By Dale Sutherland, Op-ed contributor Monday, November 10, 2025Unsplash/Ismael ParamoWith Bible sales increasing and church pews filling up, many are asking whether a revival is happening in America. …

By Joshua Arnold, Op-ed contributor Monday, November 10, 2025U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart of "reciprocal tariffs" while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement…

A federal appeals court on Sunday evening denied the Trump Administration’s request to halt a judge’s order forcing the full payment of SNAP benefits for November. The order is on hold for 48 hours,…

Foreign Affairs No Blackwell Chips for Beijing  The White House must continue to hold the line on not handing over American technical advantages to China. In recent weeks, one question has occupied the minds of China-watchers and artificial intelligence insiders alike: Would the White House let Nvidia sell its most advanced Blackwell chips to China? We finally have an answer. “The most advanced [chips], we will not let anybody have them other than the United States,” said President Trump on Sunday in an interview with 60 Minutes. The clarification comes on the heels of a one‑year “trade truce” announced on November 1, under which Beijing agreed to suspend a raft of retaliations (including restrictions of rare earths) in exchange for Washington easing up on tariffs. Any concession on the export of cutting‑edge AI hardware was notably absent. This is great news if you believe, as I do, that frontier AI systems are on the cusp of truly transformative capabilities. With the length of tasks AI can perform now doubling every 4–7 months, the same chips that are today used to host chatbots and generate funny videos will, in a year hence, be running armies of autonomous AI engineers and scientists that work day and night. Technological discovery and productivity growth stand to accelerate massively, along with the power of autonomous cyber-weapons and other capabilities we ought not sell to our adversaries. The Blackwell chips in question are Nvidia’s next-generation datacenter accelerators. A single Blackwell B200 accelerator delivers roughly 2.5x the throughput of the prior-generation H200 for AI training, and up to 15x greater cost efficiency for inference compared to the H100. In short, the chips represent a jump into a qualitatively higher compute regime—one that Nvidia’s Chinese counterpart, Huawei, is nowhere close to replicating. Nvidia also produces a chip tailor-made for China known as the B30A that is simply one half of their best chip, the B300. Having one rather than two integrated circuits puts the B30A under the line for export restrictions, but at half the price of the B300, Chinese firms could simply buy them two at a time. To prevent this and future such loopholes, Congress is thus considering passing the GAIN AI Act as part of this year’s National Defense Authorization—a bill establishing that U.S. companies have a right of first refusal over chips destined for China under conditions of constrained supply.  The GAIN AI Act and other efforts to fortify export controls by Congress are sorely needed. Over the coming years, geopolitical power will be increasingly well-proxied by the global distribution of AI compute. Indeed, the economies and militaries with the most powerful and widely-deployed AI systems could pull ahead rapidly. America’s continued dominance in AI is thus not only in our national interest, but potentially existential to preserving the American way of life. Our current lead is downstream of access to the world’s most advanced AI hardware and overwhelming market share in high-performance computing. But with China out-building us on new energy, we remain vulnerable to being leapfrogged but for export controls on the chips and semiconductor equipment Chinese firms need to train and deploy their models at scale. Once best known for creating the graphics cards beloved by video gamers, Nvidia is now the overwhelming market leader in AI chip design and the surrounding software ecosystems used by developers. The geopolitics of compute has thus brought the perennial tension between U.S. national interests and corporate profit maximization into sharp relief. Nvidia is the most valuable company on earth, with a nearly $5 trillion market cap, but it could become significantly richer if given unadulterated access to the Chinese market. To that end, Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, has been working overtime to curry favor with President Donald Trump and policymakers in Washington. Earlier this year, export restrictions on Nvidia’s China-specific H20 chip were lifted shortly after Huang purchased a dinner with the President at Mar-a-Lago. And just last week, Nvidia hosted their annual GTC conference in the nation’s capital for the first time, flooding the district with sponsorships and spin-off events that laid their new “America First”–friendly messaging on thick. “The age of AI has begun, made in America,” declared Jensen in his keynote address, before ending the presentation with a triumphant call for “making America great again!” Meanwhile, critics of Nvidia in DC have faced pressure to fall in line, including yours truly. After writing about the rise of China’s chip smuggling efforts, Nvidia representatives reached out to meet with me and insisted that not a single chip had been diverted, echoing a line used by Jensen himself. This is despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, from