The 2021 fall of Kabul and the 2024 fall of Damascus should give a lesson to the state governments of New York and California. In Afghanistan and Syria privileged elites in the capitals lost touch with the people they were ruling to a point where they could not see the signs of their demise bubbling under the surface. Much the same could be said for the pampered Democrat princes in Albany and Sacramento. Although Democrats retained control of the levers of government, the loss of reliable voters in places like New York City and San Francisco should deeply concern the poobahs who have assumed loyal support from their urban base. Democrats have always assumed that retaining the urban mob on the dole would ensure that their overwhelming numbers would keep the unwashed Republican masses in the rural areas and small towns in the majority of counties in their place. Even as key cities in the interior of Afghanistan quietly came under Taliban control, the Afghan government failed to realize that its strongholds in cities like Herat, Mazar al Sharif, and Kabul itself were crumbling; the elites continued to believe their own press releases. The process was even more precipitous in cities in Syria such as Aleppo, Hams, and even Damascus. That is one of primary reasons why the elites did not realize that government, police, and soldiers in key cities and towns were quietly changing sides and throwing open the gates to the rebels. After a recent meeting with New York’s Democrat mayor Eric Adams, President-elect Donald Trump called the meeting “good.” Adams may not have opened the city’s gates to Trump, but the meeting did signal that Adams will be taking a new more aggressive law and order stance in the wake of some truly horrific violent crimes lately. The November elections saw right of center Democrat candidates make gains and right-leaning ballot initiatives pass in San Francisco. This has caused some left coast politicians to call the winners DINOs (democrats in name only). Like the leaders in Hams and and Aleppo in Syria, these newly right-leaning people may be looking to placate the — until recently — compliant urban masses. Survival is a great motivator in politics, and changing sides politicly is an art not just practiced in the Middle and Southwest of Asia . If Republicans can gain control of one or both houses of the legislatures of New York and/or California in the next election, it will represent a sea change in those states as profound as the rebel victory in Syria and the Taliban triumph in Afghanistan. All this will depend on how well Donald Trump fulfills his campaign promises. If he manages to drain criminal illegal aliens from “sanctuary cities” and immigrant-related crime goes down, he may well be rewarded with seeing more conservative candidates in control of cities like Rochester, New York and Santa Monica, California. The expected “Red Wave” of 2022 did not materialize; but, if Trump brings home the bacon, it could occur in 2026. Rochester is a good example. In 2017, it declared itself a sanctuary city. Since then, it has suffered a crime wave of murders by illegal aliens including the barbaric slaughter of an entire family in a drug related murder by an illegal from the Dominican Republic. Other criminals, including indigent illegals, have committed multiple crimes under New York’s “progressive” bail laws. Tip O’Neil’s observation that “all politics is Local” may well come home to roost to the the dismay of Democrats who assumed that they had the local votes in urban areas locked up for the duration of this century. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: Generals Should Win Wars Before Declaring Victory The Dark Side of Women in Combat Gary Anderson lectures on Alternative Analysis at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. The post New York and Cali Could Crumble Like Kabul and Damascus appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Why did President-elect Donald Trump pick then Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to be the next attorney general back in November? Gaetz is no legal heavyweight. He’s never run an organization with thousands of workers, like the Department of Justice. And he’s not exactly big on respecting the law. Nonetheless, Trump went with Gaetz first, in what appears to be a reward for the Floridian’s loyalty, his only qualification. In short order, Gaetz bowed out of the running and Trump named his second choice, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who seems likely to win confirmation in the Senate. One reason could be: When Gaetz resigned, he left the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee, which had not completed its probe, started in 2021, into allegations of sexual misconduct and illicit drug use by Gaetz. Gaetz had reason to expect that his departure from the House would prevent the report’s release. But then on Dec. 23, the panel released the 37-page report, and two items stood out. The first: “Indeed, nearly every woman that the Committee spoke with could not remember the details of at least one or more of the events they attended with Rep. Gaetz and attributed that to drug or alcohol consumption.” The second: “The Committee received testimony that Victim A and Rep. Gaetz had sex twice during the party, including at least once in the presence of other party attendees.” Victim A “had just completed her junior year of high school.” She turned 18 later in 2017. He was 35. Gaetz vehemently denies allegations in the report that he