Canada should be one of the world’s best countries to live in, and for many people it once was. Possessing vast natural resources and reserves of energy (exceeding those of the U.S. on a per capita basis), endless natural space (as the world’s second-largest country), adequate infrastructure, no enemies, a parliamentary democracy, and an educated population, it should face no problems beyond the winters. A third issue is that Canada is now nearly unaffordable for most of its citizens. The property prices in Vancouver and Toronto are among the world’s highest, so that an average house costs $1.7 and $1.4 million dollars respectively. But a decade under the former Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has reduced a first-world country to the level of a failing, although not yet a failed, state. The strains of O Canada are giving way to cries of Woe Canada, while the recent book by the journalist Tristin Hopper (Don’t be Canada: How One Country Did Everything Wrong All at Once) documents the national malaise with many examples of stagnation, incompetence, and folly. Epithets such as “a woke dystopia” and “the sick man of North America” are now heard. Where did it all go so wrong? Canada’s most urgent self-inflicted problem is the stagnant economy, which has been ailing since 2015. Canada has the largest increases in government spending and the second-slowest growth in GDP per capita in the G7, averaging a mere 0.6 percent per annum for two decades, or half the U.S. rate. Chronic under-investment has produced low productivity, and even government pension plans direct much of their investment towards more profitable U.S. companies in a slow death spiral as manufacturing capacity is hollowed out. Business is mired in red tape, and the jobless rate is at 7 percent. Household debt relative to GDP is the highest within the G7. Gross national debt has grown faster than in all advanced countries for the last decade, now increasing at $109 million per day and amounting to over $40,000 per taxpayer for federal debt, plus a similar figure provincially.  The pale pink Liberal government under Mark Carney plans to run huge deficits for the next four years ($57 billion p.a.), much higher than under Trudeau, whose deficit for the last year before Covid was then the largest in seven years at a mere $25 billion.  The Canadian dollar, once at parity with the U.S., today is worth about 70 cents. The economist Dave Chapple describes Canada as the “worst developed country in the world,” with:  – The housing costs of New York – The wages of Mississippi (but the prices of California) – The same-sized economy as Alabama – Taxes higher than in any of the 50 United States.  A second problem is bloated government, and an unbound sense of entitlement among the nomenklatura. Public servants comprise nearly a quarter of the population, each costing $172,000 annually on average. Canada is over-regulated, but under-governed. The ten provincial governments have mixed records, but the federal government falls between lame and broken, as shown by the analysis of the political commentator Andrew Coyne in his book The Crisis in Canadian Democracy. Canada flounders under weak and semi-functional central government, so that, for example, after 160 years it is only now attempting to lift interprovincial tariff barriers to trade.  It also struggles with gerrymandered ridings, highly inequitable representation, cronyism, and a sometimes corrupt selection process for candidates and party leaders. These failings are mainly due to the inflated role of the Prime Minister, who functions not only as the head of government but also as de facto head of state, with powers exceeding those of the U.S. presidency. The PM controls almost everything as a personal fiefdom, including the legal and financial systems, and knows that the MPs of his party will never contradict him, so that he rules over an obedient legislature as a “democratic” dictator. Thus the Liberals, the perpetual ruling party, in 2015 selected as their leader the photogenic Trudeau, a 43 year-old former drama coach lacking experience or wisdom, and MPs acquiesced as he turned Canada into the world’s most woke country, with disastrous policies for the economy, energy, the law, indigenous issues, and mass immigration. (The public was less impressed: abuse was heaped on him by angry crowds by the end of his reign). National institutions such as the postal service, the public broadcasting network, passenger trains, and Medicare, are all dead or moribund, but devour billions in ever-rising public subsidies. The “Conservative” party offers alternatives which roughly correspond to the policies of the UK Labour party. A third issue is that Canada is now nearly unaffordable for most of its citizens. The property prices in Vancouver and Toronto are among the world’s highest, so that an average house costs $1.7 and $1.4 million dollars respectively, while wages have fallen well behind, and family incomes average $74,000. (Three quarters of Canadians live in large cities, where these problems are the worst). Food and transport are also a problem for most people, as are very high taxes. About a tenth of the population has to rely on food banks.  