Though we don’t always recognize the need for rest, there is always a need. Here are some steps you can take today to find rest for your weary soul.

Meet Monty, a little piglet with a big personality. This pint-sized dynamo, expected to grow between 200 and 300 pounds, is unafraid to start a tussle despite his small stature. His journey to a farm animal sanctuary named Heartwood Haven is shared by Kate, the co-founder. The animal rescue facility played a crucial part in... The post Little piglet with zero understanding of personal space meets “the big pigs” appeared first on Animal Channel.

After wavering on the ongoing push to oust President Joe Biden and appearing to fall back in line, it appears that the Regime Media have found their nerve once again, bolstered by both former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s appearance on Morning Joe and by George Clooney’s op-ed in The New York Times calling for Biden to step down. These two events anchored network evening news coverage of the ongoing slow-motion train wreck that was triggered by Biden’s disastrous debate performance. The noteworthiest segment among these reports, without a doubt, comes to us via the CBS Evening News. Watch as Ed O’Keefe elitesplains the transcendence of the Clooney op-ed to the people watching at home, and sets expectations for a preference cascade based on Pelosi’s statements: WATCH as CBS explains the transcendent importance of Clooney's op-ed and Pelosi's shift as well as THE HIGH STAKES of the upcoming "big boy" press conference- setting viewers up for a future preference cascade away from Biden pic.twitter.com/i8cXzK5PNF— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 11, 2024 NORAH O’DONNELL: Ed, it seems like each day is bringing more troubling signs for the Biden campaign. What are you hearing from your sources? ED O’KEEFE:  Yeah, Norah, as one senior campaign official put it to me, quote, “there’s no question this is the toughest moment we’ve had of this campaign.” You may be sitting at home wondering, why does George Clooney's opinion matter? Well, he’s someone who’s spent personal time with the president just over three weeks ago and noticed his decline, having met with him several times in years past. So he’s a well-known character witness for many voters concerned about President Biden's age and abilities. Nancy Pelosi's strong suggestion that Biden rethink his future signals she’s hearing real concern from fellow congressional Democrats, big party donors and other party leaders, and it gives others an opening to speak up. O’DONNELL: You know, Ed, also one other thing. The president’s got this solo press conference tomorrow. I think it's the first one in nearly eight months. Just how high are the stakes? O’KEEFE: The stakes are incredibly high, Norah. This is another- this is something Washington will be watching closely. Voters concerned about the president's abilities also watching because it's yet another big, unscripted moment where he’s going to be taking questions, having to think on his feet. The big concern is that if he stumbles, it could lead for the floodgates to open. CBS’s coverage also featured reporting from correspondent Scott MacFarlane, who mentioned Biden’s potential fundraising problems. Over at ABC- if you had them airing the moment Pelosi snapped at Rachel Scott then please step forward and collect your winnings. And how could they not air that? It was basically a fait accompli once correspondent Rachel Scott tweeted the exchange. The Regime Media WANT you to see them appearing to ask tough questions of Democrats throughout this debacle, after biting their tongues on Biden’s decline over the past several years.  ABC’s report concluded with the same hype of tomorrow’s “high stakes” presidential press conference as did CBS’s coverage. And, for the record, let me just put it out there that it isn’t a “big boy” press conference if Biden is carrying cue cards with the questions of reporters whose names he is reading off of a list.  NBC did not end with press conference hype, choosing instead to promote Lester Holt’s Monday interview with Biden, scheduled to counterprogram the opening night of the 2024 Republican National Convention. The Peacock Network’s coverage echoed some of the major themes, such as Clooney and Pelosi, but also found time to cover George Stephanopoulos’ candid assessment of Biden’s fitness to serve to an undercover TMZ reporter. Bolstered by Pelosi and Clooney, the Regime Media appear to have returned to the business of Regime Change. At least for the time being. Click “expand” to view the full transcripts of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective network evening newscasts on Wednesday, July 10th, 2024: ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT 7/10/24 6:36PM DAVID MUIR: Of course, the other major story tonight, the breaking news involving President Biden. The president on the world stage again today, hosting that high stakes NATO meeting in Washington. But one of the major headlines today involved former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She was asked if the president should stay in the race, and her choice of words made immediate news. And the influential Democratic donor, actor George Clooney, with a plea to the president to get out of the race, saying, "You saved democracy and you must do so again by getting out." And what else Clooney said today. But it was the former speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, “we're all encouraging President Biden to make his decision, because time is running short”, in her words. But the president has already said he's staying in this race, so, what's going on here? Here's Rachel Scott. JOE BIDEN: Welcome, welcome, welcome. RACHEL SCOTT: President Biden just moments ago welcoming the new British prime minister to the Oval Office, hoping to turn the page from the crisis engulfing his campaign. The president has defiantly rejected calls to drop out, insisting he's