UTL COMMENT:- By this ad they're only just confirming what we already know... She explains it very well....

A bloody battle.

It’s been rumored for quite some time, and on Monday it popped all over X: Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to announce very soon that pharmaceutical advertising on television will be a thing of the past. Attention America: Every time you turn on the TV, Big Pharma is there pushing drugs instead of real health solutions. Most countries ban these ads, but in the U.S., profit wins over public health. America, what’s your take? Should we ban pharmaceutical ads on TV? MAHA — Robert F. Kennedy Jr – Commentary News (@RobertKennedyJc) March 22, 2025 There are many facets to this. You’ll hear from some quarters that it’s a First Amendment issue, that pharmaceutical companies should have the right to advertise just like any other legal business can. That’s one argument. Another argument is that only the U.S.A. and New Zealand allow drug ads on the tube, or at least prescription drug ads. Yet another argument involves whether Kennedy, or President Trump by executive order, has the power to dictate whether pharma ads can run on television. Some say this would have to be a statutory change and Congress would have to pass a bill to ban those ads. Are those ads corrupting the medical practice? I have a friend who’s a general practitioner, and he tells me all the time of his amazement at patients coming in and demanding prescriptions for specific drugs they’ve seen on TV, often for things they very demonstrably do not need. On the other hand, the way Big Pharma pushes its wares on doctors will likely be unchanged and even perhaps more aggressive if they’re not able to push back-end demand by advertising directly to the public. I’m probably not qualified to give any particularly cogent analysis on those questions. But if Kennedy gets the administration to knock ads for prescription drugs off television, you’ll shortly hear the bell tolling for those massive media conglomerates who own the big TV networks and four-fifths or more of all the channels on cable TV. Why? In an X post on Monday, syndicated radio host Steve Gruber gave a pretty good lowdown… In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry significantly increased its television advertising expenditure in the United States, spending approximately $4.58 billion on national TV ads. This amount represented a substantial portion of the total TV ad spend for that year. statista.com+1brown-watch.com+1 By 2024, this trend continued, with pharmaceutical companies investing around $3.4 billion in linear TV advertising during the first eight months alone, marking an 8.1 percent year-over-year increase. These ads generated 54.2 billion household TV ad impressions, a 4.2 percent increase compared to the previous year. (http://emarketer.com) Moreover, in March 2023, prescription pharmaceutical brands were the leading spenders on national TV advertising, allocating an estimated $403.4 million. This figure was nearly double the amount spent by the second-highest category, automakers, which spent $216.1 million during the same period. foxbusiness.com+3adweek.com+3moneydigest.com+3 These figures underscore the pharmaceutical industry’s substantial investment in television advertising within the United States. That money is simply gigantic. In a podcast clip you’ve likely seen by now, Patrick Bet David notes that it’s three-quarters of the national advertising revenue on TV. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is gearing up to ban pharmaceutical commercials on television. The United States is currently only one of two countries in the world that permit pharmaceutical advertisements on TV. Businessman and podcaster Patrick Bet-David notes, “Big… pic.twitter.com/CDR2X8KhO0 — DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) March 24, 2025 But as Calley Means noted in a Tucker Carlson interview in late November of last year, the penetration of the consumer market isn’t why Pharma owns TV. That money is being spent for a different purpose — namely, to buy-off network and local news coverage so that nothing negative will be said on those airwaves about the industry and its products. Calley Means exposes how big pharma runs ads to buy off the media and that it’s an open secret when you work for big pharma. 75%of ad revenue on cable television comes from the pharmaceutical industry. pic.twitter.com/6B8EsY2Ctm — Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) November 29, 2024 What effect has this had? Colossal. It’s corrupted the profession of journalism, for certain. When was the last time you saw a national broadcast or cable news report on product liability in the pharmaceutical industry? You don’t even see those for COVID vaccine industries, and that’s something you ought to be seeing wall-to-wall coverage of. Consider this study… The scope of the pregnancy complications in this study are of great concern and consistent with the vast obstetrical experience of the authors’ observations. The catastrophic effects of the COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy are associated with nearly every obstetrical/neonatal complication imaginable. Placental abnormalities also exhibited a substantial breach in safety signals including placental insufficiency, placental calcification, placental infarction, placental thrombosis, placenta accreta, and other placental disorders. The