President Donald Trump on Saturday raised the pressure in his pursuit of purchasing Greenland, vowing 10% tariffs on eight European nations until Denmark allows a sale, which Trump said is vital for the sake of “world peace.” In a lengthy Truth Social post, Trump said, starting February 1, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland will be charged a 10% tariff “on any and all goods sent to the United States of America.” The tariff, he said, will spike to 25% by June 1, and will remain in place until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Trump argued that the United States has been subsidizing Denmark, European Union nations, and others, by bypassing tariffs for years. “Now, after Centuries,” Trump wrote, “it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake!” The president underscored Chinese and Russian interest in Greenland and said “there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it.” “They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently,” he wrote. “Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake.” Last week, Trump similarly warned that Greenland would fall under the control of Russia or China if the U.S. doesn’t step in. “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I am not going to let that happen,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One. “I’d love to make a deal with them. It’s easier. But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” In his Saturday Truth Social post, Trump added, “The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. … The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades.”

A politically charged festival lineup sparks controversy, challenging loyalties and igniting debates on artistry versus political alignment. Festival Lineup Sparks Backlash Recently, the “Rock the Country” festival announced a lineup featuring hip-hop artists Ludacris and Nelly among predominantly country acts like Kid Rock and Jason Aldean. The event, dubbed “MAGA Music Fest,” quickly became a target of online backlash. Critics accused the artists of aligning with conservative politics, prompting boycotts and public shaming reminiscent of past controversies involving performers at politically charged events. Despite the uproar, both Ludacris and Nelly have remained silent, neither confirming nor denying any changes to their participation. The absence of official responses from the artists has left fans speculating about their motivations and whether financial incentives outweigh political considerations. The festival’s portrayal as a pro-America celebration continues to stir debate about the intersection of music and politics in today’s polarized environment. Political Context and Artist Histories The “Rock the Country” festival is a multi-city event launched in 2024, known for its patriotic Americana theme. The New York Times previously described its 2024 iteration as resembling Trump rallies. Headliners like Kid Rock and Jason Aldean, who have openly supported conservative causes, amplify the festival’s right-leaning image. This context places Ludacris and Nelly, with their histories of Democratic endorsements and past controversies, in a challenging position. Both artists have faced scrutiny for their involvement. Nelly’s participation in Trump’s 2024 inauguration sparked similar backlash, which he defended as a patriotic duty. Ludacris, known for his support of Democratic figures, now finds himself at the center of a debate over artistic freedom versus perceived political betrayal. Implications for Artists and Fans The backlash against Ludacris and Nelly highlights a broader tension between artistic autonomy and fan expectations. Critics argue that their participation in a “MAGA-themed” event undermines their previous political stances and potentially erodes their fan base. Conversely, the festival gains notoriety as a controversial platform, potentially attracting a different audience. As the festival continues with its original lineup, the situation underscores the challenges artists face navigating politically charged environments. The response to Ludacris and Nelly’s participation could set a precedent for future cross-genre bookings at politically tinged events. Sources: Ludacris And Nelly Shamed For Booking At ‘MAGA Music Fest’ Ludacris and Nelly Face Backlash Over Participation in ‘Rock the Country’ Ludacris and Nelly Participate in MAGA Festival, Facing Backlash

'For incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Trudeau government has been handed a bruising from the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which ruled that the 2022 declaration of a national emergency to dismantle the trucker convoy was unlawful and unjustified. After two years of official spin about “protecting Canadians,” the court has said what critics knew from the start: the Emergencies Act was never meant for angry truckers and honking horns protesting against the erosion of civil liberties. The judges were blunt. Ottawa, they said, never had “the factual or legal foundation required” to declare a national emergency. “As disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the convoy protests in Ottawa could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security.” In other words, the convoy may have jammed traffic, but it didn’t topple the country. The convoy started as opposition to vaccine and vaccine passport mandates, and became a rolling protest against government control. Trucks filled Ottawa’s downtown, and coffee shops ran out of patience. But none of that, the court said, amounted to a national crisis. The court agreed with Justice Richard Mosley’s earlier conclusion that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act lacked “justification, transparency, and intelligibility.” Mosley had already found that the cabinet violated Charter rights by freezing the bank accounts of people who weren’t breaking the law. The appeal judges noted there was “no evidence that the lives, health or safety of the people living in Ottawa were endangered,” calling out the “lack of rigor” in how banks decided which accounts to freeze. In some cases, financial institutions relied on