The faceless, unelected global elite are rattled, but they’re still lurking in the shadows, pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Their ultimate goal? To take down President Donald Trump before he can completely dismantle their New World Order agenda. After flying their private jets to the Swiss mountain resort of Davos-Klosters, the global elite are convening as we speak, and reports from the back rooms reveal a diabolical plan. According to insiders, Schwab is promising to pardon anyone who successfully assassinates Trump once the globalists seize control of the United States. But it gets worse - this assassin will be celebrated as a hero in the New World Order, rewarded for their role in ushering in their twisted vision of power. UTL COMMENT:- The TPV reports are normally quite good based on reasonable assumptions and information so why ruin them by adding these clearly bogus 'whistleblowers' who are always obviously reading a script? Come on TPV!! Get Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Fenbendazole here: https://pills4ever.com - use coupon code 'peoplesvoice' for 15% off. - Become a member of the world’s first ever cyber nation: https://joseon.com - Visit https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/IPV6 to take back control of the Internet

The post A Golden Age Begins appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I’ve been following closely every utterance of the new Trump administration regarding the situation in the Middle East. In that regard, by the way, I strongly endorse and recommend Schmuel Katzkin’s treatment in Sunday’s The American Spectator. With Katzkin, I think it’s very much time to “hope big,” even as I acknowledge that past hopes for a lasting — and defensible — peace in the Middle East have been routinely shattered. Historical Context of Israeli Conflicts I’m not quite old enough to remember the 1956 war between Israel (with British and French support) and its Arab neighbors, although, down through the years, I’ve read everything about it I could lay my hands on, including extensive discussions of the regrettably negative role played by our own country during this “Suez Crisis.” It’s hard to know what might have followed from a decision to support action against the Nasser regime; history is always contingent, and alternative choices inevitably lead to unpredictable outcomes. Hindsight, after all, is always 20/20. But I suspect things could have scarcely turned out worse, and there were all sorts of ways in which they might have turned out better. Much the same might be said of the 1967 and 1973 wars, and indeed of all the other such conflicts ever since. So much blood has been shed, so much violence unleashed, particularly in the form of Islamist terrorism. I’m staunchly on the side of the Israelis in all of this, not because one can’t find some Israeli actions objectionable, but emphatically because the bottom line has always been a desire on the part of the Israelis to be left alone to live in peace. Gradually, through force of arms in successive wars, the Israelis taught neighboring countries that attacking Israel openly was a losing proposition. But the Islamists shifted the terms of the battle, particularly once it became one waged by Iran’s mullahs through their various proxies, Katzkin’s “three H’s,” Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Terrorism became the common coinage as the conflict played out in the 21st Century. With the Oct. 7 massacre, Israel declared “enough.” Hamas has been crushed, Hezbollah decapitated, the Houthis marginalized (although still capable of great mischief), and, above all, the Iranian regime has been humbled. All of this has been achieved despite first Obama and then Biden’s willingness to play up to Iran, and even more so in spite of Biden’s haphazard “support” for Israel in its hour of need. In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, I expressed, more than once, the hope that Israel would not be prevented from finishing the job, and in large part, that hope has come true. Most Recent Ceasefire So what then to make of the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas? What are we to conclude from the manner in which the incoming Trump administration — no friend of Hamas or of its legions of enablers among America’s progressives — joined ranks with the Biden team to push for this agreement? Why make arguably a bad tradeoff, releasing so many Hamas terrorists for so few hostages? Katzkin characterizes the deal as “discouraging because it incentivizes hostage-taking” in the future. I think he’s absolutely correct, and many have wondered why, at this juncture, the Israelis have chosen to take their foot off the gas pedal. Obviously, humanitarian concerns play a huge role. Throughout the many months since Oct. 7, the ongoing plight of the hostages had weighed heavily on public opinion in Israel. The joy accompanying their return is palpable. It may also be that the IDF simply needs a break. Although it has executed its mission in Gaza with great skill and due concern for minimizing its casualties, the IDF relies heavily on mobilized reserves. The longer a mobilization lasts, the greater the strain on every aspect of Israeli society. And it may simply be the case that, with Trump in place of Biden, there is more confidence in Jerusalem that, when the time comes, Israel may be allowed to finish the job of neutralizing Hamas once and for all. Trump’s Future Strategy in the Middle East I suspect, however, that there is another reason why Trump pushed so hard