NYC thief, Deikel Alcantara arrested for stealing gold-plated 9/11 memorial rose from Midtown Catholic church Breaking News

Foreign Affairs Trump Has the Chance to Make a New Monroe Doctrine American strength abroad is best served, not by imperial overextension, but by a focus on prosperity at home. Almost immediately after the armed forces of the Russian Federation entered Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its partners declared harsh sanctions on the country. President Biden boldly stated that the sanctions would devastate the ruble and bring the Russian economy to its knees. Of course, such devastation has failed to materialize in full, and the Russian economy rolls on—as Ohio’s Senator J.D. Vance declared in March 2023, Washington was not prepared for “how good the Russians would be at evading sanctions.” How did Biden miss the mark and get Russia so wrong? The sun has set on America’s unipolar moment. The network of international rules Washington helped implement (and has flourished within) are not palatable for the new poles of power in our international system. This matters. Worse, the U.S. is struggling to remain a cohesive international actor, let alone a pole of power in the new international system.  Washington’s adversaries are well aware that America’s two ruling parties cannot agree on the most basic elements of foreign policy, including the future of funding Ukraine, options to arm Taiwan, plans to combat China, and the utility of NATO. Complicated by decades of offshoring and the criminal underfunding of strategic resilience capabilities, Washington now offers a weak value proposition to its traditional international partners. Meanwhile, Moscow recognizes that, in the new unfolding world order, the West’s “arsenal of democracy” is not so strong as it once was. Western sanctions do very little in the shaping of behavior space in a global climate where you can spin on your heels and shake hands with Saudi Arabia, India, and China.  Washington needs a new value proposition to maintain its relevance as an independent pole in the emerging multipolar international order. There are key lessons we should take from the fascinating world of Russian war propaganda. Here, Russia portrays itself as traditionalist, patriotic, and united. The power of traditionalist values is becoming clear. Moscow can turn to many states—post-Soviet states, the Middle East, much of Asia and Africa—with arms wide open. The 2024 BRICS Summit illustrated the allure of a new global community of states, separate from the legacy liberal West.  Through BRICS, and some three years of proxy war in Ukraine, Russia has crafted a universalist brand. While in many ways it portrays itself as traditionalist, Moscow is ultimately willing to partner with anyone who prefers an alternative to the West. The bar is low. Most of the world is far from progressive when it comes to values. For instance, Washington touts its gender equality bona fides to countries like Saudi Arabia, where letting women drive is viewed as “a liberal idea.” A “woke” foreign policy only gets you so far, and the recent attempts to curb Russian behavior in Eastern Europe is further evidence that much of the world is opting for an alternative to the extant liberal Western ideal.  Russia’s behavior (and policy) now amounts to an almost total disregard for the liberal rules-based international order, as facilitated by the European and American bureaucratic apparatus. For Moscow, this apparatus is essentially deficient, lacking economically protectionist and traditional social values; the Kremlin clearly sees an opportunity to craft a desirable alternative structure. China has likewise consistently ignored international liberal rules and norms. Even countries like Hungary or Poland, which would prefer the anti-communist nationalism and sovereignty promoted by the American right-of-center, are prioritizing national interests before liberal values by involving themselves in programs like the China-CEE.  It is evident the West is faltering; the shine is rubbing off. This poses obvious challenges, so we must write new rules for the future of Western agility (perhaps even existence) in the future international system. As a starting point, Washington requires a new foundation: an American foreign policy that isn’t loathed by the Middle East, utterly ignorant of Africa, or unaware of the importance of careful, considered diplomacy in its relations throughout Asia; a foreign policy to competitively co-exist with non-liberal states and their growing network of like-minded partners globally; one that extols the virtues of national sovereignty and strong economies; a foreign policy that supports American innovation in all sectors of society, particularly one that can sustain itself (and its partners) in manufacturing.  