Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs Trump Should Accept Putin’s New START Offer Nuclear arms control is America First. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) On February 5, 2026, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the sole remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, will expire.  This September, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to voluntarily adhere to the treaty’s warhead limits on long-range missiles for a year, should the United States reciprocate. President Donald Trump reacted favorably, saying it “sounds like a good idea to me,” but fell short of agreeing. Tensions have since soured, with Trump ordering the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing in response to reports that Russia tested nuclear-powered weapons that can be equipped with a nuclear warhead. Reacting to Trump’s move, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirmed that “Russia will respond in kind.” Without New START, or a successor agreement, the United States and Russia may embark on an arms race that funnels hundreds of billions of dollars into weapons of collective suicide. China would likely join in rather than be left behind. At best, the enlarged arsenals would sit dormant for decades waiting for some faction of politicians and bureaucrats to argue that the technology is obsolete and requires “modernization,” diverting ever more government resources into the illusion of nuclear security. At worst, a geopolitical crisis could precipitate nuclear use, eventually spiraling to mutual destruction. Better options exist. The most vocal opponents of a New START extension are neoconservative policymakers and intellectuals, including veterans of the George W. Bush administration. These darlings of the foreign policy establishment recycle the familiar threat inflation tactics they used to promote forever wars in the Middle East to push the United States into a trilateral nuclear standoff. They contend that Russia and China seek to outmatch the American arsenal for coercive purposes. Hence, they reflexively advocate for the United States to upload additional nuclear warheads onto deployed delivery systems beyond New START’s limit of 1,550 (technically 1,770). Neoconservative arguments for reactionary expansion couch their belligerency in the language of maintaining an arsenal of numerical, technical, and situational effectiveness vis-à-vis China and Russia.  Concerned that Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping seek collective nuclear superiority as coercive leverage to subvert American global power, many national security observers say the U.S. must expand its nuclear arsenal in response, to address a growing and diversifying list of potential targets. Indeed, some who argue against extending New START do so on the basis that “China’s nuclear build-up puts upward pressure on the size of the U.S. nuclear force” and “Xi is committed to a larger nuclear arsenal and is not willing to trade it away.” Rather than attempting to understand and address why the Chinese may be apprehensive about engaging in arms control negotiations, their “solution” is to reinforce one of the main drivers of animosity.  Underpinning the neurotic worldview of those who advocate arsenal expansion is a devastating overconfidence in counterforce targeting, or taking out military infrastructure while sparing civilian populations. These advocates, by superimposing some generalized, presumptive lens on the decision-making process of Russian and Chinese leaders, believe they know what targets U.S. nuclear forces must hold at risk to effectively deter adversarial aggression. They throw nuance to the wayside. Wrapping their ignorance in faux legalism, they insist that by targeting “legitimate” military and political sites, many of which are collocated in or near civilian population centers, counterforce strikes would abide by international law, limit the potential damage an adversary could inflict on the United States, and thus deter adversaries by ensuring the U.S. would prevail in a nuclear conflict. I suppose some of us still need bedtime stories to help us sleep at night.  Counterforce targeting warrants consideration as a paradoxical device in U.S. nuclear policy debates. Proponents of the doctrine champion it as both a means of dissuading nuclear aggression and an end to nuclear tensions by implicitly promising to preserve comparative dominance in the destructive capability of the U.S. arsenal. They insist this is the necessary precondition for the United States to engage in arms control diplomacy, while incoherently maintaining that any reciprocal measures by other nuclear powers are concerted efforts to destabilize relations. Essentially: good for me but not for thee. Counterforce sycophants can only be satisfied by the achievement and preservation of U.S. nuclear superiority, which in itself is not conducive to productive diplomacy, especially with leaders who want their states to be respected as equal stakeholders in global peace and stability. Nuclear superiority and, by extension, counterforce targeting, are thus under-scrutinized assumptions of American national security observers who argue against an extension to the limits of New START. These doctrines are detrimental to the prospects of mending the frayed relationship between the United States, Russia, and China. The American interest in preventing a nuclear war requires robust diplomacy which cannot be predicated upon some fanciful desire for unparalleled bargaining leverage. Arms control agreements are indicative of stable bilateral relations as much as they are a pragmatic tool of engagement and cooperation for nuclear risk reduction.  