Protests have been raging in Iran for over two weeks now. While there has been unrest against the theocratic Islamic Republic before, this time feels different. According to Fox News, more than 50 demonstrators have been killed by the forces of Ayatollah Khamenei. As the protests have spread, the regime has also placed the country under an internet blackout.  When he called for people to take to the streets on Thursday, they listened. Pahlavi definitely seems to have some personal purchase with the Iranian populace. Taken as a whole, it certainly seems like Khamenei and his government are worried about their own survival. Many international observers have considered: if the Islamic Republic goes down, what comes next? It’s a thorny question, but Reza Pahlavi seems like a straightforward answer. Pahlavi, one of the most notable faces of the opposition movement, is the eldest son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Iranian shah who was overthrown by the Iranian revolution in 1979. While his father’s deep unpopularity helped usher in the Ayatollahs to begin with, economic woes and the repression of the Iranian regime have ushered in a nostalgia for the old monarchy in recent years. The prince is indisputably the heir to the Persian throne and has been Westernized by his time in exile. But, that doesn’t mean he’s a shoo-in. Notably, The Washington Post referred to Pahlavi as a leader of the Iranian democratic opposition, not the leader. President Donald Trump appears to feel similarly, saying that it would not be “appropriate” to meet with Pahlavi. He further explained that “I think that we should let everybody go out there and we see who emerges.” Despite this, Pahlavi himself praised Trump in an op-ed for The Washington Post, lauding his “clear and firm support for the Iranian people.” The administration has certainly kept a supportive attitude towards the anti-regime protesters. On January 10th, Secretary of State, Acting National Security Adviser, Acting USAID Administrator, and Acting Archivist of the National Archives Marco Rubio posted on X that “The United States supports the brave people of Iran.” Trump himself made a post on Truth Social saying that “Iran is looking for FREEDOM, perhaps like never before. The USA stands ready to help!!!” Trump previously threatened to intervene if the Iranian regime killed protesters.  So, what’s going on here really? It’s certainly clear that Trump and his administration want the Ayatollah and his Islamic regime gone. Notwithstanding their hostility to U.S. interests, there were several serious Iranian threats against Trump during the 2024 presidential election, including an attempted assassination plot. But at the same time, Trump likely doesn’t want to pick a preferred alternative in haste. This accords with his administration’s policy in Venezuela. After the capture of the country’s dictator, Nicholas Maduro, by U.S. forces, there was some talk among Republican lawmakers about recognizing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado as the country’s next president. But Trump declined to do so, stating that she didn’t have enough “support” or “respect” within the country. Reportedly, the administration was concerned that Machado lacked the on-the-ground support she purported to have. Instead, the administration has been working with Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez. The overriding policy of the Trump administration, then, should be understood to be realism. Recognizing Machado as the rightful leader of Venezuela might be the “right” thing to do in some idealistic sort of way, but if that policy would destabilize Venezuela and make it harder to enact change, the only logical move is not to do so. The starry-eyed, naive attempts to nation-build Western-style democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq by neoconservatives and the Bush administration haven’t been forgotten. Is Pahalvi in danger of being sidelined like Machado? It can’t be ruled out. Author Arash Azizi told CNN that “Pahlavi personally doesn’t have qualities that appeal to Trump. He is rather bookish and lacks the kind of personal charisma that could appeal to someone like Trump…. He will have a hard time winning over Trump.” But there is plenty of cause to think Pahlavi could be different. Iranians have responded en masse to his calls for protests against the Ayatollah’s regime. When he called for people to take to the streets on Thursday, they listened. Pahlavi definitely seems to have some personal purchase with the Iranian populace, which is more than Machado or any other Iranian opposition figure can say. Whether that will be enough for him to reclaim his father’s Peacock Throne, only time will tell. READ MORE from Stephan Kapustka: The Running Man Is a Hicklib’s Fantasy Come to Life Poll: New Jersey Governor’s Race Too Close to Call Charlie Kirk and My Friend From Boy Scouts

“One way or another” — that was the way Donald Trump spoke of his intention to acquire Greenland as he addressed a joint session of Congress last March. In recent days, Trump, fresh from overseeing a U.S. military operation that removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, has repeated that he wants to gain control of Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The White House said he’s discussing his options, including potential use of the U.S. military. Helping Greenland — financially and politically — acquire its independence from the Danes effectively puts America on the side … of self-determination and freedom. The route of least resistance is to support their independence from the Danes and do a lease. I wrote about this for the Hill last February. Trump’s critics are decrying imperialism, and the King of Demark once more thinks “there is something rotten” about the U.S. entrenching itself in the Atlantic colony of the Danes. But, let’s be clear-headed here, America (a NATO ally of Denmark), is not going to invade Greenland. And annexing or buying Greenland is probably the wrong approach for multiple reasons. America doesn’t need sovereignty over roughly one and a quarter million square miles of basically — ice and rock. What it does need is dictated by America’s national security interests— long-term access to the Arctic: military and space bases, infrastructure, and a durable agreement for harvesting strategic minerals. Greenland sits astride the Arctic approaches that connect the Atlantic and the far North, for military purposes. Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base) already provides critical missile-warning and space-tracking capabilities. Beneath Greenland’s permafrost are significant mineral deposits, including rare-earths — elements that are the heart of everything from consumer electronics to advanced defense systems. China is currently dominant in these scarce strategic resources. Political costs Yet, there are reasons why an outright acquisition — either by conquest or purchase — is a suboptimal way to secure access to the strategic and economic interests in Greenland. Greenland’s people have to consent to any arrangement between America and the Danes. A deal that treats Greenland as an object rather than a participant is reminiscent of the treatment of the Czechs before WWII — “about me but without me.” Ceding territory precipitates nationalist backlash and disrupts alliances. A purchase would drag America into a constitutional and political firestorm. If the U.S. “owns” Greenland, the pressure to clarify political status begins immediately. The U.S. doesn’t need to govern Greenlandic domestic or even foreign affairs. It needs long-duration basing and infrastructure rights, a stable legal framework for strategic minerals, and the ability to monitor and secure the Arctic approaches. Those aims are achievable without the baggage of sovereignty. Financial Costs “Something in the trillions looks about right,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, in an interview. The value of Greenland’s known critical mineral and energy resources alone totaled more than $4.4 trillion, according to a study published in January 2025. That figure falls to $2.7 trillion when excluding oil and natural gas, which Greenland stopped issuing exploration licenses for in 2021, citing environmental concerns. But as of today’s technology, only a small fraction can currently be extracted economically. An estimate based on that fraction is $186 billion. On the other hand, considering its strategic geographic location, this lifts the value to $2.76 trillion. A better approach is to focus on “needs-based rights” — rather than a “deed of trust.” Support Greenland’s Independence From Denmark “It’s not a question of whether we should be Danish citizens or American citizens,” said Aaja Chemnitz, one of two Greenlandic lawmakers who represents the 836,000-square-mile island’s 57,000 inhabitants in Denmark’s Folketing, its Parliament. “It’s a question of how can we be Greenlanders and have a good Greenlandic future.” Polls over the past few decades have consistently shown the majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark for reasons connected to its dark colonial past and persistent discrimination, though there is division over the timing of it and concern over what it could mean for living conditions. Greenland’s “history and current conditions,” he said “have shown that our cooperation with the Kingdom of Denmark has not succeeded in creating full equality. It is now time for our country to take the next step.” The Next Step Given Greenland’s preference for independence from the Danes, America should forego any efforts at acquisition and negotiate a long-term lease guarantee with Greenland predicated upon their independence from Denmark. A century-long lease offers the simplest way to secure Arctic access without the political liabilities of ownership. A lease upon independence offers sovereignty to Greenland, while transferring defined rights for a defined term. Denmark gets political cover, Greenland receives permanent internal self-government, and the U.S. secures the access and capabilities that matter in the Arctic theater. Moreover, a lease is much less costly for the U.S. — financially and politically. Here is one financing scenario based on realistic assumptions. Greenland currently receives significant financial support from Denmark, amounting to approximately $623.5 million annually through a block grant, along with an additional $145 million for judiciary and defense expenses, bringing total annual support to around $768.5 million. This accounts for about 60 percent of Greenland’s government budget. The present value of how much Denmark will save by no longer having to subsidize Greenland over the next century can be determined by using (as the discount rate) the coupon rate on Denmark’s 10-year government bond (2.8 percent) — essentially Denmark’s price for acquiring long-term money. Denmark’s roughly $768.5 million annual support, discounted over 100 years at 2.8 percent, has a present value of about $25 billion. That’s the present value of the fiscal burden Denmark no longer assumes — in effect — compensation. Negotiations will determine any additional compensation accruing to the interest of Denmark. The lease arrangement with Greenland could begin with negotiating how the payment comparable to Denmark’s present-value discount over 100 years ($25 billion) is to be made, followed by additional annual payments to cover the durable rights accorded the U.S. for the financing of any future real estate development, the implementation of military infrastructure changes (ports, docks, airports, etc.), drilling and mining rights and percentage participation in revenues generated from these efforts. Compared with the political and financial “price tag” of an outright purchase, a 100-year lease with Greenland upon their independence delivers the same strategic ends at far lower costs — and without the sovereignty complications that make acquisition politically untenable. Helping Greenland — financially and politically — acquire its independence from the Danes effectively puts America on the side of people wanting the right to self-determination and freedom. It would put Denmark in the awkward position of having to argue against that. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: Trump’s First 12 Months: The Economy, Venezuela, and the American Electorate Britain’s New Economic Policy: Get Used to Being Worse Off Trump’s Economy Grows 4.3 Percent, Dashing Economists’ Lower Expectations