staying in the race and urging Democrats to rally around him. Still today, the powerful former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi went on television and said she'll support whatever decision the president makes. But she was pressed, hasn't he already announced he's staying in the race? NANCY PELOSI: It's up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We're all encouraging him to make that decision, because time is running short. I think the overwhelming support of the caucus -- it's not for me to say. I'm not the head of the caucus anymore. But he's beloved. He is respected. And people want him to make that decision. Not me. JON LEMIRE: He has said he has made the decision. He has said firmly this week he is going to run. Do you want him to run? PELOSI: I want him to do whatever he decides to do. And that's -- that's the way it is, whatever he decides, we go with. SCOTT: Pelosi urging Democrats to give the president space until the NATO conference ends this week. PELOSI: I think it's really important, and I would hope everyone would join in to let him deal with this NATO conference. And I've said, everyone, let's just hold off. Whatever you're thinking, either tell somebody privately, but you don't have to put that out on the table until we see how we go this week. SCOTT: But Pelosi's suggestion that Biden's decision might not be final sent shockwaves rippling through the Capitol, where I caught up with her.  Do you believe that him waiting so long to make this decision -- PELOSI: I'm not going to be making any statements in the hallway about the state of our nation. Okay? SCOTT: Are you concerned whether or not he can win in November? PELOSI: I think he can win in November. SCOTT: Do you think he should run for re-election? PELOSI: I'm not -- am I speaking English to you? I'm not going to be making any statements about any of that right now in the hallway. SCOTT: At a meeting of NATO leaders, the president asked about Pelosi's comments. REPORTER: President Biden, is Nancy Pelosi still behind you, sir? SCOTT: Hours later, another blow. The New York Times publishing this op-ed from actor and Democratic megadonor George Clooney. "I love Joe Biden. But we need a new nominee." Just three weeks ago, Clooney raised $30 million for the president at a star-studded Hollywood fund-raiser. But today, Clooney writes, "It's devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe Biden of 2010. He wasn't even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate." Clooney was blunt. "We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won't win the House, and we're going to lose the Senate. This isn't only my opinion. This is the opinion of every senator and Congress member and governor that I've spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly." Clooney, a major player in Democratic politics, ending with this -- "Joe Biden is a hero. He saved democracy in 2020. We need him to do it again in 2024." But tonight, the president giving no indication he's dropping out. BIDEN SUPPORTERS: Four more years. Four more years. SCOTT: The first president to walk a picket line, making a personal visit to the headquarters of the crucial labor powerhouse, the AFL-CIO. BIDEN: We're in a better position than any country in the world to own the remainder of the 21st century because of union labor. SCOTT: The brief appearance meant to send the signal that unions are on his side. MUIR: So let's bring in Rachel Scott, live at the Capitol again tonight. Rachel, tomorrow, top officials from the Biden campaign are expected to head up to Capitol Hill to make the case to Democrats as to why they should rally behind the president. On the flip side, you've also learned tonight that House Democratic Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, the leader- the Democratic leader, I should say, has promised his members he'll take their concerns to the president, so it would appear messages are going back and forth here? SCOTT: Yes, David. I'm told that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer invited top advisers from the Biden campaign to meet with Senate Democrats directly to address their concerns about the president's campaign, and his path forward. Meanwhile, we know that leader Hakeem Jeffries has been doing a round of meetings with his members, promising to relay their concerns directly to the president. David? MUIR: Rachel Scott live up on The Hill. Rachel, thank you. One more quick question on this tonight, let's get right to Mary Bruce, live at The White House. And, Mary, The White House had to have been listening very closely to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today. She's still very influential, of course. And you heard there Pelosi suggested today, give the president the week, and that she'll stand behind whatever decision he makes. But you've reported here, the president has said he's staying in this race, so, this certainly does not appear to be settled. MARY BRUCE: No, it certainly does not. Look, even as the president tries to turn the page here with this NATO summit here in Washington, the president, The White House, his campaign have all been adamant that he has made up his mind and that he isn't going anywhere. It was just two days ago that the president sent that letter to Democrats, stating bluntly, quote, “I am firmly committed to staying in this race.” And he hasn't been budging, which is why Pelosi's comments today were so surprising. Tonight, his campaign is clear-eyed that it's going to take a lot of work here to get everyone on the same page. And tomorrow will be a critical test of that. The president facing reporters in a rare solo news conference and we, of course, will be carrying it live here on ABC right before World News Tonight, David. MUIR: We will carry that live with you, Mary, and Mary laser-focused even with the band behind her for these NATO events at The White House. Mary, thank you. CBS EVENING NEWS CBS EVENING NEWS 7/10/24 6:30 PM NORAH O’DONNELL: Democratic calls for President Biden to drop out of the race stretch from Capitol Hill to Hollywood tonight. Good evening. I'm Norah O'Donnell, and thank you for being with us. The word “blockbuster” is normally used to describe a box office hit, but today, one of the biggest movie stars, George Clooney, dropped a political blockbuster in the form of a New York Times editorial, writing that even though he is a lifelong Democrat and loves Joe Biden, quote, “our party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn't see what we just saw," referring to the debate. And those party leaders are now under pressure from their own members to deliver a message to the president. All of this is clouding the NATO summit of world leaders right here in Washington, where the big news is that the first F-16 fighter jets are on their way to Ukraine to fend off Russian forces. We have team coverage tonight. CBS's Ed O'Keefe is at The White House and we begin with CBS’s Scott MacFarlane on Capitol Hill. SCOTT MACFARLANE: The political ground is wobbling beneath President Biden. One of the biggest tremors from one of America's biggest stars. Weeks after appearing side-by-side at a fundraiser, actor George Clooney split with the president, writing in a blistering editorial for The New York Times, "I love Joe Biden, but we need a new nominee," adding when he saw the president three weeks ago, "He wasn't even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate." Another quake on cable TV this morning. NANCY PELOSI It's up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We are all encouraging him to make that decision because time is running short. MACFARLANE: Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants a decision. But  president Biden has already made his stance clear. JOE BIDEN: I'm staying in the race! [Cheers and applause] MACFARLANE: But speaking later with reporters, she declined to press harder. PELOSI: The decision is the president's. MACFARLANE: At the NATO summit in Washington, the president posing with top European leaders, was asked about the comments from Pelosi, his longtime ally. REPORTER: Is Nancy Pelosi still behind you, sir? MACFARLANE: But at nearly the same time, another U.S. House Democrat, New York's Pat Ryan, today publicly urged the president to end his campaign. CBS News has learned House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who has been hearing complaints from many of his caucus, says he will share those concerns with the president himself by Friday. Democrats who have already defected wouldn't say if or how many others are poised to join.  Has anybody joined you or expressed interest in joining you in your call for the president to withdraw? MARK TAKANO: I don't have any more- anything to say about this. MACFARLANE: CBS News has confirmed Senate Democrats have scheduled a closed-door meeting with the president's campaign team tomorrow. MICHAEL BENNET: I think that we could lose the whole thing, and it's staggering to me. MACFARLANE: After Michael Bennet of Colorado became the first Democratic senator to publicly predict the president could lose in a landslide. Two senior Democrats tell CBS News the Biden campaign could face financial problems. Concerns about the president's health and wavering Democratic support, campaign donations could dry up in a race that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Norah. O’DONNELL: Scott MacFarlane, thank you so much for your reporting. It is hard to overstate how critical this week is for the president's reelection campaign, so let's bring in CBS's Ed O'Keefe. Ed, it seems like each day is bringing more troubling signs for the Biden campaign. What are you hearing from your sources? ED O’KEEFE:  Yeah, Norah, as one senior campaign official put it to me, quote, “there’s no question this is the toughest moment we’ve had of this campaign.” You may be sitting at home wondering, why does George Clooney's opinion matter? Well, he’s someone who’s spent personal time with the president just over three weeks ago and noticed his decline, having met with him several times in years past. So he’s a well-known character witness for many voters concerned about President Biden's age and abilities. Nancy Pelosi's strong suggestion that Biden rethink his future signals she’s hearing real concern from fellow congressional Democrats, big party donors and other party leaders, and it gives others an opening to speak up. O’DONNELL: You know, Ed, also one other thing. The president’s got this solo press conference tomorrow. I think it's the first one in nearly eight months. Just how high are the stakes? O’KEEFE: The stakes are incredibly high, Norah. This is another- this is something Washington will be watching closely. Voters concerned about the president's abilities also watching because it's yet another big, unscripted moment where he’s going to be taking questions, having to think on his feet. The big concern is that if he stumbles, it could lead for the floodgates to open. Norah. O’DONNELL: Ed O’Keefe at The White House with that new reporting. Thank you. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 7/10/24 6:31 PM LESTER HOLT: Good evening, and welcome. It is increasingly looking like President Biden is doing battle with members of his own party as much as he is Donald Trump. The president's loyalists from Hollywood to Capitol Hill including some notable names now riding that deep wave of concern over the president's ability to go the distance against Donald Trump, with not just the presidency but control of Congress potentially at stake. There's been no change of heart from President Biden, who has made it clear he is still in the race. The president remaining visible today and in charge, hosting NATO leaders, all while new pressure for him to exit the race from some of his most prominent backers swirls around him. Senior White House Correspondent Gabe Gutierrez has late details. GABE GUTIERREZ: Tonight, while hosting dozens of world