akio notes that this shift undermines China’s previous narrative of “non-interference,” making it difficult for Beijing to silence future global involvement in Taiwan. This unexpected outcome must be frustrating for Xi.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Beijing’s Aggressive Campaign Against Japan’s Iron Lady Backfires appeared first on The Daily Signal.

And They Call This 'Journalism'