smugglers busted in the act, to warehouses of export-controlled chips conspicuously for sale on Chinese e-commerce sites. In 2023, Nvidia was even accused of attempting to sideline Gregory Allen, a prominent proponent of chip export controls at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. More recently, however, they’ve simply taken to name-calling, tarring their most vocal critics as “AI doomers,” including nationalist conservatives like Oren Cass who are anything but. While Big Tech’s MAGA-washing is nothing new, Nvidia doth MAGA too much. In a recent interview, Jensen asserted that it “doesn’t matter” whether America or China win the AI race. This is just weeks after Jensen argued, in a moment of podcast candor, that the term “China hawk” should be worn as a “badge of shame,” causing Republican lawmakers to balk. The signs of Nvidia’s affinity for China were always there. When all the biggest American tech CEOs were in the rotunda for Trump’s inauguration, Jensen was in Beijing. He returned to China at least two more times this year, once to meet with China’s vice premier and once with its minister of commerce. On his China visit over the summer, Jensen went so far as to tell a group of local reporters, “First I am Chinese, then I become American Chinese.” (Jensen is, in fact, Taiwanese—a distinction that still has a difference.) Of course, globalist companies behaving in globalist ways is to be expected. The trouble only arises when such companies accrue enough power to influence public policy in ways that benefit their shareholders at the expense of core national interests. Nvidia’s concerted efforts to flip Trump on chip export controls were an attempt to do just that. Fortunately, on the latest test of Trump’s commitment to keeping America First in AI, he passed with flying colors.  The post No Blackwell Chips for Beijing  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The Free-Speech Dustup Over Harvard’s Conservative Magazine A controversial article is testing the leading American university’s commitment to free speech on campus. Credit: Wikimedia Commons The Harvard Salient, the lone conservative outlet on one of the most liberal of campuses, was suspended from publication after language echoing a Hitler speech appeared in an article. The bigger story is one of a collision between defenders of free inquiry and the boundaries that define expression in elite institutions. It comes at a very bad time, as Harvard and President Donald Trump themselves battle over the limits of free speech on campus. The Salient magazine, originally founded in 1981, was brought back to life in 2021 to provide a conservative counterweight at Harvard. It is editorially and financially independent from the university, but subject to the oversight of a board of directors made up of faculty and alumni, and they are unhappy. At issue are several lines from the magazine, according to multiple sources including the New York Times. In its September print issue, the Salient published an article by student David F.X. Army that included the lines “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans,” echoing the words Hitler used in a January 1939 speech to the Reichstag in which he gleefully forecast that another world war would lead to the annihilation of Jews. The Salient piece also argued “Islam et al. has absolutely no place in Western Europe,” and called for a return to values “rooted in blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own.” The article went on to argue Europe’s native populations were being displaced by migration from Africa and Asia. There was also another Salient story, published following the September killing of Charlie Kirk, that described the left as “our enemies.” The board of directors fired back, stating, “The Harvard Salient has recently published articles containing reprehensible, abusive, and demeaning material—material that is, in addition, wholly inimical to the conservative principles for which the magazine stands. The Board has also received deeply disturbing and credible complaints about the broader culture of the organization.” The statement did not specify which articles it found reprehensible or what complaints it had received. An investigation is underway, and while that is ongoing the Salient is not to print. Its editor, however, has vowed to ignore the shutdown order, claiming this was all a mistake. Editor-in-Chief Richard Rodgers wrote an email to the Salient’s mailing list calling the suspension an “unauthorized usurpation of power by a small number of individuals acting outside the bounds of their authority.” He pushed back against criticism in the school newspaper “branding The Harvard Salient as little more than a hate group that should be monitored and, if need be, silenced.” Rodgers said the Hitler line was not intentional. He wrote “neither the author nor the editors had recognized the resemblance and that the phrase long predates the Third Reich,” though the Hitler quote should be well-known to students of history, forming the philosophical backbone of the Nazis’ plans to eliminate the Jews from Europe. Rodgers did not appear to address the use of the term “blood and soil.” “Blood and Soil” (Blut und Boden) was also a well-known central part of Nazi ideology. It combined racial mysticism (blood) with agrarian nationalism (soil), expressing the belief the German people (the Volk) were spiritually bound to their native land. It appeared in propaganda posters, speeches, and