A reinvigorated American foreign policy could kick-start the rejuvenation of a western-led proposition for the international system—a Monroe Doctrine 2.0, turning the Western hemisphere into a viable role model for all nations. Under President James Monroe, foreign policy doctrine was to oppose increased European influence and pressures on the Americas. A revived Monroe Doctrine could likewise curtail the cultural and economic pressures from not only European globalists, but also those from the East. It would ensure countries like Honduras do not align themselves with China. Such a system could be executed without firing a shot, the system could promote itself with positive investment programs, borrowing from the Beijing playbook. A new American foreign policy would not simply focus on reconfiguring current relationships and strengthening smaller partners. It could also break new ground in strengthening relationships by not framing western liberalism around the traditionally narrow notions of “democracy.” Look at Denmark. Copenhagen is a democracy, but it is notably strict on immigration compared to neighboring European states. The EU punishes Denmark for its sovereign approach to navigating mass migration into the continent, repeatedly attempting to insert itself into Danish sovereignty. Where the EU struggles in its ties with nations like Hungary and Poland, a Monroe Doctrine 2.0 might prevail. Preserving European nationalism in both states is a value proposition Washington should consider harnessing. Crafting a network of strong nations that protect themselves and their people, without brandishing the labels of “autocratic” or “democratic” is the next logical step for any (hope of a) new Western-led order.  Currently, this vision for a new American foreign policy appears unrealistic. The Biden administration turned back some of the gains in the sphere of economic protectionism and the new American value proposition put forth by President-elect Donald Trump. Nevertheless, potential Republican gains in the coming years may in fact provide the opportunity for a total transformation of Washington’s global value proposition (and indeed, ability to attract those falling into Russia’s orbit). From America to Australia, the average voter today is concerned with wage growth and the price of milk at the grocery store—much less with the promotion of woke values in the hills of Afghanistan. Washington and its community of like-minded partners across the globe form a dwindling club. Membership requests are drying up. The answer is not in a policy of radical isolationism that gives up the “exceptional” place America and liberal democracy writ large has on the world stage. The answer sits in our ability to rebrand and provide an attractive alternative to Russian and Chinese variants of international order.  A first step is rebuilding liberal Western cultural and economic power domestically. Western exceptionalism, pride, and conservative values in foreign policy at home must be restored. The U.S. and her partners like Australia share domestic ills like rampant homelessness, industrial offshoring, rising costs of living, and stagnant wage growth. A successful America on the world stage is strong at home and has a positive vision for a prosperous nation as well as an ambitious, values-based foreign policy. The post Trump Has the Chance to Make a New Monroe Doctrine appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs China Flexes Its Influence in Latin America A new megaport, participation in the G-20 and a meeting with Milei cap Xi Jinping’s diplomatic blitz. It has been a very busy week for Xi Jinping. The president of China spent the last several days on a whirlwind diplomatic tour of South America, showing off Chinese muscle—or, more accurately, Chinese money—in the traditional preserve of the United States. China has been actively building up its commercial and political power in the region for years, and the results are beginning to bear fruit. China has shown that it can use its readily available credit and massive market for South American imports to sway even the most dedicated of American allies. The tour began with the ceremonial opening of the Peruvian megaport of Chancay, the crown jewel of Chinese investment in South America and the centerpiece of a wide-ranging network of Chinese infrastructure and materials extraction projects in the region. The megaport falls under the aegis of China’s Belt and Road initiative, and serves to expand Chinese trade and transportation infrastructure as a geopolitical strategy by tying Latin American countries ever more closely with Chinese interests while making available the plentiful natural resources of the continent for use by Chinese industry. The port is owned by the Chinese shipping conglomerate Cosco, which has invested $1.3 billion in the project over the past five years and is expected to invest billions more in the years to come. With 15 quays and a deep-water harbor capable of accommodating the largest container ships currently in operation, the port will dramatically reduce the time needed to transport goods to and from Asia, being capable of handling over a million containers a year in its first stage of operation. China is simultaneously investing in a major railway expansion across the Amazon, which it hopes will facilitate its access to the important Brazilian market. In his inaugural speech at Chancay, Xi said, “We are witnessing not just new development under the Belt and Road Initiative in Peru, but also the birth of a new land-sea passage for a new era.” The port is just one of many Chinese projects in South America—the country is also heavily invested in the continent’s mining, transportation, oil extraction, power generation, and other vital industries. Its deliberate cultivation of and cooperation with regional governments is a sharp contrast to the approach of the hemisphere’s largest power, the United States, which has traditionally dominated Latin America. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has paid relatively little attention to the region; the Chinese government has been eager to take advantage of this lapse. Immediately after his visit to Chancay, Xi attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, where he gave a speech emphasizing China’s interest in integrating further with the region by implicitly contrasting it with the U.S. turn towards a more protectionist economic policy: Unbridled unilateralism and protectionism and the increasing fragmentation of the world economy threaten to reverse the trend toward economic globalization… Economic globalization, being an objective requirement for the development of the productive forces of society and a natural result of scientific and technological progress, represents a majestic historical current… We must reject the outdated path of a few countries pursuing dominance and hegemony. We must push for more positive impacts of economic globalization and enter a new stage of greater vitality, inclusiveness and sustainability. The diplomatic tour was capped with Xi’s attendance at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, where the Chinese president emphasized the country’s commitment to the “Global South” and argued that the international community should promote multipolarity and oppose economic protectionism, two of the key pillars of Chinese foreign policy. The country considers itself a major world power, in competition with the United States, and its position as the world’s largest exporter provides it with both a financial incentive to oppose trade barriers and a tool for extracting concessions from potential partners. Xi took the opportunity to put the power of the Chinese market on full display in Rio by holding a bilateral meeting with Argentina’s President Javier Milei on Tuesday, the final day of the G20 summit. Milei, who is one of America’s strongest allies in the region, was a fierce critic of China during his campaign for the presidency in 2023, stating flatly, “Not only will I not make deals with China, I will make deals with no communist at all. I am a defender of liberty, peace, and democracy. The communists will not come here. The Chinese will not come here.”  Now dealing with the nigh-impossible task of setting Argentina on a sound economic footing, however, Milei has changed his tune and sought closer relations with the Chinese government. “They are very interesting business partners,” Milei said. “They ask nothing of us, except that we leave them alone.” Not only is China one of the largest export markets for the vital Argentine agricultural sector, but China also—despite Milei’s previous hostilities—made a deal with the Argentine government five months into his term that allowed for the payment of a major portion of the national debt in yuans instead of dollars, a life-saving intervention for a central bank dangerously low on dollar reserves. Now Milei, fresh from being hosted at Mar-a-Lago and taking smiling photos with Donald Trump, is happy to sit across the table and make friendly conversation with Xi. “The current commercial and financial agreements and ties were reaffirmed at the meeting, as well as the desire to continue exploring new opportunities to broaden and improve everything concerning the bilateral relationship,” the president said in a statement. Xi even won an invitation from the libertarian to visit Argentina personally in the future. With the G20 summit over, Xi has since returned to China, but not without having made a major statement about his country’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. has considered Latin America to be its exclusive sphere of influence for over 200 years, since the articulation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, but this week has demonstrated that that claim may be on its way to obsolescence. The post China Flexes Its Influence in Latin America appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics The ‘Foreign Asset’ Smear Is Antidemocratic Calling Tulsi Gabbard a “Russian asset” is the latest iteration of a long American tradition of stifling debate. Credit: Consolidated News Photos/Shutterstock “Yes. There’s no question. I consider her someone who is likely a Russian asset.” Such was the incendiary accusation that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) leveled at the former congresswoman for Hawaii and current Trump administration nominee for