had sexual contact with an individual under age 18. Like all those who are accused, he deserves the presumption of innocence. But he undermines his case with his lack of understanding just how bad it looks when, according to the Ethics report, a member of Congress spent his spare time with young women like Victim A, who told investigators Gaetz gave her $400 in cash, which she understood to be payment for sex. Gaetz version of his behavior as he posted on X: “Giving funds to someone you are dating – that they didn’t ask for – and that isn’t ‘charged’ for sex is now prostitution?!? There is a reason they did this to me in a Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom of any kind where I could present evidence and challenge witnesses.” I think the term “tone deaf” applies here. Gaetz especially angered fellow House Republicans when he allegedly shared images and videos of women on the House floor, which had been part of the probe. And that could be why one or more of five Republicans on the House Ethics Committee apparently joined five Democrats and voted to release the report on Dec. 23. So we’re back to the theory that Trump picked Gaetz knowing that the Floridian’s resignation would remove the ethics probe from the House jurisdiction — and hoping that the House panel would not go against Trump by pushing for the report’s release. The gambit failed — and that’s a good thing. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM The post Did Donald Trump Want Matt Gaetz to Be the Next Attorney General, or Was the Very Notion a Ruse? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As woke illiberalism replaced live-and-let-live liberalism as the animating ideology of the American Left, the state of Israel has increasingly found itself on the outs. Never mind that modern Israel was founded by, and for three decades politically dominated by, a bunch of left-wing socialists. Never mind that Harry Truman, an iconic liberal Democratic president, became the first world leader to recognize the fledgling Jewish state a mere 11 minutes after it announced its independence in 1948. None of that history matters on the Left anymore, after wokeism supplanted liberalism. In the fatuous neo-Marxist dichotomy of modern wokeism, Jews are deemed a “white,” “oppressor” class; Muslims, by contrast, are deemed a “brown,” “oppressed” class. To be a leftist in good standing, then, necessitates supporting the latter over the former — and, therefore, supporting Palestinian Arab jihadism over the Jewish people’s eternal will to survive. To the woke, the Palestinian Arabs’ quest to annihilate the Jews of Israel represents a vogue and chic cause — just like Black Lives Matter did five years ago, and just like same-sex marriage did five years before that. The apotheosis of this bemusing sentiment was the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023. Sure, babies were beheaded, women were raped, beautiful young music festival attendees were butchered, and Holocaust survivors were executed in their homes — but “Palestine” was being “decolonized,” and every good leftist knows you have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet! The ends always justify the means, as Saul Alinsky famously taught. Accordingly, in the words of disgraced Cornell history professor Russell Rickford, the Hamas massacre was “exhilarating” and “energizing.” The imperative now, as thousands of young jihadis infesting America’s university campuses have made clear, is to spread the “love”: to “globalize the intifada” and, in the words of the radical leftists who congregated in Times Square in New York City earlier this week, to foment a worldwide “intifada revolution.” The more, the merrier: Sharing is caring, after all! Alas, Americans now know exactly what “globalize the intifada” and “intifada revolution” means, in practice: Bourbon Street, New Orleans, around 3:15 a.m. local time on New Year’s Day. There, a U.S. Army veteran-turned-radicalized Muslim convert by the name of Shamsud-Din Jabbar drove a rented pickup truck into a jam-packed crowd of New Year’s partiers. The truck was packed with weapons, improvised explosive devices and — you guessed it — an ISIS flag. The tragic human cost of this one intifada mini “revolution” was at least 15 dead and more than 30 others injured. That’s quite a few “eggs” — with no discernible “omelet” in site. While Jabbar’s full radicalization story is not yet known, we do know he was active in a Houston mosque called Masjid Bilal. Following the Big Easy massacre of one of their congregants, the mosque took to social media to instruct its members not to respond to the FBI if approached, and to instead direct all inquiries to CAIR. That would be the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which was once described by an FBI counterterrorism chief as a “front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.” In 2007, CAIR was listed by the FBI as an unindicted co-conspirator during the case against the Holy Land Foundation — the largest terror financing prosecution in Department of Justice history. But hey, at least Islam is an “oppressed” religion, right? For many years, political elites deluded themselves into thinking that the existential threat posed by radical Islamic jihad was somehow limited or contained. Leaders became overconfident after the (long-overdue) assassination of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the successful campaign against ISIS a few years later. As for Hamas and Hezbollah? Israel’s problem, not ours! (Perhaps we might consider asking the families of the victims of Hezbollah’s 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut for their thoughts on that.) Elites, in short, convinced themselves that radical Islam was no longer a major problem. They deemed it far more pressing to focus on the “domestic terror threat” posed by Christian grandmothers praying outside abortion clinics — or parents speaking up at school board meetings about racial and gender indoctrination in their children’s schools. As for the U.S.