In other words, the health of the treaty—its endurance, political purchase, and sustainability—mirrors the health of the broader relationship. Commitments to maintain treaty levels, even those in principle, signify a desire to stabilize and improve relations. Despite all the bluster from yesteryear’s strategic minds about needing to maintain a counterforce-capable arsenal to counteract Russia and China’s technical and numerical nuclear advancements, the fact remains that the current American nuclear arsenal is capable of inflicting untold destruction on both countries simultaneously under the New START limit. Likewise, Russia and China can inflict untold destruction on us, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. No targeting doctrine or favorable disparity can guarantee victory any more than it can guarantee collective defeat, for no one knows what Pandora’s box has in store should its contents be unleashed.  The willful expiration of the New START treaty would mark a concerning low in the U.S.–Russia relationship and bode poorly for trilateral engagement on nuclear disarmament—a mainstay of Trump’s foreign policy instincts. He must resist the subversive influence of neocons who seek to implant their universalist interventionism into his agenda. They care not for restraint but for a fanciful preponderance of American power. Trump should leave their views in the trash heap of history, where they belonged after his 2016 ascendance.  Pursuing nuclear arms control with Russia is one way to start. The post Trump Should Accept Putin’s New START Offer appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The End of Chuck Schumer The Democrats are embracing the younger, more progressive faces of its coalition. (Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images) If there was a single moment that signaled the curtain closing on Sen. Chuck Schumer’s era at the helm of the Democratic Party, it most certainly occurred in New York City on Tuesday, November 4, when the upstart Zohran Mamdani decapitated the Democratic machine and handed New York’s former Gov. Andrew Cuomo the most devastating loss of his career. Mamdani’s ascent had to have been startling for Schumer, who has attempted, late in his career, to play nice with the growing progressive wing of the Democratic Party while also dutifully reassuring the monied interests, the ones who really dictate the ebbs and flows of life inside the blue belt. Schumer hasn’t necessarily shied away from engaging with his fellow New Yorker, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the heir to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s political movement and probably to Schumer’s Senate seat should she want it in 2028. But when the rubber met the road, Schumer and his fleet of moderates could always be trusted to deliver the sort of moderate legislative agenda that pleases the Big Business lobbyists who really run the shop in DC. Take Wednesday, for example. In the eleventh hour, with the government shutdown threatening the ranks of Speaker Mike Johnson’s caucus, and only a week removed from an embarrassing and historic off-year “blue bath” that warranted serious conversations about the serenity of President Donald Trump and the staying power of the populist MAGA, in swept the stalwart Democrat from Brooklyn to save the day—for the Republicans. It was the sort of high-wire act that Schumer has grown accustomed to performing  in his years running the show for a party that seems ready for a new consensus that elevates the once-fringe progressive elements that speak comfortably about high taxes, free services, and diverse faces.  When Arizona’s Rep. Adelita Grijalva was sworn into the 119th Congress on Wednesday evening, astute observers couldn’t help but notice the decaying state of Schumer’s Democratic Party. Rep. Al Green, 78, waved his cane. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 85, hobbled across the House floor. Rep. Maxine Waters, 87, stretched out her withered hands and applauded with whatever life force she had left. Somewhere near the back of the picture stood Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the man who many once considered most likely to take up the mantle left behind by Schumer. But Jeffries, like Schumer, has struggled to find his footing in what is quickly becoming a topsy-turvy Democratic Party with figures such as Mamdani and AOC growing in stature and public opinion.  In an Ipsos poll released Thursday, 330 registered voters gave Mamdani a +67 approval rating, outpacing California Gov. Gavin Newsom by 3 points and newly-crowned Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger by an astounding 27. It seems clear that despite Schumer’s refusal to endorse or vote for Mamdani, the ultra-affable campaign of the Uganda-born democratic socialist captivated Democratic voters across the country who poured into voting stations, far and wide beyond New York City, and delivered a historic off-year result. If you don’t believe the polling figures, just flip on Fox News and wait a few minutes as I did Tuesday morning. “Mamdani-like mayor has chance to win Seattle mayor’s race,” screamed a chyron on Fox News colleagues glumly warned of creeping communism afoot throughout our cornfield republic.  