placental abnormalities noted in this study are consistent with clinical observations from sonographers and physicians reviewing ultrasound images prior to birth and are depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 depicts three separate women’s third trimester fetal ultrasound images documenting classic features observed after administration of COVID-19 vaccines earlier in pregnancy. Many of these findings are consistent with multiple pregnancy adverse events described in this report including placental calcifications, placental insufficiency, placental infarction, placental thrombosis, placenta accreta, placental disorders, reduced amniotic fluid volume, and fetal growth restriction. The placental images demonstrate calcifications (c), lacunae (L), and infarcts (i) as pictured in Figure 1. This present study investigating AEs in pregnancy following COVID-19 vaccination is consistent with two other Pfizer sources[3,6] and two prior FDA/CDC VAERS sources, as discussed below [4,5]. It’s a very fat gravy train, and those media conglomerates are riding well atop it. NB there were no pharma ads on TV before the 1990s – this restriction was removed by Bill Clinton. And I’m sure the massive advertising spend by pharmaceutical companies has no influence on how stories about them are reported. — Scott Davis (@scottdavisCRE) March 24, 2025 They’ll have to fill a whole lot of avails if the drug ads go away… “In the U.S., Nearly 31% of ad minutes on major nightly news broadcasts in 2024 came from pharmaceutical brands”. It’s basically legalized drug pushing. Drug companies are not allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to the public on TV in the European Union. https://t.co/woU1uZ5h7X — CatDog99 (@dog99_cat) March 24, 2025 And a major cultural shift would be coming… Pharma ads are at least 25% of cable TV ads. And they bombard young people with the message that you need drugs to be happy. Almost a third of teens are already on a prescription drug, and it’ll get worse unless something changes. https://t.co/nT6ruD6uS3 — Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) February 25, 2025 Only the US and NZ allow direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising on TV. No surprise the US consumes 40-45% of all pharmaceuticals globally, whilst having terrible health outcomes. Selling drugs that people don’t need to make Big Pharma more money is obviously a terrible… https://t.co/nDncdg30Ce — Sanjeev Jeyakumar (@sanj_jey) March 24, 2025 Almost assuredly the networks and local TV stations will try to replace that revenue wherever they can get it, and this could have good and bad implications. One good implication is that those stations and networks will have to cultivate a broader base of advertisers because the Big Pharma whales will then be out of the market. That could help reinvigorate the advertising market; it will certainly re-professionalize it because with the massive subsidies Pharma has been providing to those media conglomerates, driving positive results for marketers has fallen off the list of priorities for many of them. They’ll have to learn how to drive return on investment for their advertisers again. This means putting shows on TV that people actually want to watch rather than woke crap the corporate elite have been demanding. With those drug ads covering the airwaves and making the networks fat, quality control hasn’t been all that much of an issue. Now it’s going to be. The bad implication is that most of these channels, networks, and parent companies won’t survive, and you’ll likely see a fire sale at those media conglomerates. But this isn’t altogether a bad thing unless you were dumb enough to have stock in these corporations (if you still have it, get out now — this is not a dip you want to buy). Because re-democratizing the media space, particularly in an era when the incentive to cut the cord on cable has never been greater, is where we need to be. Let hundreds of companies compete where only a few currently exist. This column talks about the absurdity of a talentless clown like Margaret Brennan serving as a prominent “journalist” at CBS News when I could easily name two dozen independent podcasters and journalists with far larger audiences and better reputations; take away the bribe money from Big Pharma and CBS would have no choice but to find anchors and reporters with far more competence and prestige than Brennan. (RELATED: How Much Longer Is CBS Going to Carry Margaret Brennan?) And on the entertainment side, the standard for attracting audiences would have to be substantially greater. Because subscription revenue is the future if drug ads go away, and there are only a very few cable channels whose programming could command any real subscription revenue. They exist as receptacles for rating points for their parent companies to park those drug ads into, and so the only standard for many of those channels is how cheaply can they attract sets of eyes. When those channels are sold to smaller companies not floating on a sea of legacy cash, they’ll actually have to fight for those rating points. Most won’t be able to do that successfully. And the television business will have an economic depression that rivals its current creative depression. Which is just. And, as it happens, the resulting forest fire creates the only real opportunity that industry will have to reinvent itself and recover any crediblity or relevance. If it doesn’t, and the age of mass media dies away, then so be it. People will still seek entertainment. We’ll still be looking for something to watch. Someone will present us with options. Will Kennedy’s drug ad ban make America healthy again? I don’t know. But it will certainly shake up one of the laziest, most corrupt, and underperforming sectors of our economy, and that alone is an encouraging prospect. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Five Quick Things: The Well-Deserved Disgust of the American People This Mess Is of Your Own Making, Chief Justice Roberts Entitlement Fraud Is Now a Stated Aim of the Democrat Party The post RFK Jr. and the Approaching Death of Major Media appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As is his habit, television’s Bill Maher went straight to the point. Here’s the headline from Breitbart: “Bill Maher Says ‘F**k You’ to Critics of His Scheduled Trump White House Meeting.” Breitbart reported it this way, quoting Maher directly: “Kid Rock was here a couple of weeks ago and he said ‘I want you to meet Trump. I’m going to take you to the White House.’ So now we’re going to do that,” he said. “There will be lots of people on the left who will be like ‘How dare you talk to this man?’ Like f…. you. I’m not playing this game that you mean girls play,” he continued. “Where you’re like ‘you can’t sit at my lunch table, because I’m not talking to you.’ Not talking to you? You lost the election. Who the f…. do you think you have to talk to?” In short, Bill Maher gets it exactly right. The reality here is that the American Left has long ago left being “liberal” behind and gone so far Left that it radiates intolerance. The American Spectator’s own founder, the inimitable R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., has taken note of this Leftist predilection over the years. Writing back there in 2010 in one of his several bestselling books, After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery, Tyrrell relates a tale concerning a hacking of “one of the world’s leading Global Warmist research centers, the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.” The hackers published a trove of three thousand “conspiratorial e-mails and files for all the world to read.” (RELATED: Free Speech Restrictions Are a Problem) And what did those e-mails reveal? Bob Tyrrell notes that along with “deceits” and “distortions” there was “the suppression of dissenting points of view” that were “surreptitiously blacklisting and suppressing scientists who disagreed with them.” In other words, in today’s latest episodes, no less than Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is being targeted for silencing by those in his own party because he went along with Republicans who refuse to shut down the government in the latest, annual circus that always revolves around passing a federal budget. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: The Well-Deserved Disgust of the American People) Sample headlines from all of this uproar: From NPR: “‘Deep sense of outrage and betrayal’: House Democrats react to Schumer announcement.” From USA Today: “Democrats pile on criticism of Chuck Schumer, with some calling for him to step aside.” From NBC News: “Democratic anger over ‘Schumer surrender’ shows party’s deep divisions on how to take on Trump: The Senate minority leader finds himself sharply at odds with many members of his caucus, fellow Democrats in the House and liberal activists.” Suffice it to say, there are many more similar headlines out there. All of which is to say, it doesn’t matter if the target is Bill Maher or Chuck Schumer or anyone else seen as being on the Left. The far reaches of today’s American Left have long since become a model of intolerance of dissent. This would explain the targeting of GOP members of Congress holding the once-normal “town hall” meetings, in which the member has conversations with constituents about the issues of the day. Now, headline after headline reports that Leftist protestors are repeatedly storming these gatherings with the goal of shutting them down. The hard fact Democrats have to deal with is that there is a significant chunk of their own party who see too many of their fellow Democrats as intolerant of dissent from far Left doctrine. Bad enough is the fury directed at Bill Maher for simply agreeing to have a sit down with the President. But worse still for Democrats is the reality of Democrats targeting their own Senate Leader — Schumer — and doing everything they can to silence him. The latter sends the decided message that one of America’s two major political parties — the Democrats — is in the grasp of intolerants. (RELATED: The Democratic Party Is Collapsing) And dangerously? This intolerance of dissent from the Left has now spread to those who are committing violence at Tesla dealers around the country. (RELATED: ‘Broken Windows’ and the Terrorism of Small Things) Not to mention Elon Musk himself has been personally and repeatedly threatened with death. All of this to say, there are those on the Left who do not tolerate dissent from whatever is its Leftist agenda of the moment. Not good. Not good ever. Perhaps they should listen to Bill Maher. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Who’s Paying the Tesla Attack Terror Bills? French Politician Demands America Return the Statue of Liberty The Democrats’ Antisemitism Problem The post The Left Should Learn From Bill Maher appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Every year, the World Happiness Report releases its rankings. The report seemingly provides a clear, numerical snapshot of where the happiest people live. Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden, these same countries consistently rise to the top, year after year, with very little variation. In contrast, the United States continues to drop in the rankings.  As expected, the gullible media jumps on the results, hailing the Fantastic Four as shining examples of happiness. These countries, we’re assured, demonstrate that social democracy is the best and only way forward. If only other nations, like the U.S., would embrace similar practices, their citizens would be better off. More smiles, more joy, more harmony. (RELATED: What All Americans Can Learn from Ellen DeGeneres’s Disastrous Escape to Europe) It sounds good — almost too good to be true. That’s because it is. With the latest report just released, it’s time to ask several important questions — questions that should have been raised long ago. For example, what if the rankings rest on shaky foundations? What if the term “happiness,” as defined in the report, has little correlation to genuine human well-being? Third, what if these metrics not only miss the point but also actively reward stagnation over ambition and mediocrity over meaning? (RELATED: Why are Liberal Women so Unhappy?) Consider Finland, supposedly the happiest place on Earth — for eight consecutive years. A utopia, we’re told. Yet Finland also has one of the highest rates of intimate partner violence in Europe. One in three Finnish women has experienced physical or sexual violence in her lifetime. Domestic abuse shelters struggle to meet demand. If life is so fulfilling, so comfortable, so secure, one wonders why so many women live in fear. Or take Denmark, a country that consistently ranks among the top three. While it’s a place filled with cozy cafés, high trust in government, and generous social benefits, the use of antidepressants is alarmingly high. An increasing number of Danes take medication for depression or anxiety. Similarly, in Iceland, another Nordic “paradise,” rates of depression and substance abuse have been rising for years. As for Sweden, suicide rates remain very high. In a nation of just 10 million, 1,200 people die by suicide each year — a figure that, when adjusted for population, is nearly on par with the annual suicide toll in the U.S. Once known for ABBA and Ikea, Sweden is now more commonly associated with assaults and illegal immigration. (RELATED: Time to Ditch the Media and NGOs’ Freedom and Democracy Rankings) In cities like Malmö and Stockholm, gang violence rages, with car bombings and shootings becoming disturbingly routine. Even businesses are being bombed. Meanwhile, Sweden and its Nordic neighbors boast some of the highest divorce rates in Europe. For a region famous for happiness, things appear a little, shall we say, bleak.  This brings us back to the World Happiness Report, which is problematic for many reasons. First off, it relies on self-reported surveys. People rank their lives on a scale from 1 to 10, alongside factors like GDP per capita, social support, life expectancy, and perceived corruption. The assumption is simple: higher numbers mean a happier population. But, as we all know, happiness isn’t a spreadsheet formula. It can’t be reduced to income levels or government trust scores. Furthermore, as someone who has spent a considerable amount of time in this specific part of the world, I’ve noticed that Nordic societies place a strong cultural emphasis on contentment. Admitting dissatisfaction can feel like going against the grain, like an act of ingratitude. When you live in a country consistently ranked as one of the best places on Earth, aren’t you supposed to be happy? The pressure to conform, to say you’re satisfied even if you’re not, is enormous. The opposite dynamic plays out in America, which just hit a record low in this year’s rankings, dropping to 24th place. The headlines are grim: The decline of the middle class, political division, widespread loneliness, and a growing sense of despair. However, it’s crucial to note that America remains the most dynamic, inventive, and culturally influential nation of all time. A land of ambition, reinvention, and rebellion; it’s a place where millions chase meaning, not just comfort.  Maybe that’s the real flaw in these rankings. They confuse comfort with happiness. A well-functioning welfare state can eliminate many of life’s stresses, but it can’t make life meaningful. It can’t inspire. It can’t provide a sense of accomplishment or adventure. Of course, this is not to say that people in Nordic nations aren’t adventurous or haven’t accomplished anything of merit. Rather, the report fails to capture the broader picture, and by doing so, it presents a misleading one. (RELATED: Bauhaus and the Cult of Ugliness) There’s a reason why so many of the greatest artists, thinkers, and innovators don’t come from the “happiest” places on Earth. A lack of hardship can lead to a lack of risk. A lack of struggle may lead to a lack of fire in the belly (or none whatsoever). (RELATED: Love and Reason in the Ruins) Conversely, countries with more uncertainty, more struggle — places that rank lower on these lists — often produce the most passionate, driven, and creative people. The U.S. may be slipping in the rankings, but it remains the place where people fight to build, create, and dream. Nordic countries may have mastered the art of reducing hardship, but does that mean they’ve mastered happiness? Comfort provides stability, but it doesn’t provide meaning.  