for the ceasefire, and why Netanyahu so readily agreed, and I’m surprised that this reason has attracted so little discussion. Simply stated, the ceasefire opens the door to the expansion of the Abraham Accords, and specifically to the first steps toward bringing Saudi Arabia on board, which would be an absolute game changer. This was something even “Biden” (that is, the string pullers behind his administration) wanted to achieve, so much so that, having started by stigmatizing the Saudis for all manner of sins, in its latter stages the Biden regime worked hard to normalize ties to Riyadh. But the Saudis, wisely, didn’t trust Biden or his Obama retreads, all of them compromised by a commitment to playing nice with Iran’s mullahs. Above all, after Oct. 7, with open warfare between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the Saudi leaders couldn’t let themselves be seen as “cozying up” to Israel. It has always been likely that one of the reasons why the mullahs “greenlighted” the Oct. 7 pogrom was a desire to derail the peace process and to prevent an accession of Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the other Saudi leaders understand full well that their deadliest enemy is the Iranian regime and that making common cause with Israel, the greatest regional military power, affords them the greatest long-term strategic advantage. Their relationship with the Houthis is one of outright mutual hatred and with Hamas one of contempt. Interestingly, this week Donald Trump brought up the idea of just moving the Palestinians out of Gaza and having them taken in by Jordan and Egypt. He may have meant it as a temporary measure while Gazan institutions and infrastructure are rebuilt, but more likely the intention was to lance, once and for all, the festering boil on Israel’s border. However, both the Jordanians and the Egyptians immediately dismissed the idea as a non-starter, and well they might, for the dirty little secret of Arab politics, going back to 1948, is that none of the neighboring Arab countries much likes the Palestinians or wants to have to deal with them directly. This is also true of the Saudi leadership, who would like nothing better than a solution that removes the Palestinians as an obstacle to a broader anti-Iran alliance in the Middle East. Like the Jordanians and the Egyptians, they don’t want to have them on their soil, but at the same time, they can’t simply walk away, not least because, for too many years, Wahhabi clerics funded by Saudi Arabia stirred the Arab street in support of Palestinian ambitions. Saudi Arabia might have found a path to accommodation with Israel prior to Oct. 7, but once hostilities flared, the Saudi leaders were trapped by Arab public opinion. The new ceasefire reopens the possibility of closer ties, which are likely informal for now, but with accession to the Abraham Accords, the likely goal. The crown prince knows that he is playing for time, that the long-term survival of the monarchy requires peace with Israel and, in conjunction with the United States, a new era of maximum pressure on the mullahs until, one day, the Iranian people can be free again — and peace might just come to the region. Will it happen tomorrow? Of course not. Are there many obstacles today, and a panoply of threats for tomorrow — of course, as demonstrated by Oct. 7. But one can see the outlines of a path forward emerging, one that marginalizes such bad actors as the Qatar regime and isolates Iran. A path forward encouraged and supported by the new leadership of the United States, one unburdened by Obama-era fantasies about Iran and barely concealed hostility towards Israel. A path forward. That, in itself, after decades of loss and heartbreak, is something worthy of our prayers and our best efforts. READ MORE from James H. McGee: Dueling Memes on Deportation … and Our Lives Enough with Leftist Fantasy — Hitler Is Really Dead, and He Should Finally Be Buried President Trump and Peace in Ukraine James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His recent novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. A forthcoming sequel finds the Reprisal team fighting against terrorists who’ve infiltrated our southern border in a conspiracy that ranges across the globe. You can find Letter of Reprisal on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions and on Kindle Unlimited. The post Trump and the Gaza Ceasefire: Implications for the Future of the Abraham Accords appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The start of the Trump administration has been characterized by an aggressive revamp of the federal government’s approach to artificial intelligence. During the first week, Trump published two executive orders focused on reversing Biden’s heavy-handed approach to AI. As the new admin looks into erasing other Biden-era mistakes, it should prioritize and reevaluate the recent AI export control rules drafted by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. This rulemaking will likely become a costly unforced error that most Americans will look back on with deep regret. These rules would enact stringent export controls for various AI-related goods and services for all, except for a handful of countries deemed “low-risk.” Additionally, AI companies would be required to file and process extensive paperwork when exporting products or services abroad, and they will be subject to export caps. These restrictions would apply to essentially every country in the world, except the United Kingdom, most of the European