Newsom’s own resurgence spells trouble as well for both Schumer and the Republicans. Though not seen as a progressive in his own party, Newsom’s sudden willingness to trade blows with the Trump White House has done enough to catapult him back into the national consciousness despite years of documented poor governance in the Golden State. It’s clear what Democrat voters want, especially the younger ones—something completely and wholly different from the machine politics that drove the era of Schumer. Promises to fight Trump, freeze the rent, freeze utilities, make public transportation free, and provide government-paid-for childcare is what is motivating young voters on the left, not overtures about the goodness of Democracy and the wholeness of diversity and the fullness of free markets.  The past few years of America’s divisive political landscape have made it easy to come to the conclusion that Republicans are the only ones who dislike Schumer. But that belief couldn’t be further from the truth. Per CNN poll analysis released Tuesday, Schumer is now officially the most unpopular Democratic Senate leader in the history of such polling.  Schumer’s decision to make a deal to reopen the government at a moment when Democrats held peak leverage over their Republican adversaries has done little to thwart the rise of the MAGA-esque, counter-elite rebellion brewing inside the DNC. On the eve of the government reopening, POLITICO reported that Democratic members of the Congress were “fuming” with Schumer’s decision to find eight moderate senators willing to wheel and deal with the GOP so that the inept and bankrupt halls of Congress could begin maneuvering again. AOC accused the Democratic moderates of negotiating with Republicans “in exchange for nothing.” Sanders, whose outsider bid in 2016 catalyzed today’s progressive revolution, called Schumer’s settlement “a policy and political disaster for the Democrats.” It’s easy to see why AOC and Sanders were so animated. On the economy, Trump has never polled lower. The latest figures from AP-NORC show Trump only has the approval of 33 percent of respondents compared to his two-term high of 56 percent that was recorded near the end of his first administration. And the polling aggregator FiftyPlusOne finds Trump falling below 40 percent approval among adults for the first time in his second administration.  Given the growing resentment towards Trump and the Republicans on the state of the economy, the government shutdown, and the Epstein circus (where Trump is increasingly damaged goods), here was Schumer’s big opportunity to stand pat and start making demands. Instead, he and eight other Democrat moderates betrayed the growing progressive movement inside the party and found common ground with the same sort of Republicans Schumer has so bitterly fought against during the MAGA era. Schumer’s decision to cave led the grassroots group MoveOn to call for Schumer to step down as de facto leader of the Democratic Party. California Rep. Ro Khanna said “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced.” Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton joined with Khanna in calling for “new leadership” after hearing from constituents that Schumer has lost his verve.  As calls mount for Schumer to step aside, the most recent polling from Reuters-Ipsos finds that Democratic voters are feeling particularly energized following Tuesday’s results. New numbers released Wednesday showed a 10-point (some polls say nearly 20 percent) decline from August on the question of whether the party had “lost its way.” The Democrats are finding their new voice and coalescing around younger, more progressive figures who threaten to transform the moderate party into a well-oiled fighting machine—and its once-moderate base is beginning to embrace the turn. Who leads the Democrats out of the wilderness following the disastrous Biden years is anyone’s guess. Newsom appears likeliest based on early polling, although former Vice President Kamala Harris is still showing impressive staying power. Should the party fully adopt its leftward turn, AOC would be in a good position to take advantage of a progressive uprising. Whoever finishes the Democratic rebranding process that is currently under way, two things are clear. First, that the days of Schumer and his ilk will be long gone by the time the race for the next presidency begins. And second, and perhaps most important for readers of this magazine, Republicans may be in for a rude awakening if its political leaders fail to deliver on campaign promises to Make America Great Again. The post The End of Chuck Schumer appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics A Third Trump Term Is an Impossibility The obstacles are insurmountable. Jon Stewart joked Trump “already has the merch,” referring to a red “Trump 2028” cap. Steve Bannon keeps teasing “a plan” to keep Trump in office. The Russian dissident and former chess champion Garry Kasparov warns of democracy’s demise. It’s a perfect storm of satire, conspiracy, and clickbait, but none of it adds up to a third term for Donald Trump. It gets worse. Salon ran a piece headlined “Trump’s bulldozer is aimed at more than the White House” trying to tie together the demolition of the East Wing and the “Versailles-like ballroom” which will take its place into an elaborate metaphor for Trump destroying democracy. “Post-democratic America,” they call it, finding a partisan ink-blot