Young people, facing straightened futures in rental accommodations, are now more conservative in polls than their elders: socialism is not working for them. Seniors suffer because the Medicare system is slowly dying, so that despite paying taxes for Medicare they are often forced to use semi-licit private clinics, where they receive good care at a premium price.  The fourth failure is seen in the snarled, inept justice system, which has devolved into a system based on “inverse culpability” (IC). Minor misdeeds, like traffic violations, are punished briskly and there are fines for not turning off the motor promptly or for failing to brush all the snow from one’s car. But repeat drunk-driving offenders continue to reoffend regardless. Likewise, speech that is deemed hateful can lead to years of imprisonment, but actual assaults or homicides often result in no more than a slap on the wrist. Corruption, often semi-legal, is pervasive, and bail is almost automatic, even for violent criminals. Judges must apply the “Gladue principle” that mandates lighter penalties for indigenous miscreants due to their victimhood.  The extremes of IC are exemplified by the way that an angler in Nova Scotia risks a fine of $100,000 for failing to kill a small invasive fish, or $500,000 for a second offence. Amy Hamm, a gender-skeptical nurse, was recently fined $93,000 for putting up a billboard saying “I ♥ J. K. Rowling.” Compare this with the six-year prison sentence given to Inderjit Singh Reyat in connection with the bombing of Air India flight 182, which killed 329 people in 1985. A fifth problem is a recent flood of immigration. Canada has admitted half a million newcomers annually (half from Asia), one of the world’s highest rates, thus contributing to severe housing shortages; a quarter of the population is now foreign born. Many immigrants become assimilated and succeed in areas like business, academe, and the professions. But not all cultures are equal to the challenge: dozens of lethal ethnic gangs have proliferated in cities like Vancouver and Toronto, and murderous conflicts between Sikhs and Hindus simmer. Over half of all Canadians believe that the inflow of migrants is too rapid.   There are other national failures: the perennial English/French/Aboriginal lack of national unity, the substandard conditions of life on reserves, the lawless homeless encampments in big cities, an epidemic of opioid deaths, and rising rates of crime and drug abuse (car theft is rampant). A common factor, the sentimental national characteristic of wishing to see everyone (except white males) in the best possible light, means that every failing is attributed to victimhood, producing a ludicrous woke culture.  There is embarrassment, not pride, over Canada’s past accomplishments, so that statues of her national founders like Sir John A. McDonald are hidden away behind plywood sheets on grounds of political incorrectness. The mighty projects of the past, like the “impossible” transcontinental railroad, the Trans-Canada highway, and the St. Lawrence Seaway, which brings ocean-going ships into the heart of the continent, are almost unthinkable in today’s climate of national self-doubt, self-hatred, attacks on “white privilege,” and performative displays of virtue. Although some national projects are now mooted by Carney, recent billion-dollar publicly funded fiascos such as failed battery plants raise doubts, as do the foolish choices made by bureaucrats in handing out public money (for example, $9 million for a company that produces edible crickets, or $20 million that will “focus on improving gender-responsive and climate-resilient agricultural practices” in Tanzania).  Canada’s problems resemble those of countries such as Australia or Germany (although worse), and appear insoluble without major upheaval. Conrad Black has noted that most countries go through periods of regression, predicting that Canada will eventually shake off its politically correct obsessions and recover a sense of purpose. If this reset occurs, it would be a nice irony that Donald Trump, although reviled here for his attacks on Canada, DEI, anti-patriotism, transgenderism, and public disorder, may through them have spurred a national reawakening for Canada.  READ MORE: Steelmanning Tariffs The UN Wants a New State Bent on the West’s Destruction The Empire Strikes Out on Canada Leo Standing is a retired experimental psychologist and academic.