-Mexico border, which the 9/11 Commission strenuously recommended we secure in its final report over two decades ago? Fling it wide open, baby! What could possibly go wrong? Well, New Orleans — that’s what could go wrong. And tragically, that’s what will continue to go wrong until this nation once again seals its porous borders and once again becomes serious about confronting the jihadist threat. Perhaps Israel — home of the exploding Hezbollah pagers — might even share some advice, if anyone here cares to ask. To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: An Outrage, and Then a Tragedy, in New Orleans To Terror No Sanction The post Bourbon Street Massacre Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Observers of U.S.-China relations frequently invoke the “Thucydides Trap” to explain China as the rising power challenging the United States as the world’s preeminent power. These observers hope that U.S. and Chinese diplomacy will avoid any kinetic consequences of the Thucydides Trap. But a recent Pentagon report provides evidence that China’s military build-up, especially its nuclear weapons build-up, threatens to repeat another historical “trap” for the United States — let’s call it the McNamara Trap.  The McNamara Trap — named for the Kennedy-Johnson administration’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara — refers to the twin ideas that nuclear superiority is meaningless and strategic defenses only undermine “strategic stability.” The underlying rationale for those ideas was McNamara’s strategic doctrine called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which posited that the United States only required enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to survive a first-strike attack by (then) the Soviet Union in order to effect strategic stability and deter a Soviet attack. At the time McNamara implemented MAD — in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis — the United States enjoyed nuclear superiority vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was American nuclear (and conventional) superiority that likely enabled the crisis to end peacefully, though the secret trade of our missiles in Turkey for the removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba obviously contributed to the Soviet decision to remove the missiles.  McNamara, however, took the wrong lesson from the crisis in Cuba. As Patrick Glynn noted, “the missile crisis inspired … McNamara to begin a radical revision of U.S. nuclear strategy, designed to remove U.S. policy even farther from the traditional logic of military power and bring it even closer into line with the vision embodied in arms control theory.” The decision was made to surrender our nuclear superiority and forego building and deploying strategic defenses. Glynn described it as McNamara “arguing in favor of strengthening the Soviet strategic arsenal.” And it also involved, wrote Glynn, “a deliberate decision to permit, even encourage, an increase in U.S. vulnerability to a Soviet second strike, in the supposed interest of assuring mutual stability.” Mutual Assured Destruction, in Edward Luttwak’s words, was transformed by McNamara from theory into dogma. Instead of nuclear superiority supporting deterrence as it did throughout the Eisenhower years (“massive retaliation”), deterrence was replaced by mutual assured destruction. The problem here, however, was the term “mutual.” For McNamara’s doctrine to work, the Soviets had to buy into it. But they didn’t. MAD, Luttwak noted, “assumed the bilateral desirability of ‘stable deterrence,’ as if it did not matter that the United States was a status-quo power on the defensive, while the Soviet Union was … very much in pursuit of further zones of influence and control.” McNamara capped the number of U.S. ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) at 1,054 on the theory that once the Soviets caught up they would stop building more missiles in furtherance of McNamara’s idea of strategic stability. The Soviets, however, had other ideas. As Harold Brown, who worked for McNamara in the Pentagon and later served as Defense Secretary for President Jimmy Carter, remarked: When we build nuclear weapons the Soviets build; when we stop, they continue to build.  