test in the wallpaper choice. They quote an expert on public memory, who explains “Trump’s physical makeover of the White House represents a larger authoritarian project to reshape American society.” Something about building monuments to oneself so people forget any predecessors. The expert also does not like the new gilding in the Oval Office. So, is it becoming increasingly clear that Trump has no intention of ever leaving the White House? As Jon Stewart said, you don’t build a new extension on your home if you intend to move soon, right? Who knows what goes through Trump’s mind when he thinks of 2028, but we do know there is no way he is going to run for a third term. Three things make a genuine third-term bid for Trump impossible: the 22nd Amendment, the extraordinary difficulty of changing that amendment, and the legal implausibility of proposed way-out-there workaround schemes. Talk of a Trump third term is rhetorical, a tool for both sides to wind up their bases and bust the chops of the opposition. The 22nd Amendment, passed after Franklin Roosevelt died in office, bars two-term presidents from being elected again. The 22nd Amendment was passed in an era when Americans were concerned about the ease with which dictators overseas assumed office. After Hitler and Mussolini both gained power, there was a concern that the same could happen someday in the United States. This concern was only exacerbated by the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to an unprecedented four terms in a row. So the key language in the Amendment is straightforward: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That single sentence would, on its face, bar any candidacy by a person who has already won the presidency twice, as Trump of course did in 2016 and in 2024. The Constitution’s text is unambiguous about the electoral limit. You’d need a lawyer like TV’s Better Call Saul to find a loophole. So why not just change the language of the 22nd Amendment to allow someone to run for a third term? The Founders made it very hard to change the Constitution. It is clear in the original text that to repeal or materially alter an amendment requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures and subsequent ratification by three-quarters of the states. Both routes are ridiculously high bars, impossible in the divided America of Red and Blue, and have been successfully navigated only rarely in American history, most prominently for something as significant to our democracy as ending slavery or allowing women to vote. So the 2025 House resolution by Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) to permit a third presidential term was nothing more than political grandstanding. That leaves open the possibility of a Vice President Donald Trump, standing beside the next elected president of the United States, maybe J.D. Vance. The idea would be Trump serving as vice president on a ticket in 2028, then ascending to the presidency when Vance resigns early in his term. One problem is that the 12th Amendment (“No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States”) bars someone ineligible for the presidency from serving as vice president. A counterargument is that in such a scenario Trump would not actually be elected as president, he would simply assume the highest office after President Vance conveniently resigned. But Trump himself ruled out the vice presidential gambit, saying the idea is “too cute. Yeah, I would rule that out because it’s too cute. I think the people wouldn’t like that. It’s too cute. It’s not—it wouldn’t be right.” There are a couple of other scenarios to get Trump in for a third term, but they are for dorm-room bull sessions and constitutional nerds only. For example, the 25th Amendment, a leftist favorite, says the vice president becomes president if the office is vacant: “In the case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” Whoever is next in the line of succession “becomes” the president. It is hard to imagine such off-label word play with the bedrock of the Constitution making it past the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the three justices Trump nominated, Amy Coney Barrett, agreed with the obvious reading that the 22nd Amendment bars a third term for anyone. “That’s what the amendment says,” she told Fox News. That should pretty much end any talk of a third term for Trump, but remember, the people who keep asking him about it in the mainstream media suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome and have no intention of dropping something so good for headlines, despite how obvious the truth is. And Trump, ever ready to mess with their heads, will always troll along. We heard much of this already in 2020, after Trump lost the election, and pundits were predicting tanks on the White House lawn and the Secret Service having to arrest Trump to get him out of the Oval Office. None of that happened then, and none will happen in 2028. The post A Third Trump Term Is an Impossibility appeared first on The American Conservative.

“Really crunching electric guitar and punky lead singer". The post The best cover of The Waterboys, according to Mike Scott first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The Party of Mean Girls...and Petulant, Weak Boys

How the Left Targets the Most Ethical Conservatives With Bogus Lawfare

Can Trump Reunite the MAGA Coalition?

Tucker Answers the Question

Time to Purge the GOP Backstabbers, Sissies, and Narcissists