How can two people with different upbringings, perspectives, and financial behaviors come together as one when it comes to money?

'a national security imperative'

Greg Gutfeld Laments ‘Journalists’ and Dems’ Sad Effort to Make Jimmy Kimmel Their Party’s Charlie Kirk

An inscription carved on a rock face high on the Tibetan Plateau records a previously unknown expedition sent by Emperor Qin Shi Huang (259–210 B.C.), the first emperor of unified China and owner of the iconic Terracotta Army that guards his tomb, seeking the elixir of life. Ancient records state that the emperor sent an expedition east to Japan searching for the elixir of immortality, but do not mention a similar expedition to the west. They also state that seven stone monuments were carved to celebrate the emperor’s accomplishments after his tour of the empire he had unified between 219 and 211 B.C. Only fragments of two of these inscriptions have been found. This inscription is the only Qin carving found still in situ and almost complete. The inscription was found near Gyaring Lake, Qinghai province, at an altitude of more than 2.6 miles. It says that the emperor commanded “level five grand master Yi” (a high government official) to lead a group of alchemists to Kunlun Mountain in search of “yao,” which could refer to healing herbs or minerals, but also means the elixir of life. The inscription states the wagon expedition reached the lake in the 37th year of the reign of Qin Shi Huang, and had another 40 miles to go to reach Kunlun Mountain. In pre-Qin texts, Kunlun Mountain was the sacred birthplace of the Yellow River. Today Kunlun Mountain is the name of a range in western China, but the one referenced in classic texts is different. Researchers believe the ancient Kunlun is today’s Bayan Har Mountains, south of Gyaring Lake. The inscription is evidence in favor of that identification. The inscription was first discovered in July 2020 and when it was publicized in June of this year, there was great debate among historians about whether it was a modern forgery. It was carved in the xiaozhuan script, a signature style of the Qin era. The direction of some of the character strikes is also typical of Qin period calligraphy, and the way the word “Kunlun” is written matches the writing found on bamboo slips from the Qin period. The writing style has only been documented in the past 20 years, and a very small number of people are knowledgeable enough in this niche subject to forge the script, so modern forgery is highly unlikely. Another scholar posited that it was carved during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) using the Qin script for extra cachet. That would explain why the inscription hadn’t been eroded in the harsh climate of the Tibetan Plateau, but even back then the script was 1,500 years old and there are no other examples of Yuan inscriptions carved in xiaozhuan style. Now the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology has confirmed its authenticity. The stone characters showed clear chisel marks, indicating they were carved with flat-edged tools, a method consistent with Qin-era technology, Deng told Xinhua. Through an analysis of minerals and elements, “researchers excluded the possibility that the inscriptions were carved using modern alloy tools”. He said secondary minerals were present in both the grooves of the inscriptions and on the stone’s surface. This suggested long-term natural weathering, which ruled out the possibility that the carving was done recently. Laboratory analysis showed that the carved stone was composed of quartz sandstone, a material known for its high resistance to abrasion and weathering, the report added, while the area’s surrounding mountains and lake created a relatively mild microclimate. Ancient writers record that Emperor Qin Shi Huang was obsessed with the elixir of life, so much so that he died in 210 B.C., the same years as the expedition, because he drank too much of it. Many other nobles and emperors followed in his footsteps and were killed by the elixir they drank to defeat death.

[View Article at Source]Laws targeting hate speech or “violent” speech would be weaponized against conservatives. The post The Right Shouldn’t Abandon Free Speech appeared first on The American…

[View Article at Source]Great Powers often test the resolve of rivals. They also demonstrate resolve. The post Russian Drones Over Poland Aren’t a Probe, but a Signal appeared first on The American…

[View Article at Source]Israeli–Egyptian relations are more perilous than at any time in the post-Sadat era. The post Israel Approaches Egypt’s Redline appeared first on The American Conservative.…