Happiness can’t be measured like GDP. It’s not a number. It’s not a survey answer. It’s not something that can be handed out by the government, like a social benefit. It’s something deeper, harder, and far more complex. And it certainly isn’t found in a report that treats human fulfillment as if it were a 5th-grade math problem. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Nigeria: The Most Dangerous Place To Be a Christian MSNBC Article Claiming DEI Is Based on the Gospels Gets It All Wrong The Islamic Revolution Sweeping US Prisons The post The Happiness Hoax: Are Nordic Nations Really Better Off Than America? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The post Dismantling Indoctrination appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Box Office Poison: Hollywood’s Story in a Century of Flops By Tim Robey (Hanover Square Press, 334 pages, $33) No institution in America takes itself as seriously as Hollywood — think George Clooney who hasn’t made a significant film in a decade telling the president of the United States to step down. Any book that exposes the self-importance of Hollywood thus is worth reading. Tim Robey’s new book, Box Office Poison, tells the story of 25 of Hollywood’s worst cinematic disasters. His tale is sad and yet funny as we read of some of the greatest actors, directors, and writers making fools of themselves while spending huge sums of money — a classic example being Pluto Nash which almost ruined Eddie Murphy’s career, cost $100 million, and brought in $7 million. I must admit I experienced a strong dose of schadenfreude as I read the unfolding of these disasters but I also found some of Robey’s takes on them as funny as one of Evelyn Waugh’s comic novels. (RELATED: Farewell Mr. Waugh: Political Correctness and Censorship Continue to Wreak Havoc) I am proud to write that of the 25 films Robey analyzes, I only saw four: Intolerance, Freaks, The Magnificent Ambersons, and The Land of the Pharaohs. My only excuse for the last is… I was a teenager.  I recognized all the titles save one, Synecdoche, New York, which none of my friends ever heard of either when queried. The first three analyzed by the way are special cases. Robey notes that while Intolerance lost a lot of money for its time and ruined the career of D.W. Griffith, the first American film genius, it is now considered a classic. In the case of The Magnificent Ambersons, the film lost money but it is now remembered as a flawed Orson Welles masterpiece because it was sabotaged by a bankrupt RKO that had lost faith in the film. Freaks was detested when it first opened and withdrawn as being too disgusting for American audiences. It was banned in Great Britain and not shown for years. Today it has developed a cult following as one of the first horror films. As Robey asks while analyzing films like Cutthroat Island, Cats, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, etc: what were they thinking? And that is precisely what makes his book worth reading. How the truly talented people involved in these disasters thought that they understood the taste of the American public and yet were catastrophically wrong. Robey does a good job of explaining while sprinkling some wonderful detail. It reveals that all but six of the flops date from the collapse of the studio system when hard nose bosses like Darryl Zanuck, Harry Warner, or even a known vulgarian like Harry Cohn had a sense of the public’s taste and held writers, directors, and even actors from running off in wild directions. Some of Robey’s choices are apt. For Babe: Pig in the City (at a cost of $90 million with a U.S. gross of $18.3 million), Robey notes that the director, George Miller had quite a cast, along with 1200 extras, 600 crew members, and 50 animal trainers. He lined up 799 animals including 100 pigs, 130 cats, 120 dogs, and a half dozen mice serving as a Greek chorus while singing Edith Piaf’s version of “Are You Lonesome Tonight?” How could you go wrong? Robey argues that many of the problem films were the result of directors out of control. Oliver Stone, whose ego was and is legendary, decided to make a film about the historical figure he most admired, Alexander the Great (price tag of $155 million and a U.S. gross of $34.3 million). He insisted that Alexander was gay, but he still enlisted Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie for the non-gay audience. He also rewrote history by having Alexander, played badly according to most reviews, by Colin Farrell, die not of some form of dysentery but heroically by an arrow wound. It didn’t help that Stone also blamed the American audience’s “moral fundamentalism” for rejecting his masterpiece. The film received disastrous reviews. It is difficult to tell which of the films Robey regards as most gloriously misjudging the public’s taste. In my reading it would be a toss up among Cutthroat Island or Dr. Doolittle with Terry Gilliam’s bomb, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen just missing the mark. Cutthroat Island, which the Guinness Book of Records held was Hollywood’s greatest financial disaster, tried to capitalize on the popularity of pirate films and the blossoming