The U.S. will "take over the Gaza Strip," level it and rebuild the area, President Donald Trump said during a press conference Tuesday evening after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.  "The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too," Trump said Tuesday evening in a joint press conference with Netanyahu. "We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexplored bombs and other weapons on...

We have reached a critical point in history when the opportunity to hear live, first-hand accounts of the Holocaust are quickly dwindling. Those who survived it—and remember it—are now in their 80s, 90s and 100s, and every year their number grows smaller and smaller. We're also at a point where the reality of the Holocaust has been questioned or outright denied, and, as we near a century since the start of the tragedy, much of the values, ideals, and justice the world fought for are quickly being lost. If you have the opportunity to sit down and talk to a Holocaust survivor, I highly recommend it. Many won't have that opportunity, however, so the next best thing is bearing witness to these stories as they are shared on video. Not to discount the power of written accounts—those are vital, too—but there's something to the human-to-human connection of hearing a person who lived through it speak about their experiences. Some Holocaust survivors have traveled to give talks to students in schools. But at least one woman who survived the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp is using a more modern means of reaching young people with her story: TikTok.With the help of her great-grandson (one of her 34 great-grandchildren), 98-year-old Lily Ebert shares brief videos on her TikTok channel describing some of what she experienced during the Holocaust and answers questions viewers ask. She currently has 1.7 million followers.Ebert was 20 years old when her family was taken from their hometown in Hungary to Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest of the Nazi death camps. Her mother, younger brother and younger sister were immediately taken to the gas chambers and killed. Ebert was sent to work in the camp where she spent four horrifying months."People would say 'four months isn't so long,'" she said in one of her videos. "But let me tell you something. Even four minutes was too long." @lilyebert Reply to @aimeelilyhoff Not human, just numbers ??#neverforget #auschwitz #holocaust #learnontiktok #holocaustsurvivor #hell #history #viral #jewish Ebert bears the tattoo of the number she was given—A-10572—on her forearm. "We were not humans," she said. "We were only a number." @lilyebert Reply to @garylee55786 It was a #hell ? #learnontiktok #holocaustsurvivor #neverforget #jew #survivor #important #listenandlearn #viral #97yearold #u Ebert's story is shared in small pieces on TikTok, which can feel somewhat jarring. But TikTok is where the young folks are and reaching them with personal stories like this might be one of the most effective ways of reaching them. People ask Ebert lots of questions and she answers some of them in videos. For instance, someone asked if she was scared she was going to die. Her thoughtful pause is as telling as her answer. @lilyebert Answer to @sofie_slothypanda In #auschwitz you were afraid of #life?#concentrationcamp #holocaustsurvivor #learnontiktok #askquestions #viral #jew "In Auschwitz you were not afraid of death," she said. "You were afraid to live."Some people ask questions that we don't see answered often—details that people might be curious about. In one video, Ebert talked about what it was like to use the bathroom. Toilets were rows of holes in the ground and they were told when they could use them—there was no privacy whatsoever. She even answered a question about what women did about their periods, explaining that most women didn't have their periods because the physical trauma they endured prevented it. @lilyebert Reply to @lesbanon We were so weak ?#auschwitz #concentrationcamp #holocaust #history #askquestions #learnontiktok #97yearold #jewtok #shabbat #viral Someone else asked if there were Nazi women at Auschwitz. Ebert said there were—and that sometimes they were worse than the men. @lilyebert Reply to @reubenlouisg They were worse?#auschwitz #holocaust #history #learnontiktok #askquestions #survivor #blowthisup #shabbat #shabbos #jewish #u Another person asked if she encountered any Nazi guards who indicated that they didn't want to be torturing and killing people. Her answer was blunt: A person who was kind would not work in Auschwitz. @lilyebert Answer to @maeve_5640 No.#auschwitz #hell #learnontiktok #concentrationcamp #blowthisup #viral #holocaust #history #survivor #jew #hungarian #hebrew Some people might wonder how going through such a heinous experience impacts a person's faith. Her great-grandson asked her if she still believes in God after everything she endured. @lilyebert Reply to @adrian_petrov.mcu Humans did it. ??