Aesop’s Fables have been a tool to shape the morals and minds of children for generations, possibly none more than “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” When a shepherd boy, bored of keeping his flock, calls for aid from the village when no wolf threatens his safety, he was left with no one willing to believe him when the wolf finally came to pasture. While the allegorical shepherd boy was meant to warn us of the dangers of making false claims, the abortion lobby apparently was raised without this same moral guidance. Their newest cry: restrictions on abortion in pro-life states are fueling the OB-GYN shortage.  Leading up to the Dobbs decision, frenzied further by the leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court in May 2022, the abortion lobby told all who would listen of the dystopia that would result from the overturning of Roe. Women would be forced to return to coat hanger abortions in the dark back alleys. They cried contraception would be wiped from the shelves and the Court would not stop at stripping away “reproductive rights,” but rights previously upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses would be the next to fall.  While restrictions on abortion have been proven a sheep in wolves clothing, abortion advocates must now face … the permanent loss of public trust. While we rightfully should be concerned with the safety of women and basic human rights — which abortion is unequivocally not, there has yet to be a wolf when the world comes to the aid of abortion advocates. Since Dobbs, the abortion lobby has been making a similar cry to prey on the empathetic American, purporting that legal restrictions on abortion are driving physicians, particularly OB-GYNS, from pro-life states.  Abortion advocates wish to obfuscate the very real issue of maternal health deserts in rural parts of our nation, ignoring the confounding variables to blame shift this gap in care onto abortion policy. Recent attention has been on the story of Bonner General Health in Sandpoint, Idaho where the hospital announced ending its obstetrical care due to the “legal and political climate” of the state. However, the hospital’s press release on the matter does not cite obstetrician staffing as a contributing factor, instead noting the loss of pediatrician coverage for neonatal and perinatal care as well as changing demographics resulting in a “nationwide decrease in births.” Idaho has been more broadly a talking point for abortion advocates as the state has lost nearly a third of their obstetricians since 2022. One study of Idaho obstetricians found the majority who left the practice in 2024 retired, moved from rural to urban practice within the state, shifted their practice to gynecology only, or moved to another part of the state to practice. Even if the others who moved to a less abortion restrictive state to practice did so merely due to the pro-life laws in Idaho, that only highlights the motivation for their practice: placing their ability to perform an abortion over the needs of women facing maternal care deserts.  Correlation does not equal causation, and, in reality, Idaho is simply an outlier. Another study that noted the increase of physician concern about providing “reproductive healthcare” also found the number of OB-GYNs was increasing nationally, opposing the narrative abortion advocates wish to spin. States without access to abortion or those where some restrictions are in place actually are increasing their OB-GYN care at rates higher than those who have enshrined abortion protections following Dobbs.  Trends show dying rural healthcare economies, spurred by socioeconomically disparate populations lacking access to health insurance, are far more often the culprit for these deserts. Given the data, it would be intellectually dishonest to attribute increasing maternal health deserts to abortion law. Instead, we must work to ensure equal access to healthcare by closing the gap for the uninsured and establishing new federally qualified health centers equipped to provide comprehensive obstetric care.  The abortion lobby is crying wolf, and now, we must learn from the villagers. We must not trust the cries of those proven to mislead the proverbial village and take up watch for wolves ourselves. While restrictions on abortion have been proven a sheep in wolves clothing, abortion advocates must now face a wolf of their own creation: the permanent loss of public trust. If you cry “wolf” enough times, you might just summon one.  READ MORE: Catholic Cognitive Dissonance Illinois Law Mandates On-Campus Abortion Services Enforce Comstock: End ‘Mail-Order’ Abortions Gavin Oxley is the Media Relations Manager for Americans United for Life. Follow him on X @realgavinoxley.