director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Schultz’s accusation was not a one-off, but has been repeated by other elected officials and individuals who support the foreign policy status quo. Summing up this accusation, the political commentator Joe Walsh called Gabbard a Russian “asset” because “everything she has done and said over the past 10 years has been exactly what Russia would want her to say or do. So she’s either an asset or a dupe.” These efforts to cast Gabbard and other Americans as “assets or dupes” rely on conflating legitimate foreign policy dissent with the presence of (real or imagined) foreign espionage and propaganda on American soil. The insinuation or blatant accusation equating legitimate dissent to traitorous behavior is an evergreen aspect of American foreign policy discourse. From the First World War until the present, this rhetorical sleight of hand has conflated actual foreign efforts at propaganda and espionage with unrelated domestic speech acts and associations related to foreign policy dissent. This tactic also depends upon the United States government’s virtually endless state of war or pseudo-war since 1941. This state of society has allowed those who support an activist foreign policy to apply the levers of legal or rhetorical pressure against those who dissent on American foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, such accusations have narrowed the Overton window of foreign policy opinion and undermined the very democratic values that its users claim to defend.  This conflation has continuously served supporters of an interventionist foreign policy since American involvement in the First World War. In addition to a full suite of public and private attacks on American liberty, the federal government and its representatives routinely defamed American citizens who opposed entry into the war as enemy sympathizers. Even after the war, the 1920 Democratic presidential nominee, James M. Cox, referred to the Republicans as the “pro-German party,” and those who voted for his opponent, Warren Harding, as traitors. As a testament to their desire to move on from the war and its destruction of their liberties on the home front, Americans sent Harding to the White House in the biggest electoral blowout in nearly 50 years. Thanks to a comparatively modest foreign policy in the absence of significant great power competition during the interwar period, Americans were spared such attacks.  Yet they returned with a vengeance on the eve of the Second World War and, due to the demands of the country’s postwar foreign policy, remained in the bloodstream of American discourse, poised to flare up whenever beneficial to the protectors of American power abroad. The “Great Debate,” the so-called (and often acidic) public and legislative disputes that preceded American entry into the Second World War, took on a similar tone to those preceding the First World War. While not nearly as violent as its predecessor, the Great Debate nevertheless succeeded in casting doubt over those who opposed American entry into the war, presenting them as “dupes” or enemy agents by default. Wayne S. Cole, a noted historian of the era, argued such tactics artificially stunted American opinion on the issue of war and peace and presaged the more widely known (and condemned) tactics of Joseph McCarthy. Cole noted in 1974 that “guilt by association, the charge that individuals were serving a dangerous and evil foreign totalitarian cause by not sufficiently voicing their opposition to that cause, were devastating in destroying the reputations and effectiveness” of those who opposed American entry into the war. Due to the constant demands of an activist foreign policy, American society has yet to learn this lesson, whether the issue at hand was the First Iraq War, the Global War on Terror, the Second Iraq War, the Russo–Ukrainian war, or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. With all these foreign conflicts, defenders of an activist American foreign policy have not hesitated to tar their opponents as enemy “assets” or accuse them of repeating the “talking points” of a foreign power, all to the detriment of domestic discourse on the most pressing questions that face the American people.  This rhetorical tactic benefits from a condition of pseudo-war between the United States and a foreign power, a liminal space between peace and belligerence that allows the speaker to benefit from both. Whether it was the eve of American entry into the World Wars, the simmering tensions of the Cold War, the small and distant wars of the Global War on Terror, or the proxy war against the Russian Federation, supporters of an activist foreign policy can present their case with a sense of wartime urgency, while also hiding behind the U.S. government’s official status as a noncombatant. On the eve of its entry into both world wars, the United States government took overt and covert steps to wage a propaganda and public relations campaign against its citizens. Before the U.S. officially entered the Second World War in