#believe #askquestions #holocaust #history #God #auschwitz #love #viral #survivor #concentrationcamp #u "Yes, I do," she said. "Because God didn't do it. So-called humans did." @lilyebert Never forget the horrors of the #holocaust ?? #holocaustsurvivor #concentrationcamp #jewish #jew #neverforget #history #viral #weremember #auschwitz Ebert has been back to Auschwitz a few times since she was liberated. It's hard enough for anyone to see the enormous piles of shoes from people who were murdered there. It's harder to imagine what it would be like having seen and smelled the smoke coming from the crematorium there, knowing your loved ones were among those killed. Ebert's "Ask me anything" posts have become a way for young people to interact with that harrowing chapter of human history in a rarely accessible way. She can choose which questions to answer and give some personal insight into what the Holocaust was like. "What was the first thing you did after liberation?" someone asked. @lilyebert A #holocaustsurvivor answers your questions! #askmeanything #learnontiktok #survivor #neverforget #history #oldtok #love #hungarian #forjewpage #fypp Ebert said she lay down on the floor and fell asleep. Sleep was practically impossible at the camp and she was so tired. Another person asked why she thinks she survived the hell of Auschwitz-Birkenau. @lilyebert Reply to @jakie971 To be a witness ?? #holocaustsurvivor #holocaust #auschwitz #97yearold #history #jewishtiktok #weremember #viral #hungarian #fypp She said she didn't know. "But maybe it was so that I could tell you and thousands of other people what happened there. To be a witness." "I was really not sure that I would stay alive," Ebert told CBS News in 2022. "It is a miracle that I am here. But I promised myself, however long I will be alive, and whatever I will do in life, one thing is sure, I will tell my story." @lilyebert Have I ever thought about removing my Auschwitz [tattoo] number? #holocaustsurvivor #98yearold #learnontiktok #tattoo #concentrationcamp #strongwoman #neverforget #history #gmb #holocaustmemorialday #jew #goodmorningbritain #jewish Ebert was also interviewed on Good Morning Britain in 2022, and was asked if she's ever thought about having the tattoo of her number removed. She said she had never thought about it. "I want to show the world because to see something or to hear about it makes a big difference. And the world should know how deep they cut, how deep humans can go."In 2023, Ebert celebrated her 100th birthday with her children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and of course, all her Internet friends and followers.Lily Ebert: 100 Years Young ?? Such a special day! ??❤️ #holocaustsurvivor #100 #greatgrandson #greatgrandma #goodmorningbritain #gmb #itv #richardmadley #ranvirsingh @lilyebert Lily Ebert: 100 Years Young ?? Such a special day! ??❤️ #holocaustsurvivor #100 #greatgrandson #greatgrandma #goodmorningbritain #gmb #itv #richardmadley #ranvirsingh And it was truly beautiful. Happy birthday Lily ❤️? 100 years old!!! #happybirthday #holocaustsurvivor #100yearold @lilyebert Happy birthday Lily ❤️? 100 years old!!! #happybirthday #holocaustsurvivor #100yearold In late 2024, Lily's great-grandson shared a video on her TikTok alerting the world that the family matriarch had passed away on October 9th, just weeks before what would have been her 101st birthday. Though profoundly sad, many in the comments thanked the family for their honesty, vulnerability, and the joy they spread in the shadow of such dark history. Lily Ebert, 1923-2024 ? A light that shone so bright has gone dark. @lilyebert Lily Ebert, 1923-2024 ? A light that shone so bright has gone dark. "She was a beautiful person. Thank you for sharing her with us," one commenter said. "It has been nothing short of an honour to be a follower of this beautiful woman and her remarkable story. Thank you for your profound strength Lily. May her memory be a blessing?," said another.Thank you, Lily Ebert, for being willing to answer questions to help educate younger generations on the realities of the Holocaust so we can strive to make sure humanity never allows such atrocities to happen again. Her memory most definitely is a blessing. This article originally appeared three years ago.

Getting a dose with reality, The post “These are complicated”: the music legend Slash struggled to play with first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Proud to bang their heads. The post “Proud to fly the flag”: What was the first band to identify as heavy metal? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