art glorifying Aryan farmers plowing German soil, visual shorthand for racial and national unity. It strains belief that Harvard students would be unaware of those associations or their emotional weight they carry in the context of an article on third world immigration into Western Europe. This should have been just basic free speech stuff familiar to Salient’s overreacting board members. Though Harvard, as a private institution, isn’t bound by the First Amendment, it claims to uphold the same values of free expression; it would be expected that an independent group claiming Harvard affiliation would do the same. It is heavy-handed of the board to suspend publication based on what is known at present. If there is something more, the board is obligated to surface that immediately to support their decision and maintain credibility. Their reflexive punishment risks confirming the narrative that elite institutions can’t tolerate ideological diversity. At the same time, the Salient should understand when dealing with subjects as emotionally laden as Nazi philosophy, explanation and context are crucial. Ignorance is a poor excuse here. Somewhere in the vast Harvard educational complex, there are journalism, history, and law classes that in 2025 teach just those very things. Everyone should learn their lesson and move on. The problem is we live in 2025, where dispassionate classroom wisdom often fails on the ideological battlefield. The Salient case arrives in the middle of Harvard’s and America’s broader struggle between the political right and left. The university has spent months under fire from Donald Trump, who accuses it of ideological bias and hypocrisy. Though Harvard has distanced itself, noting the Salient is governed by an independent board, the controversy inevitably reflects on the university. Harvard cannot duck the larger issues here. As Rodgers wrote about the censorship, “The traditionalist student becomes the bigot. The publication that prints their ideas becomes the threat. ‘Fascism’ is no longer a historical reference but a weaponized cliche, a way to place opponents outside the moral guardrails of the University.” He concludes Harvard is a campus that proclaims free expression while quietly cultivating fear of it. Truth, veritas, Harvard’s motto, emerges through debate, not censorship. Harvard remains a mirror of America’s polarization, a place where liberals preach tolerance but struggle to practice it, and conservatives at times crudely test the limits of provocation in the name of free speech. The post The Free-Speech Dustup Over Harvard’s Conservative Magazine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs ‘Regime Collapse’ Is Not a Serious Approach to the Venezuela Problem Toppling a government without even a plan to replace it will create chaos, not democracy. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images) In a recent column in Foreign Policy, Ryan Berg, the director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggests that the Trump administration can accomplish its goal of removing the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from power without hazarding American lives by implementing a strategy of “regime collapse.” According to Berg,  A regime collapse would entail a more limited campaign of U.S. strikes on targets at the heart of the Maduro regime’s state-crime nexus, implicating the country’s armed forces and its political elites. These strikes would leverage precision-guided munitions and U.S. standoff weapons fired from a safe distance, possibly catalyzing movement internally to force Maduro’s exit—all without putting U.S. personnel at risk as with a “regime change” strategy. The theory is relatively simple: The U.S. can topple the Venezuelan government by means of long-range strikes against key targets, which will convince significant elements of the regime that their integrity is in danger and thus provoke some sort of change in the internal state of the government.  Berg hypothesizes three scenarios. One, that the strikes destroy the financial infrastructure of the regime by eliminating drug traffickers, illegal mining, and oil extraction, leaving it unable to sustain its basic functions and provoking Maduro to exit (how Berg doesn’t say). The second, that the strikes convince elements of the Venezuelan military to oust Maduro and establish a new government, presumably some kind of military junta amenable to negotiating with the U.S. The third, that the strikes convince the Venezuelan military to abandon Maduro and install opposition leader María Corina Machado or Edmundo González, her stand-in on the last presidential ballot, at the head of the government. First of all, Berg is likely correct that this approach is appealing to President Donald Trump, who prefers quick, decisive, and low-commitment interventions and would certainly prefer to avoid involving American troops in a war in Venezuela. He compares a “regime collapse” operation to the June bombing of the Iranian nuclear program, which degraded Iranian capacity at little to no material cost to the United States.  But the risks inherent to any kind of “regime collapse” approach are numerous and severe, and far outweigh any potential benefits. Most pertinently, when any government collapses, the resulting power vacuum is necessarily unpredictable and chaotic, and leaves room for all kinds of actors, state and nonstate, bad and good, to exert their will. Such a situation is not generally conducive to an orderly transition of power of any kind, let alone a transition to democracy.  