Foreign Affairs Russian Drones Over Poland Aren’t a Probe, but a Signal Great Powers often test the resolve of rivals. They also demonstrate resolve.  (Sibsky2016/Shutterstock) After Russian drones infiltrated Polish airspace on September 9, Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s Foreign Minister, told the Guardian, “Interestingly, they were all duds, which suggests to me that Russia tried to test us without starting a war.” “The drones didn’t reach their targets and there was minor damage to property, nobody was hurt. If it happened in Ukraine, by Ukrainian definitions, that would be regarded as a 100 percent success,” he said.  No one likes speculating about war and peace. The fact is that a bunch of Russian drones went into Polish and Romanian airspace. Three of those over Poland were shot down, the country’s airspace was closed off for a while, and NATO air forces from the UK and Netherlands took part in intercepting Russian drones. Those over Romania turned back, escorted out by the Romanian air force back into Ukraine. There was talk of a NATO–Russia war. Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the country was closer to military conflict “than at any time since the Second World War.” When President Donald Trump shrugged on camera and said it might have been a Russian mistake, Tusk instantly replied that it wasn’t.  It was unlikely to be a mistake. But it wasn’t necessarily a provocation or a probe. While mistakes are definitely possible with primitive small units—they can be fried or jammed, their batteries can die, weather can affect their propellers or flight, or manual error or GPS or fiber optic cables can affect their flightpath—the enormous units that were used in the incursion over Poland signal sophistication. The fact that these were duds, or decoys, add a level of planning and intrigue on top of that. Expensive Russian drones won’t just hover miles behind the actual zone of conflict to “test” anything. Everyone knows in an actual NATO–Russia war, those drones will be accompanied by intense missile barrages overwhelming the surface missile batteries and air defences. A major NATO–Russia war would not involve any probing or anything at a localized scale; it would be amped up to 11 from the start. The “test” theory falls flat, given that for such a conflict there’s nothing to test.  The other hypothesis is that this is a Russian signalling effort. Consider that in November 2024, the Russians declared that they have a medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile called Oreshnik; one night they dumped one with MIRVs on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. The warheads were all duds. But the social media photos were something out of the worst apocalyptic scenario, half a dozen MIRVs saturating a city center, but without any secondary blast after the first kinetic impact—devices just ripping through the atmosphere at lightning speed, beyond the capability or deterrence of any human designed SAMs. President Vladimir Putin then went on TV and suggested that it was a demonstration that if Russia wants, it can strike any Western cities with the ultimate doomsday weapons; in no NATO–Russia war would humanity survive. It also showed that, despite the wishful thinking of the Atlanticists, Russian ballistic missile technology is fully operational, modern, and accurate; dropping empty payloads on a city of a million people is the clearest sign that they can escalate but choose not to, and that they are capable of turning us all into radioactive ashes.  One can imagine a similar scenario with the drones, albeit at lower stakes. Consider the political background: Talks between Ukraine and Russia are at an impasse. Neither side is capable of any more conquest so far. Russia’s summer offensive has not delivered the result it expected; the fighting over a bunch of villages is too slow, and winter is approaching. The Ukrainians on the other hand have enough money from Europe to sustain the conflict, and the manpower woes have not started to bite. While there are internal divisions becoming more prominent in Ukraine, with anti-corruption pressure building up from the EU, no split has happened so far. On top of that, the Europeans are still interested in putting boots on the ground with an ominously named “coalition of the willing.”  The drone incursions show a couple of things. As I have written before, we are at the dawn of an “offense-dominated” world. Small, cheap offensive platforms will always get in. And while war is still about holding territory and attrition, signalling only needs to show that deterrence works both ways; a $10,000 drone is capable of torching a platoon of NATO soldiers defended by $200,000 missiles that might or might not stop it or shoot it down. While neither Russia nor NATO are irrational enough to seek an actual nuclear conflict, this small act might put the final nail in the coffin of the ill-thought-out plan to have Western troops and peacekeepers in Ukraine prior to a negotiated settlement.  The post Russian Drones Over Poland Aren’t a Probe, but a Signal appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The Right Shouldn’t Abandon Free Speech Laws targeting hate speech or “violent” speech would be weaponized against conservatives. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested this week that the government, in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk last Wednesday, may start to target “hate speech.” In a podcast interview with Katie Miller, the AG stated that hate speech isn’t free speech and that her office may prosecute those who cross the line. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything—and that’s across the aisle,” Bondi declared, adding that we can’t allow “that hate speech in the world in which we live.” Her comments outraged many on the right, who correctly see “hate speech” as a dubious concept engineered to suppress conservative views. It’s also an unconstitutional concept, as our laws recognize hate speech as free speech protected by the First Amendment. This was affirmed by Charlie Kirk himself. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he once wrote. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”  Bondi responded to the backlash with a lengthy X post explaining her position. In the post, she stressed that she wants to go after speech that leads to violence: You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. If Bondi hadn’t described this as “hate speech,” her post would’ve gotten a more receptive audience. Most of her statement is aligned with the general right-wing consensus of what should happen in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder. There’s a large demand to go after left-wing speech that encourages violence. It’s a view expressed by Vice President J.D. Vance, White House Deputy Chief of State Stephen Miller, and many others. The difference is that Bondi called it “hate speech.” The AG eventually issued a statement saying the Justice Department would not target individuals over this noxious idea. This event could be interpreted as a mere flub on the part of a government official prone to such gaffes. But it’s more than that. Her comments should make the right ponder the possibilities of what might happen if the government begins arresting waves of leftists for unsavory speech that allegedly could lead to violence and how this standard could easily be used against the right. In the interview with Katie Miller, Bondi highlights campus antisemitism as one of her concerns with hate speech and how the government is using its power to crack down on it. She also made sure to point out that they want to target hate speech “across the aisle,” bringing up the arson of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s house as an example. It’s implied Shapiro was targeted by a right-winger, when in fact the arson was the work of a leftist.  One could reasonably conclude that Bondi’s DOJ intends to target right-wingers with this standard. That would absolutely set a precedent for Democratic administrations to follow, empowering the left to persecute conservatives for merely endorsing immigration restriction or criticizing Black Lives Matter.  It’s necessary to be careful and clear about how the government responds to left-wing extremism. The Trump administration is right to declare Antifa a domestic terror group and should go after any organizations that aid its efforts. It should also investigate the far-left Discord chats that inspire deranged individuals to embrace violence. But the admin should avoid setting a standard that could be exploited to target “hate speech.” While nearly all rightists are united against hate speech laws, there is a growing tendency to want some speech restrictions. There’s the aforementioned effort to suppress alleged antisemitism on college campuses. There was widespread right-wing support for a ban on flag burning when President Donald Trump issued an executive order on the matter last month. A few commentators even entertain the idea of bringing back blasphemy laws. Prominent voices either implicitly or explicitly state that greater protection of free speech is a “leftist” desire.  These sentiments contrast sharply with the administration’s efforts to counter draconian speech laws in Europe. Trump and senior cabinet members routinely pillory the UK, Germany, and other European states for censoring and arresting its citizens for opposing mass immigration. It’s nonsensical to push for any form of speech restriction in the U.S. while opposing these same measures in the EU. There’s an apparent feeling that the right now has the social capital and institutional power to implement our own speech codes. That’s presumptuous, to say the least. Many of the people who will be interpreting these measures are liberal bureaucrats and officials. Let’s say we do counter “violent speech.” In the eyes of a liberal, demanding a strong response to riots or even “misgendering” a trans individual could count as threats of violence. Any limitation on free speech would be a gift to the left. Thanks to their power in elite institutions and within the administrative state, they can interpret these laws as they see fit. It would make it much easier to have de facto hate speech laws, even if the law says we have no such thing. Free speech is good for the right. It’s why the administration wants it to spread to Europe. Trump was able to win the 2024 election in large part due to the freer state of social media. The 47th president didn’t have to worry about his campaign posts being taken down or his supporters banned like in 2020. Free speech reigned once more on the big platforms, which allowed the right to triumph in the election. The right is now able to broadcast its views to millions without the threat of censorship or government heavy-handedness. That’s something we should preserve rather than sacrifice on behalf of a misguided assumption that new speech restrictions will only be used against the left. Anti-speech measures would also likely alienate the public. Millions of Americans rated free speech as one of their most important issues in the 2024 election. Polls regularly show Americans cherish their rights to free expression. A major reason why Americans turned on woke is because it limited what they could say and aimed to control what they think. It was an intrusive force that violated their liberty. Cultural libertarianism defines the mood of the nation. It would be hard to advocate for speech laws that solely target the left in this environment. Safeguarding free speech would not be a loss for conservatives. Right-wing ideas would still prevail in the marketplace of ideas, as they do now. It’s better to preserve this freedom than to give it up. Conservatives are right to demand action against left-wing extremism. There is plenty that the government can do to curb this menace without jeopardizing our right to free expression. It’s imperative to do what’s necessary without inadvertently creating hate speech laws. The post The Right Shouldn’t Abandon Free Speech appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Israel Approaches Egypt’s Redline Israeli–Egyptian relations are more perilous than at any time in the post-Sadat era. One can be forgiven for missing the September 15 address by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi at the extraordinary summit convened in the aftermath of Israel’s attack on Qatar. There is all too much noise in the cacophony of voices generated by Israel’s metastasizing campaign of revenge in Gaza and, to be honest, Sisi is not known for making consequential speeches. Nevertheless, Egypt’s