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize has gone to María Corina Machado, one of the most prominent faces of Venezuelan opposition. The committee’s language is familiar — “rights,” “peaceful transition” — but the story behind it is not. Machado’s record combines volunteer election networks with long-running feuds over foreign funding which antedate Maduro; her name has appeared in cases allegedly tied to efforts to unseat the government — charges she rejects. If the Nobel Peace Prize still holds any measure of significance, Trump should have won — without hesitation. The award lifts an internal struggle onto a global stage and drops it into a fresh context: for much of the year, chatter about a “Nobel for Trump” hung in the air, and the very idea of what counts as peacemaking is once again up for debate far beyond Caracas. From Steel Dynasty to Political Underground María Corina Machado is an engineer by training and a figure in Venezuela’s opposition over the past two decades. Born in Caracas to a family linked to the industrial group SIVENSA, she studied at the Andrés Bello Catholic University and later at IESA, Venezuela’s leading management school. Early exposure to the family business and an affinity for market-friendly ideas shaped her public profile: an emphasis on entrepreneurship, privatization, and integration with global markets. Her biggest surge in politics came in 2023, when she won opposition primaries by a wide margin. Banned from running in federal elections, she and her team faced inspections and arrests. Since 2024, Machado has been largely absent from public events; her statements come via video with her whereabouts undisclosed. Why Oslo Chose Her In announcing its decision, the Nobel Committee said it was honoring María Corina Machado “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” The Nobel announcement landed amid one of the most charged moments in U.S. – Venezuela relations in years. The Trump White House has initiated a military intervention strategy as a “war on narcotics” and a push to restore regional stability — with an eye directed at Maduro’s Venezuela. Against that backdrop, the Nobel Prize for Machado carries added meaning. For those on the “left,” it looks like moral recognition of a dissident whose cause aligned with the language of freedom and democratic rights. For much of the year, Washington hummed with talk of a “Nobel for Trump.”  Supporters pointed to a record of accomplishments that few modern leaders could match. The Abraham Accords, signed during his first term, had already redefined Israel’s ties with its neighbors. Machado’s recognition is notable given the growing number of voices throughout the past year that called for the American president to receive the prize. The leaders of the governments of Israel, Cambodia, Rwanda, Pakistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Gabon have all publicly stated they would support Trump receiving the prize, recognizing his role in ending conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and now the Israeli-Hamas war.  Moreover, he is credited with having stopped wars between Thailand and Cambodia and the real possibility of war between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Mostly unmentioned but perhaps most significantly, Trump’s destruction of the Iranian nuclear program must be credited with being the most potent action against nuclear proliferation and regional instability in decades. When the Oslo announcement finally came, the first official reaction was from White House communications director Stephen Cheung, who wrote on X: “President Trump will continue making peace deals, ending wars, and saving lives. The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.” The response inside the administration captures the reality of what happened — the award to Machado was meant to send a political message rather than recognize concrete results. Asked about the decision during a press conference in Tajikistan, even Russian President Vladimir Putin took a more measured view: “Whether the current U.S. president deserves the Nobel Prize, I don’t know,” he said, “but he really does a lot to resolve long-standing crises that have dragged on for years or even decades.” Putin added that the Nobel Committee had previously given the Peace Prize to people who had “done nothing for peace,” a remark that many interpreted as both an acknowledgment of Trump’s efforts and a subtle critique of the committee’s politics. A Symbolic Jab at Trump? For many observers, the decision in Oslo was less about the politics of Machado than about the ongoing tug-of-war between Donald Trump and the modern liberal establishment. Trump represents the opposite of what the Nobel Committee traditionally rewards. He stands for a more forceful, nationalistic approach to international politics, not the liberal globalism Oslo prefers. The Peace Prize long ago turned into a political award for loyalty to the global liberal order — exactly what Trump has spent his career challenging. If the Nobel Peace Prize still holds any measure of significance, Trump should have won — without hesitation. As the Nobel Prize website itself states: “With regard to the Peace Prize, the will of Alfred Nobel stipulated that it was to be awarded to the person “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Only Donald J. Trump satisfies that criteria today. Trump the Anti-Hero No doubt Machado is fighting for a worthy cause, but she is a participant in a domestic political fight, not a peacemaker ending global conflicts. Yet, it really does not matter: the Nobel Peace Prize has not been relevant to peacemaking for generations (winners of it, Barak Obama and Yasser Arafat, come to mind). It has been hijacked by “woke” interests pushing political agendas — not genuine efforts towards peace. And, there still remains an ideological obstacle staring us all in the face. The Peace Prize, in practice, has come to reward what could be called liberal internationalism. That wasn’t what Alfred Nobel originally envisioned, but over time it’s been interpreted through that “lens.” From that vantagepoint, Trump is an “anti-hero,” the very opposite of that orientation. But if one returns to the older, more classical notion of peacemaking — ending wars by whatever means available — then Trump fits the bill. In that sense, he could win next year, if the committee began to think the way it did a century ago — as Alfred Nobel originally intended. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Science Has Finally Come For Transgenderism France: A Country Perpetually at Odds with Itself New Study Shows Trump Might Be Right on Tariffs