Under McNamara’s guidance, the United States deliberately surrendered its nuclear superiority and decided against building strategic defenses. The Soviet massive nuclear build-up, however, continued. By 1969, Luttwak noted, the Soviets achieved strategic parity, and they kept on building more and larger missiles. Eventually, with more accurate, more powerful missiles, and a greater number of ICBM warheads, the Soviets neared a theoretical “first-strike” capability. Recalling this history, Henry Kissinger testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1979 about the growing strategic imbalance in favor of the Soviets as follows: “[W]e have placed ourselves at a significant disadvantage voluntarily . . . it is the consequence of unilateral decisions extending over a decade and a half: by a strategic doctrine adopted in the sixties [MAD] … and by the choices of the present [Carter] administration.” It was the Reagan administration that reversed that trend — it ended the McNamara Trap and restored strategic deterrence. The recent Pentagon report on China’s growing strategic nuclear force raises again the specter of the McNamara Trap. While the United States is estimated to have 1,419 nuclear warheads deployed and a stockpile of close to 3,800 non-deployed warheads, our nuclear force is aging. Meanwhile, Russia has more nuclear warheads deployed than we do, and China is engaging in a massive nuclear weapons build-up, reminiscent of the Soviet strategic build-up of the 1960s and 1970s, and which some are comparing to Nazi Germany’s military expansion in the 1930s. The Pentagon estimates that China currently deploys 600 operational warheads, and will deploy more than 1,000 warheads by 2030. If we do nothing in response to this strategic build-up, China will achieve rough nuclear parity by 2030 or 2035. It would be the McNamara Trap all over again, with both strategic and geopolitical consequences.  READ MORE: Trump Derangement Syndrome at Tulane University The US Presidents Who Really Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize The post Avoiding the McNamara Trap With China appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Fed Up Texas Chick, The Tenpenny Report: In April 2024, the Justice Department’s COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force (CFETF) released a report outlining the blatant and widespread fraud involving many COVID-19 relief programs. In all, 3,500 people were charged and over $2 billion in stolen COVID funds were seized. Lots of people exploited the […]

from GoldSilver: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede called for the country’s independence from Denmark during his New Year’s speech. “The Greenlandic people’s opportunity for independence has been adopted through the provisions of the Self-Government Act, thereby creating a legal basis for how independence can be achieved,” Egede said, according to The Hill. “A draft constitution for our country has also been prepared,” he added. Breaking News: Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede has officially announced a desire to obtain independence from Denmark in the wake of President Trump’s comments about buying the island territory for the United States. Via: The Hill pic.twitter.com/rsUJST6AFE — The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) January 4, 2025 Egede’s comments follow President Trump hinting at purchasing Greenland. President Trump Says US “ownership and control of Greenland is absolute necessity” "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity," Trump said. The Hill reports: The leader said a new development for Greenland is “imminent” days after Trump took a second pass at purchasing the land, which sits in the prominent Arctic region. “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said in a Dec. 22 Truth Social post. Egede hit back in a statement, declaring Greenland was not for sale and would undertake every effort to not be acquired by the U.S. “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom,” Egede said. "It is now time to take the next step for our country," Egede said. "Like other countries in the world, we must work to remove the obstacles to cooperation, which we can describe as the shackles of the colonial era, and move on," he continued. WATCH: NEW: Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede calls for independence from Denmark as Donald Trump ramps up his calls for acquiring the territory. "It is now time to take the next step for our country," Egede said. "Like other countries in the world, we must work to remove the… pic.twitter.com/uiRXzchjN7 — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 4, 2025 From POLITICO: Egede, who has led Greenland since 2021 and hails from the pro-independence Community of the People (IA) party, said Denmark’s relations with Greenland had not created “full equality,” and that the island deserves to represent itself on the world stage. “Our cooperation with other countries, and our trade relations, cannot continue to take place solely through Denmark,” he said. Under a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland can declare independence only after a successful referendum — which Egede appeared to hint at holding in tandem with the island’s upcoming parliamentary election in April. “Work has already begun on creating the framework for Greenland as an independent state,” he said. “It is necessary to take major steps … The upcoming new election period must, together with the citizens, create these new steps.” As global powers seek to expand their reach and footprint in the Arctic, mineral-rich Greenland — which hosts a U.S. military base — is coveted for its strategic value in security and trade.