leaders at the NATO summit in Washington, President Biden is promoting unity and strength. JOE BIDEN: Today we're stronger than we've ever been. GUTIERREZ: But that message comes as the president faces fresh calls to leave the race. Today one of his most prominent Hollywood backers going off script. George Clooney, who hosted a star-studded fund-raiser for the president just three weeks ago, writing a guest essay in The New York Times, arguing, “we are not going to win in November with this president”, and urging Democrats to coalesce behind a new nominee. The actor making the case that the president he spent time with at the fund-raiser had changed from prior elections, and that night was the same man we all witnessed at the debate and this morning, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became the highest-ranking Democrat to signal he could still drop out. NANCY PELOSI: It's up to the president to decide if he is going to run. We're all encouraging him to make that decision, because time is running short. GUTIERREZ: A striking statement considering the president has repeatedly said, he has decided. BIDEN: I'm staying in the race. GUTIERREZ: Pelosi later clarifying she still supports the president. REPORTER: President Biden, is Nancy Pelosi still behind you, sir? GUTIERREZ: Still, top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has told worried lawmakers that he plans to relay their concerns to President Biden, four sources confirm to NBC News. And, senior Biden advisers are set to brief Democratic senators at a special caucus luncheon tomorrow, after Michael Bennet of Colorado became the first sitting senator to say this publicly: MICHAEL BENNET: Donald Trump is on track, I think, to win this election and maybe win it by a landslide and take with him the Senate and the House. GUTIERREZ: The question now, will the floodgates open on Capitol Hill? DICK BLUMENTHAL: I am deeply concerned about Joe Biden winning this November. We have to reach a conclusion as soon as possible. GUTIERREZ: ABC's George Stephanopoulos apparently reaching his own conclusion. Now acknowledging he should not have said this in a video posted on TMZ just days after interviewing the president. RANDO ON THE STREET: What do you think? Do you think Biden should step down? You’ve talked to him more than anybody else has lately. And you can be honest. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think he can serve four more years. GUTIERREZ: Tonight the Biden campaign is promising more unscripted events to convince lawmakers, donors, and voters that the president is all in. HOLT: And Gabe, there's late word from Capitol Hill tonight about subpoenas regarding the president's health? GUTIERREZ: Yes, Lester, late today the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said it had subpoenaed three senior White House aides demanding they sit for depositions regarding the president's mental fitness. The White House is calling it a baseless political stunt. Lester. HOLT: All right, Gabe, thank you.  

Archaeologists excavating Minute Man National Historical Park in Concord, Massachusetts, have discovered five musket balls fired by the colonial militia against the British in the first battle of the Revolutionary War on April 19th, 1775. The musket balls were unearthed by National Parks Services archaeologists at the North Bridge battle site, famed as the place where the colonial militia were for the first time ordered by their leaders to fire on British soldiers. It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who coined the phrase “The shot heard round the world” to describe the militia firing on the regulars at North Bridge in his 1837 poem “Concord Hymn.” The first shots on that day actually took place on Lexington Green at 5 AM. It was a chaotic and brief scuffle triggered when a shot of unknown source was fired and the British infantry charged the militia. The militia company’s commander, Captain Parker, had no intention of engaging the regular troops and ordered his men to disband when he saw the regulars approach. The British attacked quickly, bayonetting the militia men on the green and shooting at them when they retreated. The clash at North Bridge took place at 9:30 that morning. The British troops were deployed to secure the bridge to prevent any rebels from sneaking out of town, and so they could cross it seeking armaments and supplies at Barrett’s farm a mile away. At first the militia were outnumber 3:1, but while the regulars were searching Barrett’s farm, colonial officers were getting reinforcements and when the two sides met at the bridge, the militia outnumbered the regulars. The militia were ordered not to fire unless fired upon, and fired upon they were. Major John Buttrick gave the fateful order to fire back, and the British line broke. Twelve British soldiers and four officers were hit. Three of the soldiers were killed. One militia officer and one private were killed and four others wounded. The musket balls were discovered by archeologists conducting compliance activities in preparation for the park’s Great American Outdoors Act project. The musket balls were found in an area where, according to contemporary accounts, British soldiers formed up to resist the river crossing. Further analysis of the musket balls indicates that each one was fired from the opposite side of the river and not dropped during the process of reloading. “It’s incredible that we can stand here and hold what amounts to just a few seconds of history that changed the world almost 250 years ago,” said Minute Man Park Ranger and historic weapons specialist Jarrad Fuoss. “These musket balls can be considered collectively as ‘The Shot Heard Round the World,’ and it is incredible that they have survived this long. It is also a poignant reminder that we are all stewards of this battlefield and are here to preserve and protect our shared history.” The balls will go on display Saturday, July 13th, at Minute Man National Historical Park.

