Last Wednesday night, when two Israeli embassy employees were murdered outside the Jewish Museum in DC, the perpetrator told bystanders, “I did it for Gaza,” and shouted “free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The two victims were an Israeli Christian, Yaron Lischinsky and an American Jew, Sarah Lynn Milgrim. They were reportedly planning to be married. The alleged murderer is one Elias Rodriguez of Chicago. A “manifesto” of Rodriguez reportedly recites many slanders against Israel. The president has the power to not only call out and federalize the DC National Guard, he also has the power to effectively nationalize the DC police force. This wasn’t just a random murder. It was an act of terrorism. Under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 113B, terrorism is defined in terms of international and national terrorist acts, the definitions differing only in terms of the locale of the act. To be an act of terrorism, the conduct in question has to be in violation of the laws of the United States and appear to be intended to either (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. By shouting “free Palestine” and “I did it for Gaza” as he is alleged to have done, Rodriguez convicted himself of terrorism by his own statements. If he said those things, which can and will be proved easily, Rodriguez obviously wanted to intimidate the Jewish population of the District — or the nation at large — and wanted to influence government policy by intimidation or coercion. To emphasize that point, our “friends” the Qataris published statements supportive of Rodriguez’s terrorism. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), “a columnist for the Qatar government daily Al-Sharq, called for more attacks targeting Israeli Embassies in Arab countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. On his X account, he shared a photo of the Washington DC attacker, Elias Rodriguez, alongside a report on the attack, writing: “Imagine, where would the Zionists be if there emerged an Egyptian Rodriguez, a Jordanian, an Emirati too, a fourth from Bahrain, and a fifth from Morocco?” This from a Qatari government-controlled media outlet. Rodriguez is being held on two counts of first-degree murder. The FBI is reportedly investigating Rodriguez and the U.S. attorney may soon bring the additional terrorism charges against him. Attorney General Pam Bondi said he will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Washington, DC isn’t a new venue for terrorism. In 1983, a bomb went off near the Senate chamber in the Capitol. The so-called “Armed Resistance Unit” perpetrated the attack in protest of our military actions in Grenada and Lebanon. In 1940, Puerto Rican terrorists attacked Blair House in an attempt to assassinate Harry Truman. Both locations were under federal protection but the Jewish Museum wasn’t. The DC Crime Spree Which brings us to the crime spree that is going on in DC. According to a radio statement by the head of the DC police union, the situation is entirely out of control and it is caused — again, entirely — by the ineptness of the DC government. The gent said that the DC police can’t maintain adequate numbers of officers — which means everything from reduced anti-crime intelligence activity to reduced patrols — because of the “toxic atmosphere” that pervades the government system. People from neighboring jurisdictions — as well as DC residents – are liable to be carjacked at any time. Guns, which DC had nearly prevented non-criminals from having, are prevalent everywhere. But no one from Virginia or Maryland is allowed to have a gun in his possession because DC doesn’t hold valid carry permits from any other jurisdiction. The president has the power to not only call out and federalize the DC National Guard, he also has the power to effectively nationalize the DC police force and place it under his control. If the President determines that “special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,” he can do so under federal and DC law. At this point, there is obviously a crime emergency in the District requiring that the president do precisely that. The president cannot force the incredibly inept DC government to pay police more, but by taking control of the police force —  perhaps placing it under the direction of the U.S. attorney — the “toxic atmosphere” could be remedied. It’s hard to imagine why a person wants to be a cop these days. They are abused by the public, paid too little and generally trashed by the media. It must be nearly impossible to recruit new cops for the District. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in a Thursday editorial there have been many calls on college campuses to “globalize the intifada,” meaning terrorism against Jewish populations everywhere. The editorial said, “What happened here late on Wednesday in Washington is a terrible warning.” The murders of Lischinsky and Milgrim was, as the Journal said, a terrible warning. Terrorism, whatever the origin, cannot be tolerated anywhere in the United States. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: What’s Wrong With Boeing Two Forever Wars The post Terrorism in DC appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Jon Stewart is back at it again, playing the role of political chiropractor, desperately trying to realign the spine of a party he helped fracture. The New Yorker recently offered Democrats a fresh 2028 campaign slogan: “Overcome the stink.” It’s classic Stewart — sharp, crowd-pleasing, and seemingly wise. The kind of quip you’d see on a bumper sticker next to “Coexist.” And yet, the stench he’s gesturing at — the political decay, the public disillusionment, the loss of coherence on the Left — didn’t just drift in from elsewhere. It festered under his watch. And whether he’ll admit it or not, he helped create it. If Democrats want to “overcome the stink,” they’ll need more than a clever line from a once-half-decent satirist. Now, let me be clear: Stewart isn’t wrong that the Democratic Party reeks. It does. The media blackout over Biden’s cognitive frailty, the coordinated silence around his son’s laptop, the inability to speak plainly to working class Americans — it all reeked. But Stewart throwing up his hands now, acting like a wise elder disgusted by the filth, also reeks. For years, when TV actually mattered, The Daily Show was the moral compass for millions of liberals — and eventually, far too many treated it as their only compass. Stewart wasn’t just mocking Republicans; he was reshaping how Democrats thought, spoke, and saw the world. He introduced a generation to the idea that being smug was synonymous with being right. That sarcasm was substance. That having a punchline was the same as having a point. Even his comedy, once hailed as clever, incisive, “for the thinking man,” was always marinated in elite arrogance. Stewart didn’t just poke fun at politicians. He mocked belief. Mocked faith. Mocked patriotism. Mocked the very idea that tradition might be worth taking seriously. To him, these weren’t pillars of a shared culture — they were punchlines. Red meat for Manhattan elites. And it worked. For a time. Stewart’s smirk became the face of smart liberalism. He gave a generation permission to roll their eyes at anything that smelled vaguely of God, country, or duty. His jabs didn’t just reflect progressive sensibilities — they sharpened them into weapons. Into blinders. Into a worldview where irony replaced inquiry, and anyone with a flag pin was automatically a joke. He helped solidify a distrust in middle America, fostering a culture of ridicule and sanctimony disguised as satire. That’s his legacy. He didn’t just host The Daily Show. He helped write the script for the very political dysfunction he now claims to diagnose. That mutation gave birth to a pretentious class of Democratic operatives, consultants, and digital influencers who think politics is mostly about getting claps from the right people — fellow blue-checks, podcast hosts, and Beltway cocktail circuits. It also gave us a generation of liberal “wonks” who treat policy like a graduate seminar — over-intellectualized, emotionally sterile, and completely detached from the lived reality of working Americans. For them, it’s all about optics, metrics, and reprimanding those who dare to differ. They speak in charts, not language, and moralize through models. Meanwhile, flyover voters are cast as NPCs — passive, stupid, or bigoted — obstacles to be managed or avoided, rather than citizens to be heard. Their pain is reduced to polling data. Their values, pathologized. Their anger, dismissed as ignorance. Stewart helped create this cultural osmosis. He taught liberals to see themselves as the only adults in the room. To laugh at nuance, scoff at dissent, and weaponize certainty. It’s no coincidence that the party of Stewart became the party of condescension. That posture became doctrine. And it’s part of the reason why Democrats today can’t speak to ordinary Americans without sounding like they’re reading a disclaimer off a bottle of Lexapro. Just because he went away for a few years and returned to save The Daily Show from its descent into the ludicrously left-wing abyss doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten who he was at his peak. In fact, it’s when he was at his most influential that he was often the most nauseating — taunting Christians, mocking middle America, belittling anything outside the New York Times bubble. That’s the version of Stewart that shaped the culture, not the elder statesman with