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum just announced that the country is open to receiving deported illegals, even if they aren’t originally from Mexico. “We will receive them here. We are going to receive them properly, and we have a plan,” she says. This is huge news. Previously, Claudia Sheinbaum had shut down the idea of Mexico being used as a deportation hub for illegals of all nationalities. Something must have caused her to change her mind. Maybe it was President Trump’s plan to get rid of the drug cartels? Check it out: BREAKING: After initially saying NO to receiving deported illegals, the President of Mexico just suddenly announced that she will allow President Trump to use Mexico as a deportation hub, even for non-Mexican migrants. “We will receive them here. We are going to receive them… pic.twitter.com/AJTlW8Cf5u — George (@BehizyTweets) January 3, 2025 BREAKING: Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum agrees to accept non-Mexican migrants deported by Trump, signaling diplomatic cooperation – AP pic.twitter.com/kaldTcEXmH — Publius (@OcrazioCornPop) January 4, 2025 AP reported: Mexico opened the possibility Friday of receiving non-Mexican migrants deported by the United States after initially saying they would push President-elect Donald Trump to return other nationalities directly to their countries of origin. President Claudia Sheinbaum said during her daily press briefing that in cases where the U.S. would not return migrants to their countries “we can collaborate through different mechanisms.” She did not offer details, but Mexico could limit it to certain nationalities or request compensation from the U.S. to move the deportees from Mexico to their home countries. “There will be time to speak with the United States government if these deportations really happen, but we will receive them here, we are going to receive them properly and we have a plan,” she said. Sheinbaum had prefaced her comments by saying Mexico is not in favor of them. Trump has promised to begin massive deportations. Critics have observed that there will be logistical challenges to significantly ramping up from the already high deportation numbers. The deportations would be immediately felt in northern Mexico’s border cities, which struggle with high levels of organized crime and where non-Mexican migrants would make easy targets for kidnapping and extortion. Newsweek added: Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Friday said that her country may accept non-Mexican migrants deported from the United States, marking a shift from its earlier stance of urging President-elect Donald Trump to deport individuals of other nationalities directly to their countries of origin. Trump has vowed to launch widespread deportations, but critics warn that significantly increasing the already substantial deportation figures will pose major logistical challenges. Trump’s flagship immigration policy is part of an effort to “secure the border” and curb migration figures as well as stop the flow of drugs entering the country. The impact of mass deportations would be acutely felt in Mexico’s northern border cities, where high levels of organized crime create a dangerous environment. Non-Mexican migrants deported to these areas could become vulnerable targets for kidnapping and extortion. During Trump’s first term, thousands of asylum seekers were required to remain in Mexico while their cases were processed in the U.S. Additionally, under a pandemic-era public health policy, tens of thousands of migrants who crossed into the United States were returned to Mexico. In December, Sheinbaum announced plans to request that Trump deport non-Mexican migrants directly to their home countries, rather than sending them to Mexico. However, during a press briefing on Friday, Sheinbaum said that Mexico is open to collaborating on cases where the U.S. cannot deport migrants directly to their home countries.

Florida Judge Andrew Siegel broke new ground by donning a VR headset in court. This was to virtually tour a wedding venue where the owner allegedly waved a gun at unruly guests. The defense’s move aims to help Miguel Albisu’s stand-your-ground claim. It puts the wearer of the virtual reality headset into the shoe’s of Albisu. This incident took place in 2023. Albisu, who denies wrongdoing, says he acted in self-defense. As VR enters the courtroom, it raises questions about how tech could reshape justice. Welcome to the future. Will we see this trend continue? And if so, when will we get proper hover boards? Newsweek reports: A Florida judge has made history by wearing a virtual reality headset to examine an alleged crime scene. Judge Andrew Siegel agreed to a defense request that he wear the headset to review a wedding venue where the owner allegedly pulled a gun on rowdy guests. Why It Matters As virtual reality technology advances, it could offer a more immersive experience in courtrooms, beyond the traditional CCTV and photos. Artificial intelligence could also help to make the virtual reality experience more lifelike. What To Know Broward County Judge Andrew Siegel used a virtual reality headset, supplied by the defense, to view a wedding reception from the perspective of the owner, Miguel Albisu, who is on trial for aggravated assault. He is accused of waving a gun at guests at Southwest Ranches wedding venue in 2023 and was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Albisu has pleaded not guilty and has said he was acting in self-defense. Newsweek sought email comment from his attorney, Ken Padowitz, on Friday. The defense team hired an artist to display the wedding venue using an Oculus Quest 2 VR headset. Albisu is seeking to use Florida’s stand-your-ground law, which allows property owners to use guns to defend themselves, their family and their property. Florida judge looks through a VR headset to put himself in the defendant’s shoes (self-defense scenario): pic.twitter.com/ehaTD4LCMz — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 2, 2025