Recent findings from Cambrian-age trilobite fossils in Morocco, preserved in volcanic ash, have unveiled new anatomical details using advanced imaging, highlighting the potential for discovering...

Foreign Affairs NATO’s Pathway to Hell Was Paved With Good Intentions Baltic expansion was understandable, but misguided. (By Gints Ivuskans/Shutterstock) As NATO leaders descend upon Washington, D.C. for the 75th anniversary summit of the alliance, the question of Ukraine’s prospective membership amid a brutal war with Russia looms large. Supporters of Ukraine joining the alliance, such as the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, reportedly push for a commitment to the country’s “irreversible path” to the alliance.  Not everybody is convinced, however: a group of sixty U.S. national security experts warned against Ukraine’s NATO membership in a letter spearheaded by Carnegie Endowment’s senior fellow Stephen Wertheim. The letter says that Ukraine’s inclusion would probably not deter future aggression from Russia. It would commit the U.S. and allies to fight Russia directly, which would reduce the security of the alliance members, the authors argue.  The seeds of our current predicament were sowed in the late 1990s, when decisions were made on the first waves of NATO enlargement. At the time, I served as a mid-ranking diplomat in the Latvian embassy in Washington, D.C. and witnessed the policy debates surrounding the process first-hand. The Clinton administration was the primary driver of the enlargement, supported by a large consensus within the Republican party of the day (albeit for different reasons). Yet that drive was not accompanied by a strategic clarity on the enlargement’s scope and purpose. Clinton’s officials tried to balance the NATO “open doors” policy—meaning expansion without clearly defined geographical limits—with engagement with Boris Yeltsin’s Russia. That effort was cloaked in the language of a “Europe whole and free”—NATO enlargement was treated as a means to consolidate democratic gains in the former Soviet satellite countries by anchoring them firmly in the West.  At the same time, Clinton was aware of the dangers of alienating Russia, and offered inducements to make the NATO enlargement more palatable to Moscow, such as establishing the NATO–Russia Council. Yet the candidate countries themselves, and particularly the Baltics, were always clear what the NATO expansion was all about: a protective shield against Moscow. They saw NATO for what it fundamentally was: not a club of democracies but a military alliance with the mutual defense clause enshrined in Article 5. Therefore, the Baltic lobbying activities were focused on overcoming the so-called “Russian veto”—the assumption that an inclusion of the Baltic states, as former Soviet republics, would be a step too far in provoking hostile reaction from Moscow. The Baltics can hardly be blamed for their persistence—there opened a window of opportunity to join the West after the decades of Soviet depredations, with its promise of freedom and security. Even post-Soviet Russia was a chaotic, corrupt and often violent place that fought bloody wars against secessionists in its own North Caucasus, and didn’t inspire much confidence in a democratic, peaceful future.  Yet, however justified and understandable the Baltic desire to join NATO, it imposed additional security commitments on the United States. Little thought was expended on how to ensure the defensibility of the Baltic states given their geographical proximity to Russia. That is because at the time no proponent of the NATO enlargement seriously considered the possibility that the newly incurred security obligations were actually ever going to be put to test.  That is certainly not how Russians saw things. For them, NATO expansion meant an inexorable encroachment of a military alliance, led by their Cold War adversary, on their borders. They voiced their concerns. American officials at the time were baffled by Russian reactions as, they insisted, the U.S. harbored no hostile intentions. Whatever objections Moscow had, then, must have been irrational and down to lingering imperial mindset.  Whatever role imperial nostalgia may have played, it is far more plausible that Moscow’s opposition to NATO enlargement, spread across the political spectrum, was primarily due to the fact that NATO was becoming the centerpiece of the post–Cold War security architecture in Europe. Not only Russia was not part of it, but the logic of NATO expansion explicitly treated Russia as a potential threat to be insured against. That is the reason why Moscow never perceived the NATO–Russia Council as anything more than a second-rate consolation prize rather than a truly meaningful platform for security dialogue. By abandoning George H.W. Bush’s cautious approach in dealing with Moscow and championing the expansion of NATO instead, the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations assumed security commitments towards more countries in Europe even though that fueled growing Russian resentment and hostility towards the U.S. and those countries. There were at the time American experts who warned about risks inherent in such a course of action. The intellectual author of the Cold War–era containment policy against the Soviet Union George Kennan called the NATO expansion a fateful error. Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of President Dwight D.Eisenhower, assembled an impressive group of national security experts in 1997 to warn against an open-ended nature of NATO expansion and how it could call into question the viability of U.S. security guarantees. The CATO Institute’s Ted Galen Carpenter was prophetic in saying that NATO expansion would lead to new dividing lines in Europe and “a set of dangerous security obligations for the United States”.  Those warnings were dismissed in the over-confident, almost hubristic environment of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It is to be hoped that the current generation of Western leaders, as they gather in Washington, will be more judicious as they ponder on what credible security commitments in Europe they can undertake while paying more attention to the growing political tendencies towards foreign policy restraint in their own countries.    The post NATO’s Pathway to Hell Was Paved With Good Intentions appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs It Is Time to Shut Ukraine’s Door to NATO The alliance isn’t a social club. Credit: Alexandros Michailidis NATO is celebrating its 75th anniversary in Washington. The latest summit has proceeded like past meetings, filled with unrealistic promises, self-indulgent predictions, and sanctimonious warnings. Despite welcome increases in European military outlays, NATO remains North America and the Others. Only the U.S. is capable of waging war against nuclear-armed Russia.  The meeting featured the Ukraine lobby’s continuing campaign to bring Kiev into NATO, using a supposedly defensive alliance to entangle NATO members, especially America, in the Russo–Ukrainian war. The strongest support for doing so comes from countries such as the Baltic states—charity towards all—whose principal duty in a full-scale conflict between NATO and Russia would be to cheer for America as the latter’s cities were incinerated by Russian ICBMs.  So far President Joe Biden has resisted doing the Full Monty for direct combat in Ukraine. Nevertheless, he has steadily increased the intensity of NATO’s proxy war against Russia. Last month he also initiated a new, 10-year security agreement with Kiev, which provides for consultation “at the highest levels to determine appropriate and necessary measures to support Ukraine and impose costs on Russia.”  “We are not waiting for the NATO process to be completed to make long-term commitments to Ukraine’s security to address the immediate threats they face and deter any aggression that may occur,” he explained.  The U.S. should just say no to Ukraine in NATO. The latter’s purpose is to protect members and advance their interests. That originally meant defending against the Soviet Union, to prevent the Red Army from marching through West Germany’s Fulda Gap and on to the Atlantic. It isn’t obvious that Moscow ever intended such a maneuver, but Joseph Stalin was a uniquely evil and threatening figure. Hence America provided a defense shield for Western Europe nations until they recovered economically and politically and could fend for themselves. Yet policymakers including President Dwight D. Eisenhower expected the U.S. troop presence to be temporary. As Eisenhower opined in 1951: “If in ten years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.” With the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, the transatlantic alliance completed its mission. The bad guys were gone, the good guys were triumphant. However, Europeans never warmed to the idea of taking over responsibility for their own defense. After all, Uncle Sam had long doubled as Uncle Sucker. The Europeans worked hard to preserve their place on Washington’s defense dole, proposing new duties for NATO, including, bizarrely, fighting the drug war and promoting student exchanges. Peace might have persisted if the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations had not treated Russia as a defeated nation, expected to accept whatever Washington deemed Moscow’s just desserts. Vladimir Putin was always an authoritarian by some measure, but he was not always hostile to America. The first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush after 9/11, he also delivered a notably accommodating speech to the German Bundestag just two weeks later.  Putin’s attitude changed with NATO’s manifold broken promises about NATO expansion and the steady march eastward to Russia’s border. It was easy for allied governments to insist that Putin should not fear such an advance, but history hangs heavily over a country that suffered three devastating invasions from European powers over the last two centuries. As William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, noted in 2008, “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players…. I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Nor was that all. The allies promised NATO membership to Ukraine (and Georgia). Moreover, Washington and its allies turned the organization into an aggressive weapon in the wars against Serbia and Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened any NATO member. In the first case, the allies declared their unilateral authority to dismember