In July, President Trump signed the GENIUS Act, which set forth a foundation for the issuance of a type of cryptocurrency known as stablecoin. Principal stated objectives are to assure the status of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, strengthen national security, and assure the U.S. leadership in digital currencies. The Act permits subsidiaries of authorized institutions, e.g. Wall Street banks but potentially others such as major retailers, to issue a digital currency backed by short-term U.S. treasuries or cash. Some major financial institutions have looked at collaborating to issue a joint stablecoin. Some financial press has enthusiastically endorsed digital currencies as a new asset class, moving toward the mainstream. History records financial products that grew too fast and were not well-enough understood. Increasing the demand for U.S. treasuries should strengthen the dollar, which comprises 58 percent  of international currency reserves. This is a commanding lead, with the Euro in second place at 20 percent, although the dollar peaked out at 72 percent nearly 25 years ago. There is no doubt that the BRICS nations and some of the Global South would like an alternative to the dollar, as this would diminish U.S. standing; feed their resentments of the West; reduce their potential exposure to being sanctioned on the Society for Worldwide Interbank Telecommunications (SWIFT); and allow them to develop an alternative payment system for use among themselves. As far as national security is concerned, a major and abrupt movement out of dollar assets by China, for example, would be destabilizing, complicate treasury auctions of U.S. securities, increase interest rates, and damage the U.S. economy. Transaction costs would be significant, but not nearly as much as the carnage of a major war. However, the existence of stablecoin does not reduce the risk of Chinese or other investors selling it to damage the dollar. While mainland China is cautious and does not presently allow cryptocurrency trading,  Hong Kong wishes access to the nearly $4 trillion crypto market. It has recently passed legislation allowing licensed firms to issue a cryptocurrency as an experiment that could lead to a yuan-backed digital currency.  Technical benefits of stablecoin would be reduced transaction costs, and instantaneous settlement that eliminates counterparty risk. Depending on the transaction, presently settlement can range from instantaneous, to several days for the Automated Clearing House (ACH) to move money domestically and for SWIFT for global money transfers. A financial benefit to Wall Street would be earning interest income on U.S. treasuries without paying the cryptocurrency holders anything, however future competition could cause issuers to pay interest.  The White House announcement teems with ebullience, and the Genius Act sounds like an act of, well, genius — however there are issues and risks to ponder and explain. First, who is the backer of last resort, like the Federal Reserve supports the dollar and the Department of the Treasury guaranteed the U.S. banking system when the meltdown of September 2008? A related question is what happens if there is an abrupt interest rate spike and the value of the collateral fall — will the holders or issuers have to make up the loss? Further, what are the capital requirements for this financial product that would support intervention? The White House announcement refers to strict compliance standards, anti-money laundering safeguards, monthly reporting by issuers and annual audits for them. However, the San Francisco Federal Reserve had performed periodic audits on Silicon Valley Bank, a regional bank with over $200 billion of assets that collapsed in early 2023, the second largest bank failure in U.S. history.  Further, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were regularly audited, yet before the crash of 2008, too much capital flowed into the mortgage industry, with some subprime underlying credits and mortgage terms and conditions not well understood. In spite of sophisticated financial models and predictive algorithms by well-credentialed analysts, the U.S. had the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.  The large capital migration into the mortgage industry was dangerous then, and a similar exit from “sticky” bank deposits into a “hot” digital currency could threaten the banking system as an unintended consequence.  In a recent research paper, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) recognizes the transformative value of digitization for payments and securities. However, it advises that this will not be the future backbone of the world monetary system because of the trust factor — trust in money, central banks, and certain test factors that it cites.  