Over the holiday season a federal judge canceled California’s parental exclusion policies. That gift to parents was not the only story that failed to get the attention it deserved. Gov. Newsom’s executive orders have not included an independent investigation of government fraud in the Golden State. “Several San Francisco neighborhoods were impacted by a massive power outage on Saturday that left nearly a third of the city without electricity,” reported CBS news on December 20. The massive power outage shut down two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations and affected commuter trains and traffic lights. Mayor Daniel Lurie told people to “please stay off the roads and stay inside,” with good reason. “Dozens of autonomous vehicles stalled at intersections, some with passengers inside,” Planetizen reported. Waymo, which bills itself as “the world’s most experienced driver,” said it was “focused on rapidly integrating the lessons learned from this event, and are committed to earning and maintaining the trust of the communities we serve every day.” This was not the first energy event to affect California drivers. In the summer of 2022, California called on drivers not to charge their electric cars from 4-9 p.m., the after-work time when 80 percent of EV drivers do in fact plug in. California’s frequent blackouts add to the threat for all drivers. In 2020 Gov. Newsom issued an executive order mandating that “100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035.” Last year the incoming Trump administration canceled that rule, so in June Gov. Newsom signed a new executive order to “reaffirm commitment to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission technologies” as directed in the 2020 order, reinforced by state bureaucracies. In 2022, the California Air Resources Board announced a plan to ban new sales of natural gas water heaters and furnaces by 2030. In blackouts like the one in San Francisco last December, that could leave residents gasping for gas in the darkness, with no internet, no microwave oven, no garage door openers and such. The Teslas and other EVs would not be charging, and it’s possible that Waymo vehicles would be stranded with passengers on the streets of San Francisco and other cities. Gov. Newsom and CARB are shrink-wrapped in climate-change dogma and ignore the need for trade-offs and the dynamics of the market.  Californians, not politicians or government bureaucrats, should select the cars they drive and the appliances they believe best meet the needs of their families. The recent blackout in San Francisco confirms that the state’s electric grid is far from flawless. As Californians will recall, in 2019 Gov. Newsom picked his former cabinet secretary, Ana Matosantos, as state “energy czar.” The Puerto Rico native, with degrees in political science and feminist studies, was hailed as a woman of “unrivaled professional accomplishment,” but blackouts and energy shortfalls continued. In 2022, the state urged drivers not to charge their EVs during peak hours. In late 2025 a blackout left self-driving cars stranded on the streets of San Francisco, and shut down electric appliances. Gov. Newsom’s executive orders have not included an independent investigation of government fraud in the Golden State. Such a probe could target the $32 billion in unemployment fraud under Julie Su, Newsom’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency boss. Su became Biden’s “acting” labor secretary, without Senate confirmation, and is now “deputy mayor for economic justice,” in New York City under socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani. As Megan Barth of the California Globe reports, President Trump has created a new Department of Justice division to combat fraud nationwide. Gov. Newsom’s administration has presided over “tens of billions in unemployment fraud, $37 billion squandered on homelessness with exploding encampments, and a high-speed rail boondoggle ballooning to over $130 billion with little to show but empty promises.” If Californians thought such an investigation was long overdue it would be hard to blame them. As the president likes to say, we’ll have to see what happens. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Is Minnesota or California the Fraud Capital of America? Christmas for California Parents Gavin’s Angels: From Masks to Mandates to Millions Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

from Bannons War Room: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit: The White House on Saturday suggested that the US Military used a powerful sonic weapon to take out Venezuelan soldiers and security guards during the US’s operation to capture Nicolas Maduro. Earlier this month, the Army’s Delta Force captured Maduro after President Trump ordered military strikes on the South […]

"The criminal in the White House would not be able to keep you from going to jail.” The post Philly’s Fake Muslim Sheriff Threatens to Arrest ICE Agents appeared first on Frontpage Mag.