Here the expected comparison is usually Libya, after the bombing campaign that destroyed the Gaddafi regime, but Venezuelan society is not comparable to that of Libya; it is not characterized by a fractured, tribal society and fundamentalist revolutionaries. Instead the major danger is that Venezuela becomes a mid-20th century Colombia: a weak state inundated by brutal organized crime, incapable of defending itself or of disrupting the conflicts between cartels and narcorevolutionary groups fighting over disputed territory. This scenario could potentially be avoided by a military coup, which Berg indicates is a likely result of American kinetic strikes on the country. It is true that the younger officers in the Bolivarian Armed Forces are unhappy at finding their avenues of advancement blocked by generals fattening themselves on the proceeds of organized crime and oil extraction. But is establishing a military dictatorship or junta the desired result of American intervention in the country? Berg’s supposition that the military could force out Maduro only to hand over the reins to Machado and the Venezuelan opposition seems a dim possibility in the light of history. More than a few military coups have been conducted in the name of liberty, democracy, and constitutional government; few have readily handed over the reins of power to democratically elected leaders after they find themselves in control of the mechanisms of government. The resultant military government would no doubt be more amenable to dealing with the U.S. than the intractable Maduro, if only out of necessity and a sense of self-preservation. But, given the state of the Venezuelan military, it is unlikely to be durable, stable, or capable of materially confronting the corruption and entanglement with cartels and organized crime that is rampant within the Bolivarian armed forces. Every military dictatorship depends for its survival on maintaining the support of the general mass of soldiers and officers, something Maduro accomplished by permitting them to profit off the extremely lucrative trade in drugs and illegal mining carried on by the cartels. A brass-hat regime with a fragile hold over an already weak state would be in no position to crack down on this behavior. The most probable results of a “regime collapse” strategy—increased chaos and violence in the country, the expansion of cartel influence, and a precarious military government that is incapable of addressing endemic corruption—all directly harm the very interests that American intervention in Venezuela is intended to produce: a decrease in illegal immigration to the United States and the elimination of drug trafficking through Venezuela. On the other hand, the likelihood that using external pressure to precipitate the collapse of a nation’s government spontaneously results in a stable, prosperous, orderly democratic society is minimal. Indeed, while Berg argues that “regime collapse” is a way to avoid American boots on the ground, in practice it is likely to simply end up a roundabout road to regime-change. Even if the U.S. successfully topples the Venezuelan government through long-range strikes and takes no casualties (no guarantee, as Venezuela does maintain active air defense systems), the resulting disorder would prove a powerful justification for further, more direct intervention—particularly if the administration is committed to empowering Machado and democratizing the country.Everyone has learned at least one lesson from the Iraq War, it seems: “Regime change” is still a taboo term. But “regime collapse” is likely to be an equally unsatisfactory approach to problematic powers. It avoids an initial commitment of American troops, but makes boots on the ground far more probable in the immediate future. It offers a high risk of further exacerbating difficulties in the country and damaging American interests in the region for a small chance of accomplishing the objectives of the intervention. If American interests require that Maduro go, then the administration should either come to some diplomatic settlement that will see him hand over control of the government to the opposition (if any such deal is possible), or else convince the American people that military intervention is the proper course of action and depose him by force of arms. Then reconstruction can take place on an orderly basis. But it makes no sense to roll the dice and hope that bombing the country into anarchy will produce a government capable of rooting out corruption and cartels or a nation prosperous enough to stem the flow of refugees abroad. The post ‘Regime Collapse’ Is Not a Serious Approach to the Venezuela Problem appeared first on The American Conservative.

from Revolver News: Germany’s grand “Muslim Miracle” was supposed to save the country’s future. Instead, it broke it into a million pieces. About ten years ago, German leaders sold their citizens on a utopian plan: import millions of young Muslims to flood the workforce, rescue a collapsing pension system, and secure the nation’s prosperity for […]

Nicole is stepping into a new chapter after her divorce from Keith, staying grounded in Nashville while focusing on family and future projects. Continue reading…

Pushing their abilities like never before, their 1978 record – the last with their classic line-up – offered a glimpse at the cliff-leaping experimentation that might have followed