History records financial products that grew too fast and were not well-enough understood. When they blew up, they took a lot of “smart” people with them. With the GENIUS Act, there will certainly be potential winners and losers, as there often are with any legislation. The winners will be the issuing firms, trade and investment transactors who reduce transaction costs, and potentially the status of the U.S. in global financial markets as an innovator and leader of the digital revolution — if stable coin is successful. The losers could be China and others wanting to reduce the role of the dollar, as well as the banking system which would end up with federally uninsured deposits that could behave as “hot money.” The spot price of gold over $4,000 per ounce says that investors already have plenty to worry about: a slowing economy, inflation, the effects of tariffs, geopolitical fears, a weakening dollar, and event risk. Introducing a digital currency touted as a monumental development only adds to the uncertainty, which many (but not all) investors abhor.  Cynics may well say that uncollateralized cryptocurrencies have been cited for years by central banks as a haven for drug trafficking, terrorism, and money laundering. Facebook’s cryptocurrency known as Libra launched in 2019 turned out to be a colossal disaster — it too, was to be similarly supported with high quality collateral, but it was vigorously opposed by regulators in the U.S. and Europe.  Waggish observers may also say that the “GENIUS” moniker is reminiscent of the 1980’s concept of the Master of the Universe — the young investment banker who, believing his financial acumen to be awesome and infallible, thinks he can see way beyond the horizon, as in the film Wall Street with Michael Douglas as Gordon Gecko — who immortalized the expression, “Greed is good.” As the implementation of stablecoin unfolds, we will get to see whether it is greed or good.  Frank Schell is a business strategy consultant and former senior vice president of the First National Bank of Chicago. He was a Lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago and is a contributor of opinion pieces to various journals. READ MORE from Frank Schell Facebook’s Cryptofantasy Is a Cryptosetback Trump and Modi Need The Art of the Deal The Next James Bond Will Defy Traditions

After attending the Organization of American Historians annual conference in Chicago, IL earlier this year, I felt compelled to compose a reflection of the event, primarily focusing on one session — a session titled “The Election of 2024.” As a historian who followed the presidential election closely, I was eager to hear how some of my colleagues viewed the roles of media and money on the election, as well as how they portrayed the most important issues to voters in 2024 (e.g. inflation, immigration, and national security) that led Donald Trump to winning the election over a candidate who was appointed, rather than elected, to serve as the Democratic party’s representative in November. Moreover, it seems their response to these fears is to fabricate histories … and ignore significant historical details and evidence. I was also curious how my colleagues viewed the mainstream media’s and Democratic leadership’s failure to confront Biden’s health problems — issues that ultimately led to his resignation as the party’s presidential candidate. Fresh revelations from former Chief of Staff Ron Klain, and reports that leaders practically had to push Biden out piqued my interest. Alas, none of these topics were addressed by any of the five panelists, nor by the Chair, and not by a single person in the audience when the floor was opened to questions. Indeed, when one member of the audience approached the microphone, he proudly announced he was hosting an Anti-Trump Rally the following day and encouraged attendees to join. In fact, I do not recall the names Joe Biden or Kamala Harris ever being mentioned throughout the entire discussion. I admit, I felt that I must hold my tongue for fear that I would be attacked, and attacks in such a public venue could perhaps cost me professional opportunities and even compensation in the future.  To start, when Marsha Barrett, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, took her turn at the microphone, she spent much of her time addressing alleged racial discrimination. She challenged the narrative that Trump performed better with African Americans, claiming that Trump fared about the same with the black vote in 2024 as he did in 2020. Barrett even contended that votes were still being counted (in April of 2024), as though there might have been a different outcome had we waited for all votes to be counted, giving the impression that African Americans might have been disfranchised. I do not recall her making these claims blatantly, but rather she seems to have alluded to these arguments. Unfortunately, Barrett failed to break down the numbers by state. Going into the 2024 election, it was clear that there were only seven swing states whose outcomes were for all intents-and-purposes not predetermined — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, exit polls indicate Trump earned approximately 17 more percentage points from black male voters in 2024 than he did in 2020, and in North Carolina, Trump gained 12 points.  