graying hair and postmortem clarity. To be fair, Stewart does have moments of clarity. His advocacy on veterans’ healthcare and his defense of free speech in recent years are glimmers of the man he could have been. But when he tries to paint himself as outside the system, as a truth-teller disgusted by the very establishment he helped glorify, we must push back. If Democrats want to “overcome the stink,” they’ll need more than a clever line from a once-half-decent satirist. They’ll need a reckoning. One that admits the party became addicted to cheap applause and lost the ability to speak like a normal human. One that confronts how media figures like Stewart helped shape a party that confuses moral superiority with actual morality. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The New York Times Goes After the Police — Again What the Hell Happened to Country Music? The post Never Forget What Jon Stewart Did To America appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Middle East stands on the edge of a historic diplomatic transformation that could redefine regional dynamics and reshape global alliances. At the center of this potential breakthrough is Saudi Arabia — a dominant economic and religious force in the Arab world — seriously considering joining the Abraham Accords. If President Trump convinces Saudi Arabia to formally normalize relations with Israel, it would mark one of the most consequential diplomatic achievements of the 21st century, comparable in scale to the 1979 Camp David Accords. His strategy — grounded in strength, pragmatism, and mutual benefit — produced tangible peace, not just rhetoric. Saudi participation in the Abraham Accords would represent the culmination of a broader realignment that began during Donald Trump’s first term as president. No recent U.S. leader has more significantly shifted the political dynamic of the Middle East. Through unorthodox strategies and bold moves, President Trump laid the foundation for a peace framework that bypassed decades of ineffective negotiations. Now, the groundwork is in place for something even more ambitious — a regional alliance that includes the Arab world’s most influential nation. The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, normalized diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and four Arab nations: the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. These agreements disrupted more than seven decades of entrenched hostility. Prior to the accords, only Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) had formal peace treaties with Israel. By adding four new countries in under a year, the Trump administration more than doubled the number of Arab nations recognizing Israel — a goal that once seemed politically impossible. Trade between Israel and the UAE reached over $1.2 billion in the first year alone, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. By 2023, that figure had surged to over $3 billion annually. Direct commercial flights between Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi, as well as Tel Aviv and Manama, became common practice. Over 200,000 Israeli tourists visited the UAE within the first 12 months of normalized relations. Joint ventures sprang up across sectors, including cybersecurity, healthcare, agriculture, and energy. Military cooperation has also increased, particularly in countering the growing threat posed by Iran. Adding Saudi Arabia to this alliance would be a game changer. As the largest economy in the Middle East, with a GDP exceeding $1 trillion, and as the home to Islam’s two holiest cities — Mecca and Medina — Saudi Arabia holds great religious, economic, and political value. Its official recognition of Israel would not only solidify the Abraham Accords’ legitimacy but likely encourage other Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and even Oman to consider similar moves. Moreover, such a realignment would send a powerful strategic message to Iran, a common adversary of both Israel and Saudi Arabia, about the strengthening coalition of its regional rivals. Trump is uniquely positioned to broker this deal, having already demonstrated a capacity to succeed where others failed. During his first term, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, warned that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would spark widespread violence and derail any chance at Middle East peace. Instead, the embassy move was followed by the Abraham Accords. Rather than following the conventional wisdom of gradualism and appeasement, Trump pursued a strategy focused on shared interests — particularly in security, trade, and opposition to Iran. He applied maximum pressure on adversaries while incentivizing cooperation among former enemies. President Trump’s results stand