Union, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. The Biden administration argued that this new rule would prevent AI technology from falling into the wrong hands — namely, adversarial nations. But, this rule will seriously constrain the growth of American companies and the U.S. economy. Burdening the industry with onerous licensing regimes and capping its sales will severely limit companies’ ability to expand to other markets thus reducing their global reach and stifling their ability to grow. It will also likely end up going against its stated objective and empower the Chinese AI industry, which can take advantage of the reduced presence of American companies in global markets. Unsurprisingly, AI companies have already voiced their opposition to the rule. Their reasoning is simple: the added paperwork and trade restrictions will increase their prices and slow down the distribution of their products, making American AI products less competitive globally. However, the potential buyers for these products will still look for AI products on the global market, as they also want to reap the benefits of the AI revolution. Instead of sourcing American products, they will look to those of our adversaries who can satisfy their needs for a lower price in a timely matter. The consequences of ceding the global AI market to foreign adversaries go beyond monetary value. As witnessed with social media, leading firms and their countries will likely shape the rules — both formal and informal — of the industry. In the case of social media, America’s global leadership led to an internet culture that promoted democracy, free speech, and the rule of law. This happened because their products were willingly adopted by millions of users across the world, and shaped their behavior according to the rules that governed these platforms. A China-led AI global industry could undermine these past victories, with global repercussions. Another key shortcoming of the rule is that it rewards jurisdictions that are overregulating and unduly burdening American AI companies. The BIS’s criteria to exempt countries from most of these rules was to have a regulatory framework that “prevent[s] diversion of advanced technologies,” and to have a regulatory environment that “advances national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and its allies and partners.” Exempt From the Rules Nonetheless, the list of exempted countries is heavily populated by EU countries that passed the AI Act, a burdensome regulation that will primarily target American AI companies and could potentially undermine the development of the American AI industry. The burden of European regulation has been of such a magnitude, that several American companies abstain from providing their services in the region. However, the rulemaking rewards the European market with a lower regulatory burden, while punishing other commercial and foreign policy allies that have less hostile regulatory environments. Limiting the industry’s capacity to enter into new markets will reduce its potential revenues, causing this rulemaking to do little more than harm America’s claim for global leadership in AI. The Department of Commerce’s mission is to explore and adopt avenues to streamline commerce to ensure that American companies can enter as many markets as possible. However, this rulemaking does the complete opposite by adding paperwork and friction for U.S. exports. The administration should prioritize withdrawing this rule promptly before any more damage is done. Considering the role AI will take in the future economy, this rulemaking will likely become a costly unforced error that most Americans will look back on with deep regret. READ MORE: Making Friends: AI and Companionship AI Snake Oil: Separating Hype From Reality in Artificial Intelligence Juan Londoño is the Chief Regulatory Analyst at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. The post Removing Export Rules on AI Should Be a Priority for the Trump Administration appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The short answer to the question posed in the title of this article is that it depends on how forcefully but deftly the administration can implement its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion order, and how the project will be received by Congress, courts, states, institutions, businesses, and the public. Early evidence suggests that most big businesses are not going to object, as Walmart, McDonald’s, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Harley-Davidson, Amazon, Boeing, Brown-Forman, Meta, Lowe’s, and others had already moved to wind down or terminate their DEI programs after the Supreme Court ended affirmative action in 2023 and Trump won in 2024 after committing to end DEI.  