a sovereign nation, one with historic ties to Moscow. Russian anger flared at the grassroots as well as among elites. There also were allied-backed color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as the 2014 allied support for a street putsch against an elected Ukrainian president who retained substantial backing in his nation’s Russophile east. Western officials may have seen themselves as modern Vestal Virgins, chosen by providence to bring heaven to earth, but if Russia or China used the same tactics toward Mexico or Canada, one can imagine the caterwauling—and threats of military retaliation—from Washington. None of this justified Russia’s invasion. Yet one can understand why Putin saw no other solution when Washington refused to negotiate. The allies denounce the “salami slicing” by China in Asian-Pacific waters, but expected Moscow to accept similar tactics by the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine: the allied attempt to create a fait accompli with Ukraine as a de facto Western military ally, through NATO in Ukraine rather than Ukraine in NATO. Yet, after helping to foment the worst European conflict since the Second World War, none of the allies sent combat troops to defend Ukraine. Observed Daniel DePetris of Defense Priorities, “The Europeans may frame the war as some epic contest between civilization and the forces of darkness, but none of them are willing to deploy their own troops into the fight or the formidable costs such a decision would bring.” For 14 years, NATO members promised Kiev an eventual invitation but refused to provide one. Such assurances continued even more fervently after Russia invaded, but again without an alliance marriage proposal forthcoming.  At the latest summit the fraudulent promises continue. Much public attention greeted the draft communique’s statement that Ukraine’s path to alliance membership was “irreversible.” However, nothing suggested that the process would speed up. The allies could spend years releasing additional press releases affirming that Kiev’s accession remains irreversible and still do nothing. One explanation for the latest delay is that someone apparently noticed that Ukraine’s government is corrupt, too much so to incorporate into a military alliance, even to thwart the supposed threat to Western civilization.  In fact, Kiev should be excluded because it is not in America’s or Europe’s security interest to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine. For most of America’s history, Ukraine was ruled from Moscow, which never caused anyone in Washington concern. Putin has shown no interest expanding westward and warned against Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO because he did not want to face a war with the U.S. through the alliance. His difficulties in defeating Kiev would be greatly magnified by an attempt to subjugate the rest of Europe. Indeed, attempting to swallow just Ukraine would weaken Russia by ensuring continuing conflict. The very real danger of the conflict expanding is due to the West recklessly pushing a proxy war toward a full-scale conflict, with dispatch of deadly weapons for use against Russia and allied personnel to aid in the use of those arms against Russia. The allies made the slope toward full-scale war ever more slippery. Beyond that, of course, the conflict is a great human tragedy, but preventing tragedy is not within NATO’s writ. Moreover, despite its oft-expressed humanitarian pretensions, Washington has allowed multiple international conflicts and civil wars to rage wildly, killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians, with nary another thought. Like Russia, the U.S. has launched illegal wars and underwritten fratricidal conflicts abroad irrespective of the casualties involved. The Biden administration’s determination to fuel the Ukrainian conflict, which Kiev looks unlikely to win, is anything but humane. Indeed, promising the latter NATO membership would leave Moscow with little incentive to settle the conflict, since continued battle would be the best means to forestall eventual membership. Indeed, Russia would have an incentive to escalate, leaving nothing but death and desolation in its wake. Ukrainians might gain false hope, encouraging them to keep fighting, hopeful that the allies would eventually join the fight. If Kiev nevertheless sought to end the conflict, Moscow could revive the fighting if accession to NATO appeared to become a realistic possibility.  Nor, ironically, would granting membership after a settlement have the deterrent effect intended. Russia would remember that the allies spent years refusing to bring Kiev in and then refusing to defend Ukraine when it mattered. Why would the allies reverse course if hostilities erupted again? Ukraine would be no more important to Western security tomorrow than it is today or was yesterday. Although the Russo–Ukrainian war might be the most important current issue for NATO, the future of the alliance also requires attention. Instead of promising to drag America, or at least allow America to be dragged, into another European war, U.S. officials should begin preparing for a European designed and led defense system. The American people are moving in that direction, with almost as many supporting a reduction or withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe as in favoring keeping forces there. And after years of wailing and gnashing of teeth, most European members of NATO are spending more on their militaries, with several nations pushing to increase the alliance target for military spending from 2 to 2.5 to even 3 percent of GDP.  