in contrast to the record of other Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Barack Obama received the award in 2009 just nine months into his presidency — an honor based more on aspirations than achievements, seeing as the Nobel Committee conceded it was awarded for his “vision” rather than concrete results. Yet, under Obama, the U.S. remained deeply entangled in military conflicts, and his signature foreign policy accomplishment — the Iran nuclear deal — failed to prevent Tehran from continuing its ballistic missile program or funding terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. Over $180 billion in sanctions relief flowed into Iran, much of it used to destabilize neighboring countries. Another controversial recipient was Yasser Arafat, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Despite the Oslo Accords, Arafat continued to support violence against Israeli civilians and ultimately failed to deliver sustained peace. The Second Intifada that erupted in 2000 underscored the collapse of those efforts. The Trump Difference In contrast, Trump’s Middle East diplomacy produced measurable and lasting results. The Abraham Accords created real, operational partnerships between countries that had previously refused to recognize one another’s right to exist. If Saudi Arabia joins the agreement, Trump’s legacy would be undeniably bolstered, and his case for the Nobel Peace Prize would become even more compelling. His strategy — grounded in strength, pragmatism, and mutual benefit — produced tangible peace, not just rhetoric. In a time when the world often feels trapped in conflict — from Ukraine to Gaza to the South China Sea — genuine progress toward peace should be acknowledged and celebrated. The Abraham Accords represent such progress, and if Saudi Arabia adds its name to the list, it would mark a defining moment in modern diplomacy. Trump’s approach — peace through strength, strategic leverage, and a rejection of failed orthodoxies — has already yielded results. If the Nobel Peace Prize is to retain its credibility and purpose, it must reward not merely good intentions but actual peace. With Saudi Arabia potentially on board, that moment may be nearer than ever. READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: Trump’s Energy Policies Are Transforming the Economy Trump’s New US–UK Trade Deal Puts America First   The post Saudi Arabia Is Trump’s Ticket to the Nobel Peace Prize appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) from May 1-4, 2025, highlights the reality of Palestinian public opinion amid the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, now 19 months in from its start with the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023. The survey, covering 1,270 respondents (830 in the West Bank, 440 in Gaza) with a margin of error of ±3.5 percent, reveals strong support for Hamas, the October 7 attack, and “armed struggle.” Most Palestinians oppose Hamas’s disarmament, do not believe Hamas committed atrocities on Oct. 7, and believe the decision to attack Israel that day was “correct.” Satisfaction with Hamas’s performance still stands at an unbelievable 57 percent This poll challenges the dubious claim that all Palestinian civilians are innocent. Parents who teach their children it is okay to kill Jews are complicit with the terrorist holding a gun. And indeed, many of these children did grow up to become terrorists. This was proven on October 7, 2023, when a terrorist called his parents, bragging he had killed Jews and knowing he would receive his family’s support. And this support has not changed drastically. Palestinian civilian support for Hamas’s October 7 attack still stands at a disturbing 50 percent and it was even higher in the past — 54 percent in September 2024 and 71 percent in March 2024. In Gaza, 38 percent of “innocent” Palestinians still view the attack as “correct,” compared to 59 percent in the West Bank. Notably, 87 percent of respondents deny Hamas committed atrocities against Israeli civilians, despite video evidence. According to the poll, most Gazans (51 percent) blame Israel for their suffering, followed by the U.S. (28 percent), while only 12 percent primarily blame Hamas. Although Hamas launched a major war against Israel, Hamas’s popularity still stands at 32 percent (it was 36 percent seven months ago) and even remains higher than Fatah’s (21 percent), the more “moderate” of the two parties. In hypothetical legislative elections, Hamas would garner 43 percent of the vote among participants, while Fatah holds steady at 28 percent. In Gaza, Hamas’s support is stronger (49 percent) than in the West Bank (38 percent). Marwan Barghouti, a terrorist in Israeli prison, remains the most popular leader, securing 50 percent of voters in a presidential