president has given what may be the most important address by any Egyptian leader, indeed any Arab ruler, since Anwar Sadat’s momentous speech before Israel’s Knesset in Jerusalem almost half a century ago. Sadat’s pathbreaking remarks established the parameters of the historic Israel–Egyptian engagement that are now under threat. For all of its faults and inadequacies, peace between Egypt and Israel heralded a new, if far from pacific, era in Israeli–Arab and regional affairs, with American-led diplomacy at its center. “If God has destined me to shoulder the responsibility on behalf of the Egyptian people,” declared Sadat from the Knesset podium,  one of the prime duties of this responsibility is to leave no stone unturned to spare my Egyptian Arab people the harrowing horrors of another destructive war, whose extent only God can know. After lengthy thinking, I came to the conclusion that the responsibility I shoulder before God and before the people makes it incumbent upon me to go anywhere in the world, even to Jerusalem, to unfold before the Knesset members—representatives of the Israeli people—all the facts. I would then leave you to make up your minds, and may God’s will be done…. I tell you today, and declare to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in durable and just peace. We do not want to encircle each other with rockets ready to destroy or with missiles of feuds and hatred…. I ask you today—through my visit to you—why don’t we extend our hands in faith and sincerity, to shatter this barrier together? … Expansion will gain you nothing. … As for the Palestine cause, no one can deny that this is the crux of the whole problem. No one in the whole world today can accept slogans raised here in Israel, ignoring the existence of the Palestinian people, and even questioning, Where is that people? The cause of the Palestinian people, and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, are no longer ignored or denied by anybody. I was in Jerusalem at the time of Sadat’s visit, along with scores of journalists from around the world gathered in the Jerusalem Theatre, recording this new, dramatic, and indeed, hopeful turn of events.  That world is gone. The road so eloquently envisioned by Sadat has become a dead end, threatening the very existence of the Palestinian people (let alone the creation of a Palestinian state) and the destruction of the diplomatic and security structure constructed by the United States since the June 1967 war, with the Israel-Egypt rapprochement at its center. At Doha, Sisi, the heir of Sadat and his legacy, issued an unprecedented warning. He described Israel as an “enemy”, warning that Israel’s policies “will not lead to new peace deals, but may undo existing ones.” He urged “decisive and sincere action” against what he called “the enemy’s” ambitions, saying only firm measures could deter “every aggressor and reckless adventurer.” “Israel,” Sisi declared, “seeks to turn [the region] into an arena for aggression, which threatens stability in the entire region and constitutes a serious breach of international peace and security, and the stable rules of the international order.” He continued, Israeli practices have exceeded any political or military logic and crossed all red lines. To the people of Israel, I say: What is happening now undermines the future of peace, threatens your security and the security of all the peoples of the region, obstructs any chances of any new peace agreements, and even aborts existing peace agreements with the countries of the region. The consequences will then be dire, with the region returning to the atmosphere of conflict, and the loss of historic peace-building efforts and gains made through it, a price that we will all pay without exception. We are facing a pivotal moment that requires our unity to be a key fulcrum to deal with the challenges facing our region, in a way that ensures that we do not slide into further chaos and conflicts, and prevent the imposition of regional arrangements that contradict our interests and common vision. Sisi is not waiting for the Arabs and the Islamic nations. He is taking concrete, ominous military measures at the point of potential armed conflict—the Philadelphi line separating Egypt from Gaza—and in Sinai generally, to deter Israeli moves to displace Palestinians across the frontier. Since October 2023, Egypt has significantly increased its military presence in north Sinai, particularly along the border with Gaza. The Middle East Eye reported in August 2025 that Egypt has deployed approximately 40,000 soldiers to North Sinai, double the number permitted under the 1979 peace treaty with Israel and far beyond the increases negotiated in the last 15 years.  These Sinai deployments also include heavy weaponry and advanced Chinese-made HQ-9B air defense systems, similar to the Russian S-400. This remilitarization of Sinai tests the relevance of treaty limitations at the heart of the Israel–Egypt peace agreement, including the U.S.-led MFO based in Sharm al Sheikh, established to monitor compliance with the treaty but apparently all but absent in the current crisis. Satellite imagery available in the first months after the war commenced (but not currently) revealed that Egypt has constructed a walled security enclosure in Sinai alongside the Egypt–Gaza line to prepare for a mass influx of Palestinian refugees from Gaza. This construction includes 7-meter-high walls around a 20-square-kilometer area intended to accommodate more than 100,000 displaced people. The consequences of an Israeli decision to foment the mass exodus of Palestinians across the Philadelphi line into Egypt cannot be overstated. A Palestinian exodus into Egypt is indeed at the heart of Egyptian concerns about Israel’s assault in Gaza. As early as November 2023, Sisi described such an exodus as a “redline” that would turn Sinai into a base of attacks against Israel. Such a calamity could well produce a 1948 moment—exposing the powerlessness of the Arabs in general in the face of Israeli military power and threatening the very survival of the Sisi regime itself. As a matter of self-preservation in the wake of the implosion of the old order, the Egyptian leader is warning Israel that war is an option. The post Israel Approaches Egypt’s Redline appeared first on The American Conservative.