One of the better podcasts out there is Patrick Bet David’s Valuetainment show, which I pick up on YouTube a good bit. And, in a segment on Tuesday, Bet David and his guests spent some time talking about the “trade war” with Canada and Mexico that Donald Trump touched off with his demands for cooperation in fighting the scourge of Chinese fentanyl which has poisoned some quarter of a million Americans to death. I’ll embed that video down the page. But Bet David had a clip of a 1987 radio address by Ronald Reagan that he included in the discussion which is worthwhile, because in that clip Reagan more or less set down the argument for free trade as a key principle of modern conservatism. It was one of Reagan’s better moments as a conservative philosopher, not just a leader, and it’s held sway for a long time as the proper way to make trade policy. What people forget about that speech, as eloquent a defense of free trade as it was, is that Reagan was explaining a presidential action he was taking to impose tariffs on Japan for what he called unfair trade practices with respect to semiconductors. Even the piece of this speech that Valuetainment clipped out didn’t pick that part up. Reagan was a free trader. He might have been the greatest free trader in American history. But as much as he advocated free trade, Reagan knew that there were times when that ideal would have to be sacrificed to the ugly reality of international relations — as political ideals often must be. I grew up believing in free trade. I’ve been for it all my life. I still am. And I’m not conflicted in the least about my support for Trump’s actions on tariffs. For a couple of key reasons. The first is that, with respect to Canada and Mexico, Trump acted almost exactly as Reagan did with respect to Japan and semiconductors back in 1987. Namely, the tariff was a tactic by a leader seeking leverage to get a better deal for his people. Maybe some of the people who spent Monday wetting their beds about tariffs of 25 percent on Canadian and Mexican goods, and 10 percent on Chinese goods, could stop for a minute and consider the reason those tariffs were being threatened or imposed. Which is that Canada and Mexico have done absolutely nothing about their criminal gangs getting the ingredients for fentanyl from China, manufacturing it, and shipping it over the border to kill Americans. More than a quarter million dead. There are ports in Mexico where fentanyl components are brought in on ships, taken to manufacturing facilities run and staffed by Chinese nationals where those components are turned into fentanyl, and then the product is turned over to drug cartels acting as transport and sales agents who move it across the border to the United States using illegal migrants as mules as well as by other means. It’s then moved through a domestic distribution network into the hands of Americans who far more often than could ever be acceptable take the drug thinking it’s something else, overdose, and die. Again, more than a quarter million dead. And the same crime is happening at our border with Canada. So the new president has asked them to commit to cooperating with us in putting an end to the slaughter and, before Monday, the answer was no. They would rather kill our kids than lift a finger to stop it, even when we’ve told them what the consequences would be. Until finally, the rubber met the road and they capitulated. Mexico is a failed state so you could sort of understand it. But Fidelito Trudeau in Canada has actually spent his time in office decriminalizing not just weed but hard drugs and that includes fentanyl. He’s actually legitimizing the criminal gangs in Canada. (RELATED: Hasta la Vista, Fidelito!) He was called out for this by Pierre Poilievre, who will be his successor whenever the Canadians finally get around to holding its next election. (RELATED: Meet Canada’s ‘MAGA’ Prime Minister Candidate: Pierre Poilievre) And we’re not supposed to do something about this? “Oh, but the tariffs would raise prices.” This is the utterly atrocious Chuck The Schmuck Schumer with a bit of performative caterwauling on behalf of Canadian and Mexican (and Chinese) fentanyl producers… Schumer thought it was important enough to beclown himself with a beer can and an avocado just to take shots at Trump in the middle of a negotiation. And maybe a couple of hours after that, the Mexicans and Canadians announced preliminary steps toward policing their borders with the United States and stemming the flow of Chinese poison into our country. Bet David and his guests raised some really good points about that, though. It turns out that while the U.S. is spending just under a trillion dollars a year on defense, which is about 3.4 percent of GDP, Mexico spends a little less than $12 billion — a paltry 0.7 percent. Canada, at 1.3 percent and a similar amount to Mexico in total spending (Canadians are richer than Mexicans but there are a lot less of them), isn’t much better. So exactly how much help either country will be, or even can be, is a valid question, and one which speaks to the one-sided nature of our relationship with both. Canada, after all, sends 77 percent of its exports to the United States. Mexico sends 84 percent of its exports here. We run trade deficits with both countries. And the tariffs both of them impose on U.S. goods are extensive. Despite the fact all three of us were signatories to something called the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump blew up in his first term, there has never been “free” trade between us and the Canadians and Mexicans. We’ve let them slide, while implicitly guaranteeing their national safety and making it possible for them to skate on their national defense (and in Mexico’s case that’s resulted in a level of