media reports and social posts to decide who lost access to their money. The image of bureaucrats scrolling Facebook to decide who gets financially exiled says plenty about the chaos behind the scenes. More: Civil liberties protesters can’t pay legal fees after bank accounts were frozen by Trudeau government Howard Sapers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association called the decision “a massive and historic victory for the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.” He reminded the public that emergency powers are supposed to be a last resort, not a shortcut for bad policing. “While the extraordinary powers granted to the federal government through the Emergencies Act may be necessary in some extreme circumstances, they also can threaten the rule of law and our democracy,” he said. The government, predictably, is now reviewing the ruling and weighing an appeal. Public Safety spokesperson Simon Lafortune said Ottawa “remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.” This is the same bureaucratic language that got them in trouble in the first place. The Emergencies Act allows a declaration only when no other law can handle the situation and when there are threats “so severe” they amount to a national crisis. David Vigneault, who led Canada’s spy agency at the time, testified that while he personally supported invoking the Act, he didn’t believe the protests met the legal definition of a security threat. That didn’t stop the government from trying to stretch the definition to fit its needs. The appeal judges warned that such a loose interpretation “could stifle all kinds of protests and demonstrations that blockade pipelines, nuclear plants, railway lines, and other kinds of infrastructure to advance a cause.” The subtext was clear: if Ottawa could call this an emergency, anything could qualify. The ruling directly contradicts the 2023 Public Order Emergency Commission led by Paul Rouleau, who found that the government had met the “very high” threshold to invoke the Act. Rouleau’s report said “lawful protest descended into lawlessness,” though he admitted his conclusion came “with some reluctance.” The appeal court showed less reluctance and more spine. The judgment is a warning shot about the creeping use of executive power to crush dissent and financially deplatform critics. The Emergencies Act was written to restrain panic, not endorse it. By treating a political nuisance as a national threat, the government set a precedent that could have turned protest into a regulated privilege. The court’s decision restores the idea that inconvenience isn’t the same thing as insurrection. For those who still believe in the right to dissent, this ruling isn’t just about truckers or vaccines. It’s about whether the government can decide, on its own terms, when democracy gets to take a time-out. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Court Confirms Trudeau’s Emergencies Act Invocation Against Freedom Convoy Was Illegal appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Her name was May Craig.  And she was, without doubt, a journalist’s journalist. Over the course of her reporting career Ms. Craig had covered both World War II and the Korean War. Then she moved on to American politics. All of that and she was unknown to the larger American public outside Washington until the Kennedy era and the advent of televised press conferences with the President and the then-White House press corps. Before the arrival of the telegenic young President John F. Kennedy, presidential press conferences were conducted in Oval Office scrums with no television. In fact, television itself didn’t exist en masse until after FDR had come and gone from the White House. And while his successors -- Truman and Eisenhower -- held press conferences, they were decidedly not held on live television. The concern in the day was that it was too risky for an American President to be taking questions on live television. It was the dawn of the terrifying nuclear age, and the belief was that if the President misspoke, the consequences could be horrific. But JFK felt that times had changed. The 1960’s were now here, and so was live television. So he made a point of changing the rules and for the first time Americans could witness a President being grilled by the press with no filter or editing coming between the President and his audience. JFK would motorcade over to an auditorium in the State Department, where he relished what quickly became a regular national TV show.  (The White House press room of today came about only in the Nixon era, when President Nixon ordered the famous White House swimming pool of FDR drained and covered over to accommodate the press. No small thing was that this removed the press from their previous hangout in the West Wing lobby where they could observe those who came and went to see the President. Nixon would have none of that, and government contractors were put to work building a floor in the drained pool, and the press room of today was born.) The participating press of the Kennedy era was highly aware that live television didn’t just cover the President -- it televised them as well. Thus they were extremely well-behaved. Not only were the American people watching them. So were their bosses. They quickly became a hot new television show. Which is where May Craig came in. She was edging towards her elderly years, but was never hesitant to ask her questions. Famously, on one occasion she stood up and politely accused the President’s administration of practicing “managed news,” asking why JFK felt the need to practice it. The President asked Craig what she felt she and the White House press corps should be getting from his administration, to which she replied: “I thought we should get everything we want.” The President smiled, nodded his head, and to the laughter of the press said “I think you should too, Miss Craig. I’m for that.” I actually remembered this episode from watching it live myself, geeky kid that I was. Amazingly that moment is now preserved on YouTube. But the point here? Contrast May Craig’s respectful, polite question to JFK with this report on a recent White House press conference held by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The headline:  Trump’s press secretary goes nuclear on journalist over ICE question: ‘You’re a left-wing hack’ The story in NJ.com reports:  White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Thursday briefing went off the rails as she clashed with a reporter who criticized the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who killed Renee Good. The exchange began with The Hill’s White House columnist Niall Stanage questioning ICE’s tactics after an agent shot and killed Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. That prompted Leavitt to pose her own question to the White House columnist: 'Why was Renee Good unfortunately and tragically killed?' 