career of Geena Davis, hot off the success of A League of Their Own and Thelma and Louise. Cutthroat Island, excuse the pun, sank her career. Part of the problem according to Robey was a bad script and a spectacularly weak male lead, Matthew Modine. Also, Oliver Reed was hired and fired after a bar fight on his first day of filming or things might have been worse according to Robey. Nothing went right, the reviews were disastrous and Cutthroat Island sank like a holed ship and took pirate films with it until Johnny Depp refloated the concept in Pirates of the Caribbean. Dr. Doolittle was hatched, according to Robey, to cash in on the enormous success of elaborate musicals such as My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, and Mary Poppins and the popularity of its star Rex Harrison. The story of a beloved animal doctor who could “talk to the animals” seemed natural. It wasn’t. It appeared just as the audience for musicals began to wane: Follow-ups like Star with Julie Andrews at the peak of her popularity flopped as did Hello Dolly, a huge Broadway success, seemingly made for Barbra Streisand, which just matched its production budget. According to Robey, Doolittle’s fate was sealed by its star, Rex Harrison, who hated everything about it: the script, having to play second fiddle to the animals and even having to sing “Talk to the Animals,” which won an Academy Award. Harrison said, “A humorous song is meant to be funny. This isn’t funny.” Nothing seemed to go right in making the film: the giraffe who was supposed to be featured in the film with Harrison riding it, held up shooting for days, reportedly after stepping on its own penis. A fawn had to have her stomach pumped after eating a quart of paint and a squirrel got drunk on some gin. Dr. Doolittle recorded a loss of $11.1 million on a budget of 18 million, a small loss compared to later film disasters. Robey believes that the big-name musicals that started with My Fair Lady died because times changed. The Vietnam War, campus riots, and racial unrest made them seem irrelevant. Robey’s book is a natural for film fans. It is richly researched and written with a verve as if he was chuckling to himself as he analyzed one film disaster after another. But it also has a heart as Robey’s genuine love for the movies comes through on every page. READ MORE from John P. Rossi: Farewell Mr. Waugh: Political Correctness and Censorship Continue to Wreak Havoc When Ike Said No The Soldier Poets Who Knew About War John P. Rossi is a professor emeritus of history at La Salle University in Philadelphia The post Tim Robey’s <i>Box Office Poison: Hollywood’s Story in a Century of Flops</i> appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

NEW MERCH - https://thebestpoliticalshirts.com/ Trump Military Strategy Leak Unveils SHOCKING Revelations

Apparently King Charles plans to formally invite the United States to join the British Commonwealth, and President Trump seems very enthusiastic about it.  I don’t know why more people are not talking about this, because joining the British Commonwealth would be an extremely dramatic move.  We are being told that if the U.S. were to become a “member state” it would be “largely symbolic”, but is that really true?  As you will see below, King Charles is the head of the British Commonwealth, the organization that runs the British Commonwealth is based in London, and the British Commonwealth is committed to a globalist political agenda which includes taking global action to fight climate change.  Does the U.S. really want to come under the authority of a worldwide organization that is pushing such an agenda? Just like any other organization, the British Commonwealth has certain rules, and if you break those rules it has the authority to dish out consequences.  For example, Gabon was partially suspended by the Commonwealth in 2023 after a military coup happened in that nation.  The rules of the British Commonwealth are based on British values, because the majority of the members of the British Commonwealth are former territories of the British Empire.  According to Wikipedia, there are currently 56 “member states” in the British Commonwealth… The Commonwealth of Nations, often referred to as the British Commonwealth or simply the Commonwealth,[4][5] is an international association of 56 member states, the vast majority of which are former territories of the British Empire from which it developed.[2] They are connected through their use of the English language and cultural and historical ties. The chief institutions of the organisation are the Commonwealth Secretariat, which focuses on intergovernmental relations, and the Commonwealth Foundation, which focuses on non-governmental relations between member nations.[6] Numerous organisations are associated with and operate within the Commonwealth.[7] The United States was once a territory of the British Empire, and we fought a very long war to free ourselves from the British monarchy. Are we sure that we want to take a very large step back in that direction? The British monarchy ruled the British Empire, and the British monarchy has authority over the British Commonwealth today.  In fact, King Charles is the official head of the British Commonwealth… Under the formula of the London Declaration, Charles III is the Head of the Commonwealth.[2][61]However, when the monarch dies, the successor to the crown does not automatically become the new head of the Commonwealth.