lawlessness well past the line of a failed state). What’s free about that? And of course, there’s China. On the podcast, Bet David brought up the fact that when Reagan gave that excellent tutorial on the benefits of free trade there was no Chinese export economy to speak of. In 1987, China’s economy was somewhere between 1.6 and 1.9 percent of global GDP. And 38 years later, largely due to “free” trade policies which have never been reciprocated by Beijing, China has become the world’s manufacturing center and its economy is just under 20 percent of global GDP. While we’ve dropped from around 29 percent in 1987 to between 25 and 26 percent today. This doesn’t count the fact that the Chinese haven’t just taken us to the cleaners on the value and volume of the trade surplus they’ve generated with us but they’ve done a whole lot worse than that. The Chinese have systematically used American higher education and the research capacity of our universities as the greatest engine of industrial espionage in world history, and we’ve done nothing about it. They’ve expropriated more intellectual property as the price of American companies attempting to do business there than any country, ever. I have a friend in the oil and gas business who briefly sought a business relationship with the Chinese and pulled out when they demanded that he give them a proprietary product formula as a condition for that relationship. And when Trump began talking about China ripping us off, the “free” trade crowd had a collective conniption fit. This after hundreds of thousands of Americans had been poisoned by Chinese drywall, and after defective and shoddy Chinese products had taken corporate indifference to product liability to a level never seen in our history. Not to mention China’s environmental record, which is a real atrocity regardless of your position on “climate change.” China is the most polluted nation on earth and they’re doing more to pollute the world’s environment, not with carbon dioxide but with real toxins, than anyone has ever done. And the slave labor. It’s a moral disgrace to look at what China has done and been in our trade relationship with them and conclude that if Trump were to trade with them on the same level as they do with us, it would be a terrible thing because the price of flip-flops or Bey0nce t-shirts or solar panels might go up. You aren’t defending free trade. You’re defending the exploitation of our country into a functional economic colony of a tyrannical communist regime. And every American president between Reagan and Trump is utterly complicit. “Free” trade, and Reagan’s explanation of it, has been thrown out there as the justification for this betrayal of the American people by a class of political leaders that is being exposed day by day as a cabal of liars, thieves, and traitors. And those people panicked at the mere threat of incremental tariffs on Canada and Mexico designed with the specific purpose of demanding their assistance in saving the next quarter-million Americans who could be poisoned by Chinese fentanyl. It turns out that caring about the people of this country, acting forcefully on their behalf, and willing to face down the plaintive, effeminate whining of snakes like Schumer, isn’t really as difficult as we’ve been told. Decisive action, performed by an American president on behalf of his people and with a sound strategy in mind, produces success. We’re so conditioned to failure and betrayal that we’re amazed by this. Hopefully, it won’t be long before we begin to expect it again. As promised, here’s the Valuetainment clip. It’s worth a watch… READ MORE from Scott McKay: The Democrats Are Hogging the Wilderness Five Quick Things: Scenes From a Commonsense Revolution Pharmahontas on the Warpath at the RFK Jr. Hearings The post Trump’s Tariffs: This Stuff Isn’t All That Hard, You Know appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Recently, President Trump used the threat of tariffs and other measures as a means of impelling Colombia into allowing an airplane carrying recently deported migrants to land in the country.  In the words of Karoline Leavitt, “[these] events make clear to the world that America is respected again.”  Trump and his supporters have argued that tariffs can be used as a means of generating revenue, reshoring manufacturing jobs, and, most relevant to this case, convincing other countries to change policies affecting the U.S. and its interests.  Indeed, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When it comes to the use of tariffs as a means of raising revenues or reshoring manufacturing jobs, the literature is unambiguous: tariffs do not work.  But when it comes to the use of tariffs as a negotiating tool, the literature is less one-sided, though cautions skepticism at a minimum if not outright doubt. Tariffs as a Negotiating Tactic Adam Smith offered perhaps the most cogent defense of the tariffs-as-negotiating-tool imaginable.  He wrote, “There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.”  