'Because an ICE agent acted recklessly and killed her unjustifiably,' Stanage said. His response elicited a furious reaction from Leavitt. 'Oh, OK. So you’re a biased reporter with a left-wing opinion. You’re a left-wing hack,' Leavitt said. 'You’re not a reporter, you’re posing in this room as a journalist and it’s so clear by the premise of your question.' Suffice to say, the gulf between May Craig’s respectful back and forth with JFK and the belligerent, decidedly politicized attack on Press Secretary Leavitt from that The Hill reporter is oceanic. Craig was respectful and neutral in tone and substance. Stanage was seriously partisan, not to mention outright rude. Which goes to a much larger point. Too many people covering the Trump White House, whether in the White House or spread across the media around the country, are not about journalism. They are about left-wing, anti-Trump activism -- exactly as Leavitt said. Just one of the problems with this is that down the road, when Trump is long gone from the White House and a Democrat holds the Oval Office, the ground has been laid for right-wing activists to also masquerade as journalists covering the Democrat President and his/her administration. Which is to say, the old wisdom applies: “Be careful what you wish for.” And if and when the day arrives that the White House press room is filled with conservative activists masquerading as journalists, you will know where they got the idea.

At some point, Google went from “don’t be evil” to “never mind.” The evidence is in its latest, duplicitous, and deceptive set of control mechanisms over online commerce.Google’s vision involves a Universal Commerce Protocol, which allows its AI to access retailer client histories on its customers (all without human acknowledgment or accountability). The Universal Commerce Protocol leverages its shopper data to monitor and cross-reference between retailers the habits of individuals and adjust prices based on the AI bot’s understanding/projection of the shopper’s financial, personal, and psychological situation.What seems to be happening is that online retailers have taken the AI bait. They’ve been sold on the purchase, implementation, and reliance upon so-called AI agents, which are designed to handle all possible aspects of internet commerce. It feels inevitable even though it isn’t. Either way, it’s happening. Our internet experience, even now, is being massively overwritten to effect the least-human outcomes possible.Its grabbing up of data is cloaked, misdirected, or buried under mountains of legalese or made intentionally difficult to ascertain.The truth is there’s been negligible-to-nonexistent customer service for most big corporations for almost a decade. Lose a box with Fed Ex and try to get an English-speaking human on the phone if you doubt this assertion. The differences in the now-unfolding AI era are mainly going to come down to the fact that whereas once a human was involved somewhere in the online experience, the new era will be almost entirely bot-derived, bot-managed, and bot-determined.According to Lindsay Owens, who breaks all this down in a viral X post, “As one Google exec explained, it allows retailers to 'offer custom deals to specific shoppers.' If you’ve granted consent or the agent identifies you via identity linking, Direct Offers uses your conversation to trigger specific offers. At first it might recognize you as a 'high value' customer and show you a 30% coupon instead of 10%, without having to extend the same thing to everybody. But Google says the plan is to use the agent’s persuasive power to encourage shoppers to 'prioritize value over price.' Put simply, not only does it want you to spend more, it targets you specifically as someone likely to agree to it." RELATED: Google has had access to your docs longer than you realize. Here's how to kick it out. Photo by Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesFor Google, which despite making everyone angry and churning out increasingly less impressive products for the last decade, the move from not evil to blithely diabolical is proved out insofar as all of its grabbing up of data is cloaked, misdirected, or buried under mountains of legalese or made intentionally difficult to ascertain. Legerdemain involving layering, shunting, enveloping, winding, and overly technical language is everywhere in the description of its Universal Protocol, and levels of fleecing the client heretofore unimaginable are now standard in the era of no responsibility or accountability corporate AI.Owens, the executive director of Groundwork, a Washington, D.C.-based organization build to “change economic policy and narrative in order to build public power, break up concentrations of private power, and deliver true opportunity,” finishes her epic X thread with a stark conclusion. “By bundling Google ad targeting and conversational data with retailer history and third-party broker profiles, the Agent creates a perfect surveillance feedback loop. And Google isn’t the only one building wallet-seeking chatbot missiles.”The ruthless logic of “line go up” has been coded into the machines we have come to depend upon, and resale of the data ensures the obliteration of privacy. Of course, we were warned innumerable times about this inevitability, but the shocking facts point to our complicity, or docility, with respect to even caring about the obliteration.