One could imagine NATO led by Europeans with Washington as an associate member, prepared to cooperate when appropriate. Or a continental defense system rooted in the European Union, with which the U.S. would partner when interests warranted. Or some other alliance permutation, based on Europeans taking over responsibility for what obviously matters more to them than America, their own security. Such a shift won’t be easy, but continental attitudes are changing. A third of Western Europeans believe that the U.S. is “somewhat unreliable” in guaranteeing their defense. Popular majorities favor their nations being primarily responsible for their defense, which should be encouraged by Washington.  Still, resistance from the usual suspects on both sides of the Atlantic remains strong. An unnamed NATO official recently declared, “I already lived through NATO during Trump’s first term. And I really don’t fancy another.” Alliance advocate Michael Peck, upset that a third of Americans want “to end the country’s most important and most successful security relationship,” wrote an article entitled “NATO Must Sell Itself to Americans.” Yet Peck admitted that “The problem isn’t a lack of effort to cement transatlantic ties. There has been no shortage of conferences and think tank reports—even a “NATO Youth Summit”—to discuss European security.”  Despite the ever-expanding pretensions of global leadership by cloistered and spoiled Washington elites, the U.S. is headed toward domestic crisis. America suffers from a deficient president and divisive challenger; a diverse people increasingly estranged, bitterly sundered by geography, culture, and belief; an aging society ill-prepared for shifting demographic burdens; cities bedeviled by failing infrastructure and violent crime; and an essentially bankrupt government, burdened by hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Federal debt continues to rocket upward and could be double America’s GDP by mid-century. It is time to concentrate on confronting our problems at home. Ukraine’s desire to join NATO is understandable. But the alliance’s purpose is to improve the security of its members, not offer charity to outsiders. Worse, bringing Ukraine into NATO would make conflict with Russia much more likely. Eight decades after World War II the world has changed. American dominance has lessened. Allied capabilities have burgeoned. The Europeans should take over responsibility for their own futures. The post It Is Time to Shut Ukraine’s Door to NATO appeared first on The American Conservative.

The loneliness epidemic. Men opting out of dating. More people than ever living as single. What is happening? I will try to give you a man's honest perspective. UTL COMMENT:- Well it's also all part of the Zionist depopulation agenda....attacking White Christian countries first... And why do these people try to make themselves look as UGLY as possible? My advice - shame and embarrass these people wherever and whenever you can. Look down upon them. But most importantly - we MUST attack the source of all this crap.....you all know what I mean.... Subscribe to https://bull-hansen.com to be notified about new videos and get updates about my novels. Useful links and further resources can also be found here. Recommended equipment, cameras, software and link to a strength training template designed by me and Reactive Training Systems can be found here: https://bull-hansen.com/gear-i-use-in-my-videos/ In my videos you will find music from Epidemic Sound. Check out my Epidemic Sound affiliate link: https://share.epidemicsound.com/4gk5n9 - Become my Patron at http://www.patreon.com/BullHansen - Paypal donation: http://www.paypal.me/BullHansen - Donate Bitcoin: bc1qukx59w89zrquj2tjash2n0hdc4r5zf6a4qtuwc - Donate Ethereum: 0xd6674E7C35994dBaC3DFbeA94bD70e514a3f1b27 - Donate Litecoin: LL3EKcjdTG7CSnL4a1tnYk83cEZWVYUPSh - Merchandise (t-shirts, hoodies, mugs etc).: https://bull-hansen.com/merchandise/ - Check out "Vikings of the North", a strategy board game inspired by my novels: https://bull-hansen.com/vikings-of-the-north-a-strategy-board-game/ Follow me on X: @BullHansen Instagram @bjornandreasbullhansen and my dogs @elvisandfeline (Instagram). I support these charities: http://www.heathshavenrescue.com - rescue and adoption of special needs dogs https://www.sosgalgos.com/en/home/ and https://galgosdelsol.org - rescue and adoption of the Spanish greyhound https://www.soidog.org - to stop animal cruelty in Asia and provide shelter, food, medical aid and finding new homes for rescued animals. https://www.viltsykehuset.no/home - The Norwegian Wildlife Hospital EFF Project Cat Rescue - https://www.facebook.com/ElkoFelineFixProject?mibextid=LQQJ4d COPYRIGHT: Bjørn Andreas Bull-Hansen does not allow sampling for shorts or similar reuse of any of his videos or live streams. DISCLAIMER: This video and/or the description might contain affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.