In simpler terms, Smith says that the use of tariffs and other trade measures can be good policy if 1) there is a good chance that their use will cause the other country to reduce their barriers to trade and 2) if the tariffs last a “short time.” He continues, saying, “When there is no probability that any such repeal can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people, to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them.”  Smith, to put it mildly, clearly did not believe that there was an argument that tariffs were wise economic policy in general.  He acknowledged quite clearly that they cause economic harm to the people of the country imposing the tariff. When to use Tariffs and Other Sanctions For Smith, whether to use tariffs as a negotiating tool was all about the likelihood that they would lead to the repeal of other countries’ burdensome trade policies that harm domestic consumers. Further, they were intended to be short-term policies, not standing policies or business-as-usual.  What affects this likelihood is certainly a multifaceted issue, but there is one critical piece of nuance that seems most relevant for consideration: the relative sizes of the economies involved in the dispute. Consider a country like China.  With a massive economy ($31.23 trillion) that exports billions of trillions of dollars worth of goods to dozens of countries around the world, U.S. tariffs do not represent much of a threat to them whatsoever. In fact, the U.S. accounts for only 15 percent of total Chinese exports and a mere 7 percent of Chinese imports. While it is true that the U.S. remains China’s top trading partner for both exports and imports, the simple fact is that they have alternatives for countries to trade with. Threatening to reduce Chinese exports to the U.S. through the use of tariffs will only lead to China sending their exports elsewhere.  Likewise, reducing Chinese imports of American goods would only cause them to import more goods and services from other countries instead. While we can say that this is not their preferred course of action, it is little different than U.S. consumers complaining about having to go to the other grocery store in town. Sure, the drive is slightly longer, but given a strong enough incentive, consumers will make the trek. Next, we consider a country like Colombia. With a current GDP of just under $1 trillion, their economy is dwarfed by both China and the U.S. ($25 trillion) and their economy is almost entirely dependent on maintaining strong international trade relations, particularly with the U.S.: 26 percent of their exports are purchased by the U.S. (Panama is second with 10 percent).  Likewise, 26 percent of their imports are purchased from the U.S. (China is second with 25 percent). Tariffs and other sanctions by the U.S. on Colombia impose a significant and real threat to their economic livelihood.  Businesses would shut down, and consumers already beleaguered by high prices against their low wages would see prices rise further and incomes fall. This would spell disaster for them, not just as a citizenry, but as a nation. As a result, that Colombia capitulated to Trump’s threats of tariffs and other sanctions is no mystery. Effects of Tariffs and Sanctions on China It is clear that the use of tariffs and other economic sanctions, particularly against China, is on the rise.  Indeed, every president since at least the year 2000 has imposed at least temporary tariffs on China.  Clearly, this is not a short-term solution to a problem.  But has it worked? Despite at least 25 years of “getting tough with China,” the simple fact is that they have not relented in the trade practices that we have tried to eliminate, like forced technology transfers and joint venture requirements. In fact, in a 2024 US Trade Representative report, it is reported that: The section 301 actions have been effective in encouraging China to take steps toward eliminating some of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices and have reduced some of the exposure of U.S. persons and businesses to these technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices. But in the very next bullet point, they say: China has not eliminated many of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, which continue to impose a burden or restriction on U.S. commerce. Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, the Government of China has persisted and even become more aggressive, particularly through cyber intrusions and cybertheft, in its attempts to acquire and absorb foreign technology, which further burden or restrict U.S. commerce. So have the Section 301 actions resulted in China actually changing their tune? It seems the only answer from the trade representative is a resounding, “No.” If anything, China has become “more aggressive” in the face of increased trade restrictions over the past 25 years, not less. The simple truth is that tariffs are an ineffective tool. They hardly generate any revenue, they certainly do not lead to the reshoring of jobs, and they are a lousy negotiating tactic.  