race against Hamas’s Khaled Mashal (35 percent) and Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (11 percent). The poll reveals complex sentiments in Gaza. Nearly half (48 percent) of Gazans support recent anti-Hamas demonstrations demanding the group relinquish control, though 54 percent believe these protests are driven by “external hands.” Opposition to disarming Hamas is strong, with 85 percent in the West Bank and 64 percent in Gaza rejecting it as a condition to end the war. Similarly, 65 percent oppose expelling Hamas’s military leaders. The question is, why? Innocent people are not supposed to support terrorists. Why do the Palestinians? Interestingly, 43 percent of Gazans express willingness to emigrate postwar, and 49 percent would apply to Israel for emigration assistance, despite Egypt and Jordan rejecting U.S.-backed displacement proposals. Satisfaction with Hamas’s performance still stands at an unbelievable 57 percent (43 percent in Gaza, 67 percent in the West Bank), outpacing the PA (23 percent), Fatah (24 percent), and Abbas (15 percent). Among regional actors, although Yemen’s Houthis continue to indiscriminately attack Israel’s civilians — Arab and Jew alike — by firing ballistic missiles, the Palestinians highly approve of their attacks (74 percent), followed by Qatar (45 percent) and Hezbollah (43 percent). Additionally, the United States, which has worked around the clock to get Palestinians humanitarian aid, received a disturbingly low approval rating of just 3 percent. Shockingly, Palestinians gave China (26 percent) and Russia (21 percent) a much higher approval rating. Palestinians living in the West Bank (88 percent) say they would rather remain rather than flee to Jordan. What this means is that even with fears of Israeli counter-terrorism operations, Palestinians understand life is better on the Israeli side of the Jordan River. With regard to the two-state solution, support remains stable at 40 percent, rising to 61 percent when framed as a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. Support for armed struggle is an incredible 41 percent. Looking at these numbers, it is difficult to make the case that the Palestinian people are a peace-loving nation. According to the data revealed by this poll, Palestinians support Hamas, want the terrorist group to remain armed, and want to kick the Jewish people out of the Old City of Jerusalem and bar them from the Western Wall. This is not peace. This is bullying and a desire to erase the Jewish people’s connection to their ancestral homeland, while supporting a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group responsible for the destruction of Palestinian life in Gaza and the deaths of thousands. Of course there are many innocent peace-loving Palestinians in Gaza, but they appear to be outnumbered. Just look at the data. READ MORE: Gideon’s Chariots Opens New Gaza Offensive With Aid Concessions Hamas, Not Israel, Has Caused Gaza Suffering The post Palestinian Support for Hamas Remains High appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In Homer’s famous poem The Odyssey, the hero Odysseus traveling home to his wife Penelope after many years away fighting the Trojan War, is frequently distracted and delayed by the people and creatures he encounters. During this journey, Odysseus was famously tempted by The Sirens, the beautiful half-woman, half-bird beings that lured sailors to their deaths with “their honeyed song.” Just as Odysseus and his men had to tie themselves up and plug their ears with beeswax to avoid succumbing to the Sirens’ song, Netflix’s latest series Sirens has a similar gravitational pull over its viewers. ‘Sirens’ is an incredibly engrossing series…. It unfolds in such a way that it is difficult to differentiate the heroes from the villains. We find its story of Machiavellian social climbing, told with satirical undertones, difficult to resist. Its beautiful scenery and talented cast — including Julianne Moore, Kevin Bacon, Meghann Fahy, Milly Alcock, and Bill Camp — and beautiful scenery are similarly alluring. Yet, in plunging into the dark underworld of these characters, we become deeply disturbed and unable to sleep soundly. Sirens concerns two sisters Devon (Meghann Fahy, White Lotus) and Simone (Milly Alcock, House of the Dragon) whose mother died tragically during their childhood. Their father Bruce (Bill Camp) subsequently lapsed into alcoholism, creating a dysfunctional home environment. Devon, who is five years older than Simone, eventually drops out of college to raise Simone and later works multiple jobs to support Simone while she pursues a degree at Yale. When the series opens, we see Devon leaving a Buffalo, N.Y. jail for reasons that will be explained later. When she returns to the home she shares with Bruce, she is greeted by an edible fruit basket, a gift from Simone who now works on a fictional N.Y. island as the personal assistant to Michaela (Julianne Moore),  a former lawyer now married to a billionaire Peter (Kevin Bacon) who also runs a foundation which treats rescue birds. The fruit basket was Simone’s response to a message from Devon that Bruce had been recently diagnosed with dementia. Devon decides to address what she sees as a lame response from her sister by traveling to the island (fruit basket in hand) to entreat her sister to return home to help take care of Bruce. The series title is a double-entendre. Devon and Simone are modern-day incarnations of the singing temptresses depicted in Homer’s poem beguiling men with their beauty and sexuality.  The word “sirens” is also used in the modern definition of an alert system, referencing a special pact between the two sisters enjoining both of them to message “sirens” whenever they were in trouble. While Devon and Simone are both beautiful and intelligent, their lives could not be more different, at least on paper.  Devon is living with her father Bruce in Buffalo and working a dead-end job at a falafel restaurant. Simone, who graduated Yale but dropped out of law school, is residing in a private suite in Peter and Michaela’s island mansion. Both women are engaged in secret affairs: Devon with her married boss Raymond (Josh Segarra) and Simone with Ethan (Glenn Howerton), who is Peter and Michaela’s next door neighbor and one of Peter’s closest friends. Sirens is an engaging series which juxtaposes Simone’s laser-focused social climbing agenda with Devon’s perceived lack of ambition. The characters are very well drawn, and Simone and Devon are more emotionally complex than they appear at first blush. When Devon first arrives at the mansion, she is concerned about Simone’s overly close relationship with Michaela and her refusal to take any responsibility for their father. Simone is equally concerned about Devon’s failed career and futile romantic relationships. It becomes increasingly difficult to tell who is the stronger of the two sisters. Michaela, as played by the wonderful Julianne Moore, is also a nuanced character endowed with a fragile cruelty. When she is feeling confident in herself and her circumstances, she exudes warmth and compassion, but the moment she experiences the slightest tingle of vulnerability, her manner turns to frost as she desperately clings to her terrain. The series functions as a dark comedy as it paints a credible, unsettling portrait of elites while also satirizing them. The writers lampoon Michaela’s new ageism philosophies such as her forbidding the presence of carbohydrates in her home. There is a humorous scene where bread is smuggled into the mansion. The series also includes a scene where Michaela holds a formal funeral for one of her rescue birds. While her sadness at the bird’s death is understandable, a funeral with a procession and a eulogy is laughable. Sirens also plays homage to the film  The Stepford Wives  with Michaela’s chorus of pastel clad friends who look beautiful but deliver robotic-like responses to questions. Sirens is an incredibly engrossing series with several surprise twists. It unfolds in such a way that it is difficult to differentiate the heroes from the villains. While at times the Odyssey analogies may appear at little forced, the series’ intriguing story, well defined characters, and excellent acting performances make it worth watching. However, viewers beware, Sirens has a dark intensity that is difficult to shake off.  READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: Trump’s Bold AI Blueprint Your Friends and Neighbors: The Elites and Their Money The post Beware the Gravitation Pull of <i>Sirens</i> appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Donald Trump has run out of patience with Brussels. Effective June 1st, the former President announced via Truth Social that tariffs on imports from the European Union will rise to a staggering 50 percent. Did EU bureaucrats really believe they could quietly let the 90-day negotiation deadline lapse and return to business as usual? Whether Europe likes it or not, it is a resource-poor, energy-dependent economy losing access to global supplies. Just as European officials were mentally transitioning into their weekend, Trump dropped a bombshell. The punitive move, he stated, is a response to chronic EU protectionism: discriminatory VAT regimes, “ridiculous” fines on American corporations, currency manipulation, and what he called “unjustified lawsuits.” Brussels, he argues, maintains an artificial export surplus with the U.S. through these tactics. Since April, we’ve seen Trump using steep tariffs as bargaining chips. These numbers