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris spent years fearmongering about so-called climate change. Her recent seaside acquisition suggests she may not have been as serious about the supposed threat as she previously let on.During her first failed presidential campaign where she proposed the U.S. blow $10 trillion on tackling the professed problem, Harris wrote, "Our oceans are warming. Sea levels are rising. Pollution is threatening our air and water. Droughts are hurting our crops. Fires are burning our forests. Extreme weather is destroying our communities. We are poisoning the planet."'To live in a coastal community is to live on the front lines of the climate crisis.'Harris previously pushed legislation that would annually award $50 million in grants to various entities for the purposes of "carrying out climate-resilient living shoreline projects" and, in her words, "mitigat[ing] against sea level rise."When announcing in 2023 that the Biden-Harris administration was recommending $562 million in funding to make communities and the economy more resilient to the alleged climate change, Harris told a crowd at the University of Miami, "To live in a coastal community is to live on the front lines of the climate crisis."The Washington Free Beacon highlighted that the Biden-Harris administration also pushed a study the same year that claimed that "24%-75% of California's beaches may become completely eroded" due to sea-level rises.Despite Harris' participation in the rising-sea hysteria that proved fellow Democrat Al Gore a poor prognosticator, she has reportedly purchased an $8.15 million oceanside mansion in Malibu, California.RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters Photo by Roxanne McCann/Getty Images.A Zillow listing for the 4,000 square foot, four-bedroom home indicates that the property has a pool, a hot tub, a sauna, a cold plunge, a professional gym, a landscaped water feature, a "private putting and chipping green with a bunker," a guest house, and "breathtaking ocean, island, and city views."The property, which sold on Dec. 2, is located in Point Dume, an affluent neighborhood with private, gated beaches. According to the New York Post, the community is populated by Hollywood and Silicon Valley elites.Harris, who is reportedly contemplating a third White House bid, did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.Fortunately for Harris and contrary to her past claims about rising sea levels, a study published last year in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering indicated that the average sea level rise in 2020 was roughly 0.059 inches a year, which works out to about 6 inches per century.One of the paper's co-authors told the Post in September, "This is significantly lower than the 3 to 4 mm/year often reported by climate scientists in scientific literature and the media."Such a rate might explain why Al Gore's 2006 prediction of a 20-foot rise in the global sea level "in the near future" has yet to manifest.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Appearing at the "Zoom Ahead: AI for Tomorrow’s Leaders" virtual event from the White House on Friday, Melania Trump addressed the rapid advancement of AI technology, highlighting both its current capabilities and the potential risks and opportunities it may present in the future.Thanking Zoom founder Eric Yuan for hosting the event, the first lady praised the company’s leadership in the tech space and connected the discussion to what she described as her broader "mission."Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music.“Your support directly advances my mission to prepare America’s next generation to use AI to enhance their education and ultimately their careers,” Mrs. Trump said.She told the audience they were “fortunate” to be living in what she repeatedly described as “the age of imagination,” a new era shaped by artificial intelligence.“The age of imagination is a new era, powered by artificial intelligence, where one’s curiosity can be satisfied almost magically in seconds,” she said.RELATED: AI isn’t killing writers — it’s killing mediocre writing Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images Mrs. Trump said AI has expanded access to creative tools in ways that were previously unimaginable, allowing young people to explore fields such as film, fashion, art, and music from their own homes.“For the first time in history, the young girl dreaming of becoming a fashion designer and the young boy who wants to stand up his school animated superhero series can do so from their own home,” Trump said.She emphasized that curiosity has always been central to human progress, pointing to writers, scientists, architects, and artists who challenged unanswered questions and the status quo.“Every giant at some point in time questions the status quo,” she said. “Their singular vision pushes humanity in a new direction.”She noted, however, that the power of the technology actually lies in the human "imagination."“Artificial intelligence provides all the tools needed to implement your creative vision today,” she said. “But what do you need to start? You need to harness your imagination.”She encouraged students and creators to focus on developing the ability to ask meaningful questions and to think critically beyond the information AI can provide.RELATED: Can artificial intelligence help us want better, not just more? Brooks Kraft/Getty Images The first lady stressed that while AI can generate content, it cannot replace human purpose.“Although artificial intelligence can generate images and information, only humans can generate meaning and purpose,” she said.She concluded by urging the audience to treat AI as a tool rather than a shortcut, encouraging intellectual honesty and personal responsibility in how the technology is used.“Use AI as a tool, but do not let it replace your personal intelligence,” Mrs. Trump said. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Fake Historian Jon Meacham Complains About Losing the 'Ethos of Omaha Beach and Gettysburg'

Video of BBC Reporter Trying to Lecture Elon Musk About 'Misinformation' Has Aged WONDERFULLY