It’s high time Trump put his hammer away and sought more nuanced (and effective) policy strategies. Hammers or Handshakes? Donald Trump presents himself as a savvy businessman. With the wealth, success, and notoriety that he has amassed, it is hard to argue that he is anything other. He should lead with his strengths.  Rather than continue to use the hammer of tariffs, he should instead replace it with handshakes. By finding more opportunities for bilateral reductions in trade restrictions, Trump could enrich the livelihoods of Americans, help reduce international tensions, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity that anyone would be proud to call their legacy. READ MORE from David Hebert: DOGE Must Rethink Federal Spending: Prioritize Reducing Responsibilities v. Starving the Beast Through Tax Cuts Saving Us From Scheming Landlords? Biden DOJ Sues Real Estate Tech Company RealPage From GDP to Reality: Putting the $35 Trillion Debt Into Perspective The post Tariffs: The Hammer America Keeps Using appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Someday an updated edition of The Art of the Deal may be placed on the bookshelf next to Halford Mackinder’s Democratic Ideals and Reality, Nicholas Spykman’s America’s Strategy in World Politics, and Alfred Thayer Mahan’s The Problem of Asia given the events of the last few days. President Donald Trump has placed geoeconomics in the service of geopolitics to advance U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere. He has used the economic sword of tariffs to achieve diplomatic and geopolitical results in record time, as Panama, Mexico, and Canada have all promised to pursue Trump’s geopolitical agendas in the hemisphere. Somewhere in heaven, John Quincy Adams is smiling. Trump’s hemispheric agenda includes fairer trade with our neighbors, a crackdown on fentanyl and other deadly drugs from coming into the United States, control of the U.S. northern and southern borders, and lessening and then eliminating China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. It has rightly been called the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” Geoeconomics in Service to Geopolitics Trump sent Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Panama, where he told Panama’s leaders in no uncertain terms that China’s current involvement at both ends of the Panama Canal is unacceptable and wouldn’t be tolerated by the Trump administration. Rubio noted that China’s presence in and around the Canal Zone is both an economic and national security concern for the United States. (RELATED: China Poses a Severe Threat in Panama and Leaves the US With No Choice.) Meanwhile, Trump was telling journalists that he intended to take back control of the Canal Zone by unilaterally terminating the 1978 treaties signed by President Carter and confirmed by the U.S. Senate that gave control of the Canal to Panama. (RELATED: The Panama Canal and the Firing Line Debate) Shortly after meeting with Secretary Rubio, Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino announced that Panama would not be renewing its agreement with China that it entered into eight years ago under the auspices of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Panama’s leader stated that he would welcome U.S. investment in infrastructure programs to replace China’s BRI. Geoeconomics in the service of geopolitics. (RELATED: To Secure the Panama Canal, Reinstitute the Monroe Doctrine) Next, Trump announced and then issued an order imposing 25 percent tariffs against Mexico and Canada, explaining that neither country has engaged in fair trade with the U.S. and both countries have failed to stem the tide of illegal drugs and immigrants into the United States. After making boastful noises about imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods, the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada made deals with Trump to delay the tariffs for 30 days in return for their taking concrete steps to meet Trump’s demands. Mexico’s president promised to deploy 10,000 National Guard soldiers to that country’s border with the United States, while Canada’s leader announced that he would deploy personnel and new technology to the border and appoint a “fentanyl czar” to oversee tough measures against shipments of fentanyl across the border into the U.S. Again, geoeconomics in the service of geopolitics. Trump has already signaled an intention/desire to purchase Greenland from Denmark and to make Canada the 51st state. Greenland and Canada both occupy key geographical positions in the scramble for preeminence in the Arctic Ocean. Trump’s gambit here may be to “settle” for increased basing rights in Greenland and greater cooperation with Canada to offset Sino-Russian designs in the Arctic, though there is a better chance of Greenland being acquired by the U.S. than Canada becoming the 51st state. (RELATED: What if Greenland Isn’t Denmark’s to Sell?) There was a brief time after the end of the Cold War when strategic prognosticators like Thomas Friedman and Edward Luttwak claimed that geoeconomics had replaced geopolitics as the fulcrum of global politics. But geopolitics never went away. The great power competition of the 21st century revived it. Geoeconomics is a subset of geopolitics — Trump’s latest moves on the global chessboard show that he understands that. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: To Secure the Panama Canal, Reinstitute the Monroe Doctrine Elise Stefanik Should Model Her Tenure at the UN on Reagan Patriot Jeane Kirkpatrick Churchill Bust Returns to the Oval Office The post Tariffs: Geoeconomics in the Service of Geopolitics appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Newly minted Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been saying all the right things. His immediate maneuvers on DEI and deportations have set a promising tone. However, his department warrants more tempered optimism than most. For one, his 99-0 Senate confirmation indicates U.S. foreign policy might not have major shakeups in store. More importantly, Rubio’s hawkish track record suggests regime-change adventurism is firmly on the table. The analysis thus far has focused on Latin America, where Secretary Rubio has deep personal and political ties, as well as Iran and China. The new Trump administration is maneuvering to end the war in Eastern Europe though, while unrest is simmering nearby in Serbia and Slovakia. The latter especially presents a policy-defining scenario, as it is an EU and NATO member and a direct neighbor of Ukraine. Setting the Stage Over the last month, protesters have gathered in Slovakian cities, a development that has been commonplace in the 30-plus years since the “Velvet Divorce” delivered full independence on Jan. 1, 1993. Western media have eagerly floated the idea that these events could topple the government of four-time prime minister and recent gunshot survivor Robert Fico. (READ MORE: Robert Fico, Consummate Survivor) The prime minister resumed his role after the September 2023 parliamentary elections, following nearly a year of unelected technocratic rule. (To curb the political momentum of Fico and his allies, the sitting president chose to delay elections after the ruling government collapsed, and the appointed government persisted despite rejection from parliament.) Slovakian society has remained fiercely divided since that time. Liberal Bratislava, the seat of one of the wealthiest regions behind the former Iron Curtain, is effectively a Slavic extension of the Vienna metro area, and it reliably supports pro-EU and leftist parties. Rural Slovakia, which has particularly suffered since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, is more sympathetic to the current government. Recently, one television broadcaster said the quiet part out loud when he dismissively called pro-government voters “rurals.” There is no evidence to suggest the May 2024 assassination attempt on Fico was anything other than the act of a single lunatic. Nonetheless, as in the United States, there is a feeling that this particular politician did not have the institutional protection that others would. Symbolically, prominent graffiti threatening Fico and calling him a Russian asset remained in Bratislava’s central business district long after the shooting. Tensions with Brussels have heightened as well. In September, the EU threatened to withhold billions of euros over “rule of law” concerns. (Similar concerns evaporated for Poland after it elected a liberal government under Donald Tusk, and Brussels has continued to apply these unprecedented measures to sovereigntist Hungary.) Another flashpoint occurred when Ukraine announced it would discontinue the transit of Russian gas to Europe at the end of 2024, a measure especially detrimental to neighboring states like Slovakia. Bratislava and Budapest both threatened to veto the next round of EU sanctions on Russia, and institutional indignation was swift. These are some of the factors that purportedly sparked the latest round of protests in December. The demonstrations have continued sporadically and spiked on Jan. 24. Speakers have held white roses, evocative of previous color revolutions. Government officials warned of a coup attempt, and Fico jockeyed with opposition figures over intelligence reports and calls for a no-confidence vote. Then, due to conflicts over personal ambition, two parliamentarians from the ruling coalition were expelled from their party, shrinking the government’s narrow parliamentary majority and leading observers to speculate about the collapse of the Fico government. Some in the West have smelled regime change in the air. Excuse the recounting of some exceedingly petty details, but it is important to note the performative nature of these protests, which are conducted for Western media consumption. Western Meddling in Slovakia First, corporate media is reporting protesters are enraged that Fico wants to take Slovakia out of the EU and NATO. Neither Fico nor any other significant government figure has advocated this; in fact, Fico has said the opposite. Deutsche Welle quoted one protester who claimed, “I have feared for my safety ever since Fico won the election.” A ludicrous idea in present-day Slovakia, where such behavior would draw intense international pressure. (By contrast, Donald