might shift during negotiations. But Brussels seems to have forgotten: diplomacy is fluid, not rigid decree. Europe’s Subsidy Superstate Europe’s lackluster response — beyond a frail threat of retaliatory tariffs — betrays either ignorance of the gravity of the situation or a mindset so encased in its own ideological bubble that it can no longer decode external reality. The EU’s once-vaunted foresight seems to have met its limits. Trump’s attack targets the EU’s power core: a sprawling protectionist system tied to a mechanism of subsidies and centralized approvals. The bloc operates much like a secular indulgence market: obey Brussels, accept its regulation — heavy ethos, and you’ll be allowed to do business — or even politics. Despite the EU’s talk of a single internal market, it is in truth a patchwork of protectionist engines. Estimates suggest Brussels and its member states together direct over €500 billion annually in subsidies to prop up domestic industries. But these very policies corrode economic dynamism — something anyone reading European business news can verify. Trade regulations, climate edicts, and harmonization mandates span volumes. In practice, EU-Europe has become a paradise for internal rent-seekers but a nightmare for foreign competitors — and consumers. Higher prices, higher taxes: the bill for regulation is paid by the public. Free trade advocates have always viewed Brussels’ interventionism — be it French industrial policy or German bureaucratic excess — as a threat to liberty and market efficiency. Politicians, keen on preserving social peace and shielding labor markets from crisis, have flooded the economy with veiled subsidies. This shortsightedness has become a killer of productivity, eroding the Eurozone’s economic vitality. Germany, sliding toward a European version of America’s Rust Belt, is now the symbol of this decline. Export Surplus as ‘Bycatch’ One side-effect of the EU’s trade model has been a ballooning surplus with the U.S. In 2023, the EU racked up a record €236 billion trade surplus, aided by hidden barriers. Mercantilists may cheer, but libertarians see danger. Every party, however, ends — and Trump, since his self-declared “Liberation Day” on April 2, is on the offensive. His high-impact tariff salvo has already provoked confrontations with China and, surprisingly, with traditional allies like the UK. Contrary to some media narratives, the U.S. — as the world’s economic titan — will now secure more favorable trade terms. Expect an increase in tariff volume, perhaps reaching $300 billion annually, and a gradual narrowing of America’s trade deficit. For EU leaders, long nestled in the ideological cocoon of Brussels, this reality-based trade policy comes as a shock. They are now realizing that old tricks — media spin, distraction, or clandestine jabs at U.S. bond markets (as in April) — will no longer suffice. Reality has arrived, and with it, the need for a drastic learning curve. Tariffs to Fight Brussels Protectionism Trump’s tariff campaign is a strategic gambit designed to force Europe to shed its bloated protectionist apparatus. For EU leaders, the time has come to reassess the balance between regional autonomy and Brussels’ growing central authority. Dissident voices across the continent are calling — louder than ever — for reform. A true political movement focused on decentralization, personal responsibility, and free markets will only emerge when Europe hits rock bottom. Argentina is the current example. President Javier Milei rose to power amid a deep trust crisis and catastrophic central planning failures. Against all odds, Milei slashed Argentina’s deficit, tamed runaway inflation, and posted 5.5 percent economic growth early this year. It was a liberation blow that could serve as a model for other ailing nations. Radical economic freedom, it seems, is contagious. Of course, Milei’s path hasn’t been flawless. Painful adjustments were inevitable. But that is the nature of real reform: messy, difficult — and the only route out of structural decay. Trump has now internationalized this battle against overreaching state power. Tariffs and dollar policy have become geopolitical tools. We must decipher this strategy if we are to understand how global power relations are being redrawn. The Realignment of Global Power Trump’s tariff policy — mocked by legacy media and dismissed by Europe’s political elites — may look like trade policy. But pull back the curtain, and you see the dawn of a new geopolitical alignment. Whether Europe likes it or not, it is a resource-poor, energy-dependent economy losing access to global supplies. France’s retreat from its African ex-colonies — once its uranium lifeline — is a case in point. Without delving too far into speculation, one cannot ignore the West’s feverish Russophobia. Is it dawning on Brussels that its dependence is unsustainable? The EU’s recent musings — like top diplomat Kaja Kallas’s hint at dismembering Russia — suggest deeper strategic designs than leaders admit. In the coming months, U.S.