Meritocracy looks like a more responsible policy for many profit-making enterprises. (RELATED: The High-Water Mark of Woke Corporate Activism) That incentive may not apply in other areas such as academia and the nonprofit world. However, the public has recently watched public officials committed to diversity falter in Los Angeles, with the L.A. mayor having been absent in Ghana during the height of LA’s fire season. However justified, the public’s heuristic skepticism of L.A.’s DEI makes DEI’s national death more likely. Trump’s DEI order offers a good case study of executive orders in general. President Trump signed almost 200 orders covering many subjects on the first day of his return to office. The legal implications of executive orders will be of keen interest during this administration. (RELATED: Trump’s Executive Order Ends ‘Trans’ Tyranny and Protects Females) The prime DEI order Trump signed on January 21 is “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The gist is to halt DEI policies and practices as broadly as possible. The order says that DEI already “can violate the civil rights laws.” It seeks to “end illegal preferences and discrimination … Government-wide.” The order also seeks to “encourage” the private sector to end illegal discrimination by targeting cases of DEI discrimination in large corporations and entities, as well as by prohibiting the use of DEI among government contractors and in all higher educational institutions receiving federal money (that is, almost all of them). The order anticipates potential evasion of its dictates in the bureaucracy, and attempts to root out any evasions. The next day, Trump ordered all federal DEI employees to be furloughed with pay “immediately,” which he is presumed to have full authority to do. But Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL) immediately pushed back, saying on MSNBC, “We should continue to encourage individuals and agencies and corporations to do the right thing anyway,” apparently inviting active resistance by government bureaucrats to Trump’s DEI order. Later that week, Georgetown law professor Dorothy Brown, a critical race theory advocate, took another tack by calling the order “big government run amuck. Why is the federal government telling private entities who they can hire?” Legal battles are apparently brewing, which is even subtly foreshadowed in the order, which carves out free speech for classroom debate criticizing the order. Meanwhile, speaking to the Davos forum on January 24, Trump savaged DEI as “absolute nonsense.” The legality of the increasing use of executive orders by U.S. presidents has been questioned long before Trump. The overarching constitutional problem is that the president is not a monarch. However, given the originally unimagined scope of the huge federal administrative state, the massive size of federal spending, and a paralyzed Congress, the expanded use of executive orders is understandable. Yet they remain vulnerable to legal attack and will likely be one of the major battlefronts by Democrats in Lawfare 2.0 against Trump and his administration. Depending on how they are crafted and implemented, executive orders may run afoul of legislative power, judicial power, states’ rights, and citizen autonomy. For example, Congress has the power under the 14th Amendment’s Section 5 to outlaw DEI but has not done so. Does that mean that the president is crossing Congress, or will Congress prove quiescent or maybe signal approval? As to the administration’s statement that the intent is to “combat” private sector DEI as inherently “illegal,” that could be seen as a usurpation of the court’s role in interpreting what is or is not illegal under the civil rights laws and cases already on the books. As to the states, do executive orders have the force of law to restrict states if the Department of Justice pushes discrimination cases against state DEI programs? Practically speaking, a key question will be whether businesses, institutions, and the public will accept the demise of DEI as having been a possibly noble but failed experiment. Much will depend on how the administration uses its discretion in singling out particularly odious forms of DEI and selectively threatens to use its educational funding strings to get DEI at least formally out of higher education. Nonetheless, one can expect subtle underground resistance within higher education as suggested by Professor Brown’s immediate broadside swipe at Trump’s DEI order. Earlier, in 2023, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky went viral over his remarks admitting that “unstated affirmative action” occurs regardless of court rulings, at least in faculty hiring. “You can think it,” he said, “you can vote it, but …  don’t ever articulate that’s what you’re doing.” Although subtle discrimination is hard to snuff out altogether, Trump’s forceful DEI order is a major step toward meritocracy and fair play even if this particular order is potentially over-broad. Still, cribbing Browning, perhaps a president’s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what’s a heaven for? Martin Luther King, Jr. himself stretched beyond his own life to realize for others his dream of personal judgment not on skin color, but character. READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence David Oedel is a professor of law at Mercer University Law School and is chair of the Constitutional Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. The post Can an Executive Order Kill DEI? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It’s being reported that Buckley Carlson, son of Tucker Carlson, will serve as Vice President JD Vance’s deputy press secretary. He doesn’t come without experience though. Carlson’s a seasoned Capitol Hill aide. He started as a staff assistant in 2019, recently served as deputy chief of staff for Rep. Jim Banks. His appointment comes as Vance fills senior roles in his administration. But the media is freaking out about this and writing headlines about “nepotism!” which is so hypocritical. To those that don’t know, nepotism is “the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs.” I’ll explain how this is at the heart of the media further down. JUST IN: The son of Tucker Carlson, Buckley Carlson, is set to join Vice President J.D. Vance’s office as deputy press secretary – ABC / @wsteaks pic.twitter.com/cr4V5Cl5RZ — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 27, 2025 ABC News reports: Buckley Carlson, a former Capitol Hill aide and the son of conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, is set to join Vice President JD Vance’s press office, sources tell ABC News. The younger Carlson is set to serve as Vance’s deputy press secretary, sources said. Buckley Carlson has worked as an aide on Capitol Hill since 2019, including most recently serving as deputy chief of staff to Republican Rep. Jim Banks. He first joined Banks’ office in 2019 as a staff assistant before becoming communications director in 2021. Earlier this month, Vance tapped several former employees to join his vice presidential staff in senior staff roles, including Jacob Reses, who is continuing to serve as his chief of staff. BREAKING Tucker Carlson’s son Buckley will become VP JD Vance’s Deputy Press Secretary THIS IS A MASSIVE WIN FOR AMERICA pic.twitter.com/K1t74uFdlw — MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) January 27, 2025 When it comes to nepotism, the Left excels at that. Especially the media. Which is probably why they’re so quick to pull that word out that most people rarely use or think of. Hollywood and the media run by ‘nepo babies’, those that have been the recipients of nepotism. Let’s have a quick look… Oh, please. The nepotism is real- especially with Disney/Hulu. North West was also in Lion King at Hollywood Bowl. pic.twitter.com/Fwy3ApHhQ8 — GdayAmerica (@ArtistMuse1963) December 11, 2024 O’Keefe Media Group caught on tape that Disney, run by jewish Bob Iger, will only mainly hire Jews for their C-Suite leadership positions. Nepotism much? Funny how some people think that saying Hollywood is run by jews is antisemitic. Even James O’Keefe said that in his report. But they freely admit it themselves… Wonder why the media never talks about that nepotism? It’s not nepotism. It’s Hollywood tapping the unique creative pipeline of having a complicated relationship with one’s parent. pic.twitter.com/hZZv7YLQU3 — Sridhar Ramesh (@RadishHarmers) November 8, 2021 Zooey Deschanel is another obvious example. Zooey Deschanel on being called a nepo baby “My father is a cinematographer … no one is getting jobs because [of that]” Her dad is a 6X Oscar nominee and her mother is an actress pic.twitter.com/tLDSPOgaTR — Culture Crave (@CultureCrave) April 1, 2024

According to news reports, CNN’s Jim Acosta will leave the network after working there for almost 18 years. During his career at the network, Acosta served as a correspondent between 2007 and February 2012, when he was promoted to be national political correspondent. He was promoted to senior White House correspondent in August 2013, the promoted to be chief White House correspondent on January 9, 2018. Concurrent with the beginning of the Biden administration, Acosta was named chief domestic correspondent and weekend anchor. But Acosta, whose rancorous relationship with President Trump lasted the entire four year of Trump’s firs term, was kicked out from his morning show this month by CNN and told he would henceforth anchor a show from midnight until 2am ET. According to former CNN anchor Oliver Darcy, Acosta “signaled to associates in private conversations over the weekend that he intends to depart the network after its booted him from the morning programming lineup.” On Wednesday, Acosta said to Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), “I was at the White House covering the first Trump administration when they had rioting outside of the White House. I mean, that was covered on CNN. This is not Fox. Congressman, you can‘t just spin a tale and pull the wool over people‘s eyes. This is CNN. This is the news. We are asking you to come on and tell the truth.” “And that’s why more people are watching the Cartoon Network, SpongeBob reruns right now, Jim,” Burchett fired back, continuing, “Look, I left the White House during a riot. My life was threatened. My life has been threatened within the last few weeks, yet there‘s no coverage of that. And you all continue this, this narrative of attacking Trump. You just can‘t stand the fact that he won and that America spoke.” In November 2018, President Trump got so fed up at Acosta for badgering him and refusing to relinquish the microphone at a press conference that he snapped, “That’s enough. Put down the mic. I tell you what, CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN.” FULL EXCHANGE: Trump vs. @Acosta "Put down the mic…""You are a rude, terrible person…" pic.twitter.com/hdnNGd2xLc — Yahoo News (@YahooNews) November 7, 2018 In his book “The Enemy of the People: A Dangerous Time to Tell the Truth in America,” Acosta declared, “Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn’t serve us in the age of Trump.” In November 2020, just days after the 2020 election, Acosta fancied himself a prognosticator, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “He’s been tweeting, talking about how he won this state and that state. We have to pay attention to those tweets because he’s the president. After January 20th, he just goes back to another crack pot on the Internet.” Former CNN producer Steve Krakauer said in April 2020, “Jim Acosta wants to be famous. I’ve written before, three years ago, that Acosta clearly aspires to use this opportunity to spar with President Trump, #Resistance Signal on Twitter and generally build his brand to move on to bigger things — a prime time show maybe, or at least a few late-night TV appearances. … Jim Acosta loves nothing more than Jim Acosta.”