[62] Despite this, at their meeting in April 2018, Commonwealth leaders agreed that Prince Charles should succeed his mother Elizabeth II as head after her death.[63] As of this moment, the British Commonwealth has a total population of more than 2.7 billion people. If the United States were to join, that would push the total population of the British Commonwealth above 3 billion. Needless to say, the total population of the world is only about 8 billion. The British Commonwealth is run by a secretive organization known as “the Commonwealth Secretariat”, and we are told that this secretive organization “coordinates activities and initiatives among member states”… The Commonwealth has no legal obligations or binding treaties. The member countries cooperate on political, economic, and cultural matters. The Commonwealth Secretariat, which is based in London, coordinates activities and initiatives among member states. A yearly Commonwealth Day is organized to foster cooperation among the members. The official website of the British Commonwealth details the “initiatives” that member states are expected to work together to achieve.  If you go to that website, you will find a special page that is dedicated to the British Commonwealth’s fight against climate change… Climate change negatively affects the development of small and other vulnerable countries across the Commonwealth. Many Commonwealth countries are already facing increased temperature, sea level rise, storm surges, drought, floods, and hurricanes. The Commonwealth supports small and other vulnerable states by amplifying their calls for greater climate action. We have been pushing for greater climate action since 1989, when Commonwealth leaders committed to protecting the environment in the Langkawi Declaration. This was one of the world’s first collective statements to name greenhouse gas emissions as one of the leading problems facing the planet. Do we really want to sign on to the Langkawi Declaration? According to that document, member states are expected to “support the development of an international sustainable development funding mechanism”. Do we really want to be taxed so that the British Commonwealth can fight climate change? Let me give you another tidbit that most people do not realize about the British Commonwealth.  It turns out that all citizens of British Commonwealth “member states” are “eligible” to serve in the British military… Commonwealth citizens are eligible to serve in the British Armed Forces. According to the British Army, “Commonwealth soldiers are, and always will be, an important and valued part of the fabric of the British Army.”[83] How would you feel about American citizens serving in the British military? Would you be in favor of that? We need to have a national debate about this, because King Charles is reportedly going to make a formal offer of membership to President Trump when he comes to visit… KING Charles will reportedly make a “secret offer” to Donald Trump during his State visit. The Royal proposal is said to potentially reduce tensions between the White House and Canada. Plans are allegedly in the works to make the USA the next “associate member” of the Commonwealth. On Truth Social, Trump linked to the story that I quoted above and he posted a very enthusiastic message… This could actually happen. One anonymous source told the Daily Mail that a deal “is being discussed at the highest levels”… A source told the Daily Mail: “This is being discussed at the highest levels. “It would be a wonderful move that would symbolise Britain’s close relationship with the US. “Donald Trump loves Britain and has great respect for the Royal Family, so we believe he would see the benefits of this.” Some have suggested that Trump is simply trolling the British. But Trump’s fondness for the royal family is well known.  In fact, in a docu-series that was released late last year Trump had some very kind things to say about King Charles and Camilla… In footage released at the end of 2024, Trump can be heard referring to the King as a “really good person”. The footage, which was released as part of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s docu-series Art of The Surge, the US President can be heard saying, “Hopefully he’s going to be well, because he’s a really good person. Camilla is fantastic. You get to know them so well.” We always want to have positive relations with the British, but we should make it exceedingly clear to President Trump that joining the British Commonwealth is not acceptable. We do not want to become the 57th nation in a global alliance that is under the authority of King Charles. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get us out from under the authority of the British monarchy, and we never want to go back. Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com. About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written eight other  books that are available on Amazon.com including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”.  When you purchase any of Michael’s  books you help to support the work that he is doing.  You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter.  Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today. The post If The U.S. Joins The British Commonwealth, We Will Become The 57th Nation In A Global Alliance Under The Authority Of King Charles appeared first on End Of The American Dream.