-EU trade negotiations will expose a brutal truth: geopolitical power is tied to energy and resource access. That Germany — Europe’s industrial core — has chosen this moment to abandon nuclear energy speaks volumes about its infantile delusions. And Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s hesitance to reverse course suggests no immediate correction. READ MORE from Thomas Kolbe: America Loses Top Credit Rating German Chancellor Calls for ‘War Readiness’ The post Tariff Shock in Brussels appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The liberal New York Times has a habit of instantly fretting about Islamophobia whenever there’s an attack by radical Muslims, so it was inevitable that the paper responded to the murder by a pro-Palestinian activist of two young Jews, staffers at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., by fretting about how this will affect the larger “pro-Palestinian” movement. The front page of Saturday’s New York Times featured this headline "Attack Tangles Pro-Palestinian Movement’s Path.” The online headline: “Attack Complicates Pro-Palestinian Movement -- Nonviolent Groups May Face More Pushback After D.C. Killings.” Because that’s the important thing about this story: not the globalization of the intifada after the October 7 massacre, but how left-wing “pro-Palestinian” activists feel. Sharon Otterman’s story began strongly enough. The suspect in the killings of two Israeli Embassy workers in Washington on Wednesday shouted “Free, free Palestine” as he was arrested, chanting the same slogan, in the same cadence, that has rung out in pro-Palestinian protests at college campuses and on American streets for years. But the ties of Elias Rodriguez, the suspect, to the wider pro-Palestinian movement remain unclear. Was he a vigilante, upset at the deaths of civilians in Gaza, who decided on his own that violence was the only way forward? Or was he influenced by more extreme pro-Palestinian organizations that reach Americans online and that glorify the actions of Hamas and other armed resistance groups? In either case, the killings of the Israeli embassy workers, Yaron Lischinsky, 30, who grew up in Israel and Germany, and Sarah Milgrim, 26, who was from Kansas, cast a harsh spotlight on the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States and the impact even peaceful protests might be having on attitudes against people connected to Israel. Otterman then got to the real problem, from the New York Times’ standpoint: How badly will this murder reflect on pro-Palestinian activists? The killings also risked painting all pro-Palestinian activists, the vast majority of whom do not engage in violence, with the same brush, which could lead to further repression of their movement. The tragedy occurred just as the movement has been trying to sustain attention in the United States on a blockade by Israel that has put Gaza residents at risk of widespread starvation. It’s the grim reality behind the joke the late, great Norm McDonald posted on Twitter (now X) in 2016: “What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?" But the pro-Palestinian movement has asserted that it can criticize Israel and the war in Gaza without being antisemitic, and multiple organizations rushed to condemn the killings on Thursday. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, called the violence “completely unacceptable” and said that it does not represent the millions of Americans peacefully supporting an end to U.S. support for the Israel’s war in Gaza. (CAIR, a long-time Times favorite, is hardly in a moral position to claim regret for the death of Jews, given its executive director said in a speech that Palestinians in Gaza “have the right to self-defense” but that Israel “as an occupying power” does not.) Otterman tried her best to downplay the often violent pro-Hamas protests on college campuses and in front of synagogues. In the United States, protesters who chant “Free, free Palestine” are almost always using tactics of nonviolent resistance. But the groups that organize behind Free Palestine banners also vary in their philosophies. Some advocate complete nonviolence in their broader approach, akin to antiwar protesters.... Otterman doesn’t ignore the far-left anti-Jewish groups, but her tone is hushed, hesitant. Among at least some of those hard-line groups, there was some hint of acceptance about the killing of the embassy workers on Thursday, even as Mr. Rodriguez was being charged with first-degree murder and other crimes.