Tusk’s liberal government in Poland has overseen police excesses against protesters and arrests of political opponents.) One leaked email from protest organizers expressed a need for more Slovakian flags, as opposed to the predominant EU, Ukrainian, and American varieties; yet corporate media stories reliably depict the Slovakian flags. English-language reports have generally cited a figure of 60,000 protesters in Bratislava’s Jan. 24 protests, a high-end estimate and likely an exaggeration. “Peace for Ukraine,” one NGO at the center of these protests, materialized recently, and it has demonstrated impressive choreography and media reach. Pro- and anti-government figures have bickered over how many of the protesters are Ukrainians and other foreigners, and the government has vowed to deport those without a legal right to stay. Notably, Fico resigned from a previous premiership in 2018, after a round of street protests following the mafia killing of a journalist couple. Fico has vowed this time is different. “We are too seasoned and experienced for some NGOs and some Ukrainian and Georgian guards [historical term for an armed volunteer force] to subvert our state,” he proclaimed. Last week, Slovakia barred entry to a Georgian military volunteer and nine others, claiming they had a role in opposition plots. Speculation of U.S. and EU involvement abounds. The NGO network in Slovakia is well-developed and frequently draws the ire of Fico’s government. USAID, long a vehicle for color revolutions, has been among the agencies receiving scrutiny from conservatives in recent weeks. Analysis of Biden-era U.S. federal grants has already uncovered several Slovakian NGO recipients promoting ideological projects: “to help promote and protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ people in Slovakia;” “to create a supportive environment for Slovakia’s LGBTQI+ minority;” and “to support diversity, acceptance, and solidarity towards LGBTQ+ people and their families in eastern Slovakia.” Furthermore, the protests began as the Biden administration was leaving its final marks on global affairs. It would be a shocking development if this current round of demonstrations had no links to the Biden foreign-policy universe, which surely felt compelled to “midwife this thing,” in the words of the recently departed Victoria Nuland. This author recalls a conference call of journalists, economists, and policy figures before the 2023 Slovakian parliamentary elections, when it was clear voters would reject the economic privations and military adventurism of the previous governments. “It will be difficult, but [Slovakian voters] can be led there,” asserted one of the think-tank organizers. “They need to see why their views are incorrect.” It’s all so very tiresome. U.S. Involvement Going Forward Contrary to prevailing narratives, labels are difficult in Slovakia. Governments have formed and fractured often, and ruling coalitions rarely invite neat ideological descriptions. Fico himself defies easy categorization. Western media usually label him with terms like “left-wing,” “left-nationalist,” or even the ubiquitous “far-right,” but these are sloppy characterizations. Fico is a populist, and he is emblematic of the modern reality in which the left-right dichotomy has declined in importance. Instead, critical battles are waged between sovereigntists and advocates of transnational governance. Fico, like Trump, is firmly in the former camp. Back across the Atlantic, then, it is easy to imagine neoconservative Republicans taking a hard line against the Fico government. Slovakia, like its southern neighbor Hungary, has dared to object to the West’s efforts at prolonged war and state-building in neighboring Ukraine. English-language media have crafted the narrative of a kleptocratic and un-Western backwater. Hawkish Republican senators might predictably consign Slovakia to the ranks of “socialist” troublemakers, à la Venezuela. Don’t let them off easy. Slovakia is the sort of ally America should be cultivating in the second Trump administration. For one, its government is pragmatic, unblinded by ideology — in Trumpian terms, they’re people who will make a deal. Next, it is an outspoken critic of liberal European overreach, a concept that demands American military expenditure while simultaneously harassing President Trump and his local European allies. Finally, Slovakia possesses a coherent society — industrious, predominantly Catholic, proud of its hard-earned independence, and unreceptive to transnational mandates on migration or sexual politics. It is a healthy and responsive democracy, one wary of unrestrained liberalism. Figures in the Trump State Department ought not to preach these values at home while selling out an ally like the one in Bratislava. READ MORE from Michael O’Shea: Lessons for Trump from Orbán, Hungary’s ‘Comeback’ Prime Minister Gains for Irish Conservatives May Be Too Little, Too Late Germans Say They’re Fed Up, Nazi Accusations Be Damned The post Are the Protests in Slovakia Due to NGO and USAID Interference? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.