May of 1940, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt conflated the presence of actual Nazi agents in the U.S. with legitimate dissent and asserted that said skepticism did not result from “wholesome political debates” but “through the clever schemes of foreign agents.” Conversely, while on the campaign trail in November of 1940, FDR famously stated, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” FDR and the interventionists who supported his policies could have it both ways, claiming the moral authority of a country at war when it suited them, chiefly in the realm of discourse leveled at their noninterventionist opponents, while also retreating from their belligerent rhetoric, when necessary, by assuring the listener that the country was still at peace. The Second World War created a rhetorical template on which believers in an activist foreign policy still draw. Supporters of the U.S. government’s involvement in Ukraine and general policy towards Russia can present their policies, as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has done, as an existential defense of Europe while also assuring the American people that “we are not at war with Russia.” This gray area allows them to use the rhetorical tactics of a wartime state while still enjoying peace, but nevertheless sliding the Overton Window towards the former. There may well be legitimate reasons to oppose the nomination of Gabbard and other individuals to the incoming Trump administration. Such reasons, however, ought to remain within the merits of an individual’s ability to perform the functions of their potential role. To do otherwise would remove already tenuous democratic mechanisms from American foreign policy by anathematizing constitutionally protected speech and legitimate foreign policy opinions. Such tactics not only undermine foreign policy discourse but also strike at the foundation of a democratic society where the people are supposed to be sovereign.    The post The ‘Foreign Asset’ Smear Is Antidemocratic appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, After 4 YEARS Of Wearing COVID MASKS, Millions Of Americans Mentally And Physically IMPAIRED, Suffer Brain Fog, Disease And Immune System Deficiencies, was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) Four years ago, most people had no idea what Covid-19 could bring, and so plenty of common sense, logic and even scientific basis flew out the window when trying to prevent ourselves from catching it, or worse, dying from it. We were all lied to about almost everything, but many of us caught … Continue reading After 4 YEARS Of Wearing COVID MASKS, Millions Of Americans Mentally And Physically IMPAIRED, Suffer Brain Fog, Disease And Immune System Deficiencies ...

EU Farmer Protests Prove the Government is Full of Sh-t. And Burning Tires 11-19-2024 - The Poop Spraying Tractor's Are Back The FARMER PROTESTS are BACK and WILDER than ever - 50,697 views Nov. 19, 2024 The Pleb ?? Reporter - Go to https://piavpn.com/Pleb to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free! - PLEB REPORTER DISCORD SERVER:   / discord   Follow me on X   / truckdriverpleb   - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@theplebreporter

WOW!! - GERMAN PILOT IN COURT AFTER REFUSING TO FLY JETS THAT LEAVE CHEMTRAILS - Posted November 23rd, 2024 - UTL COMMENT:- WANT SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE THAT IT'S REALLY HAPPENING? - WATCH THIS REPORT!!!!....AND......WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? - Anti Lockdown Alliance(GLOBAL) @Demo2020cracy News & opinions you don't see on the 'news' from around the world. ----------------------------------------------- Source: "EyesCatchLies" https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9r3aefymLdU/ - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: UNDERSTANDING THE LIES https://old.bitchute.com/channel/right_wing_nuclear_armed_aussie/

Subversion and Subjugation of the Masses Through Expending Mental/Physical Energy/Time - The Pharaohs - "Elite" Crowd Control Methods - 943 views Nov. 22, 2024 Mark Windows - Windows On The World - A look at the Ancient Egyptian control system through the Pharaohs and how it is still relevant today. - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@windowsontheworld2394

UTL COMMENT:- These companies are literally MURDEROUS, GENOCIDAL CRIMINALS.... And what's done about it?? .............................................................. Crickets..... Article here:- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/15/johnson-and-johnson-sunscreen-recall-benzene Source: "PɪʀᴀᴛᴇPᴇᴛᴇ" https://old.bitchute.com/video/xmFI2p1O7xcm

UTL COMMENT:- WANT SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE THAT IT'S REALLY HAPPENING? WATCH THIS REPORT!!!! ....AND......WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? Anti Lockdown Alliance(GLOBAL) @Demo2020cracy News & opinions you don't see on the 'news' from around the world. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: "EyesCatchLies" https://old.bitchute.com/video/i9r3aefymLdU/