Another panelist, Melani McAlister, focused her presentation on Trump’s attempts to restrict immigration during his first term in office. McAlister portrayed Trump as anti-Islamic and rabidly pro-Israel, while she, herself, exhibited a great deal of pro-Palestinian sentiment. She gave Trump a minimal amount of credit for the ceasefire that was broken in March when Benjamin Netanyahu grew dissatisfied with Hamas’ hesitation and refusal to release hostages, both living and dead. Even though the panel was supposed to address the 2024 election, little of this was connected to Trump’s campaign, and nothing was said about Biden’s or Harris’ actions or lack thereof. Truly, it was difficult to understand what actions Harris might have taken had she been elected, and pro-Palestinian protests spread like wildfire and were frequently front-page news under Biden’s administration. Moreover, Harris repeatedly praised Biden’s policies when she campaigned, frequently finding it difficult to separate her own prospective policies from Biden’s, despite Biden’s low approval ratings. When asked in an Oct. 8 appearance on ABC’s The View what she would do differently than Biden, Harris answered “not a thing.” Nevertheless, McAlister ignored how Americans viewed specific policies and spent much of her presentation empathizing with the Palestinians.  Another panelist, Felisha Kornbluh, proclaimed herself to be a proud leftist, but indicated she reluctantly had to use a more liberal perspective in preparing for this session. She focuses most of her work on LGBTQIA+ issues, so she used most of her time advocating for the transgender community. Meanwhile recent polls show support for transgender issues has declined — particularly in youth sports. From what I recall, none of what she said used historical evidence to support her contentions, and never did she address how Americans viewed the transgender issue leading up to the 2024 election. One of Trump’s most successful ad campaigns was a commercial that showed Harris supporting taxpayer funded transgender surgeries, yet the effects of this ad campaign were left unexplored. As I remember, the only panelist who said anything relevant to the 2024 election was Sarah McNamara. McNamara correctly pointed out that the Democratic party took the Latino vote for granted, focusing on Florida and deep South Texas where Republicans faired particularly well. Despite this correct assertion, she still failed to use much historical evidence from the 2024 election, but instead she leaned heavily on her own understanding of the Latine community. I am familiar with McNamara’s work, and I respect her knowledge and understanding of Latino/a issues, but she certainly could have provided more depth and explained her research program on the political nuances of Latino Americans.  Remarkably, one of the recurring themes of the conference was an expressed fear that history teachers in K-12 and professors in higher education may not be able to teach accurate histories in the near future due to suppression from conservative political leaders. Repeatedly in conference sessions and in networking conversations, attendees decried the idea that both state and federal government leaders are clamping down on academic freedom. Indeed, the opening plenary consisted of historian-after-historian claiming they are afraid for the lives of academics, the historical profession, and underrepresented communities, with many claiming they cannot sleep at night because of the current administration. While I too believe that governments and academic institutions, in their attempts to address a variety of problems in higher education, might be going too far and threaten academic freedom, I think most of their concerns are blown out of proportion. Moreover, it seems their response to these fears is to fabricate histories for their own purposes and ignore significant historical details and evidence. Their arguments are based on emotion and not inspired by data and facts. They fail to recognize what is true by creating their own “truths.” In essence, it seems that historians have willfully abandoned what it is to be historians, sacrificing their reputation as scholars for the sake of promoting anti-Trump and anti-Republican propaganda. The fear expressed by attendees at large was that they are witnessing the birth of a fascist, totalitarian government. My fear is that academia is already suffering under a leftist totalitarianism that prefers subjectivity over research, consensus over debate, and irrationality over reason and empiricism. In other words, maybe we’re already there. READ MORE from Peter Martinez: The Vilification and Vindication of Mark Regnerus Is Darwinism a ‘Potemkin’ Theory of Evolution? MAGA Can Learn From Marx and Communism? Please!

from Tucker Carlson: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from Sputnik News: The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced in Oslo on October 10 that the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to María Corina Machado. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Maria Corina Machado is “another episode in the endless saga of globalist corruption of values,” Professor Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on […]

What's the worst that could happen? The post US to Train Pilots from Qatari Terror State That Harbored 9/11 Mastermind appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Most don't even notice it. The post Government Shutdowns Turn Out Not To Be a Big Deal appeared first on Frontpage Mag.