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

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

Politics The Trump Program’s Reaganite Precursor DOGE is not the first effort to take government inefficiency in hand. Credit: Cynthia Johnson/Getty Images The more things change, the more things seem the same. Facing a struggling economy and weary electorate following his 1980 landslide victory over incumbent president Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan touted “Morning in America.” The new president indicated that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” and promised to “drain the swamp”—a phrase to be heard again—by cutting budgets, reducing regulation and thinning the ranks of federal employees. So began the Reagan Revolution. Forty-four years later, the Trump Triumph looks almost eerily similar in some ways, especially as details of his plans to streamline government emerge. Yet assuming too close a parallel would be a mistake. The circumstances that spawned Reagan and Donald Trump inspired their plans for reshaping government. Reagan took office with 2.1 million employed in the executive branch. His election followed an economic upheaval caused by high-priced oil, price controls, heavy-but-failing investment in synthetic fuel production, skyrocketing inflation, and heaven-bound interest rates. To make matters worse, failed foreign policy had led to more than 50 Americans being held hostage in Iran. Election Day 2024 may one day be labeled as another revolution—or, maybe, as a disruption—lifted by a Reagan-like patchwork of blue-collar workers, rural Americans and coalitions of minority groups. In a similar way, it followed major economic disruptions caused by a pandemic that killed 1 million Americans, an extended economic shutdown, excessive stimulus spending, runaway inflation, and severe foreign policy challenges in the Middle East and Ukraine. Iran was involved with Hamas’s capture of 101 hostages in Gaza, including several Americans. An electorate also troubled by offshored industrial jobs and failed immigration policies heard Trump’s shouts of “Make America Great Again.” Trump did not match Reagan’s 489 electoral votes, but won an impressive 312 versus Kamala Harris’s 226. Inheriting some 2.3 people million federal workers—about 10 percent more than Reagan did—Trump now brings back promises to drain the swamp and give the government shock treatment with major department closings and regulatory and worker rollbacks. Today, the number of federal regulations is another story. In 1980, the Code of Federal Regulation, the resting place for all active federal rules, stood at just over 100,000 pages. Last year, the count was 195,000. In this way, We the People are more restricted by rules than ever. Pages of regulation, not the number of people employed in government, are the first thing that should be drained.  The timing to reassess the scope of our government was right in both cases. After years of unrelenting federal intervention, we need to rebalance the economy and search for a new normal. To bring fundamental change, Reagan’s enthusiastic budget director, David Stockman, set in motion review activities that aimed to reduce the cost of governing. These were supplemented by the activities of the Grace Commission, headed by industrialist J. Peter Grace. The commission brought on 150 private sector executives, funded by a separate foundation, who worked throughout government to find ways to save money. Grace instructed his fellow workers to “be bold” and “work like tireless bloodhounds. Don’t leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency.”  In 1984, the commission provided almost 2,500 recommendations, which it claimed would save what would be $1.3 trillion in 2024 dollars over three years when fully implemented. Since many of the recommendations required legislation that was not forthcoming, the savings obtained fell to the neighborhood of $300 billion in 2024 dollars, which, of course, is not chump change. Trump is following the pattern seen in Reagan’s Grace Commission. He has named the multibillionaire Elon Musk and the former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a non-governmental Department of Government Efficiency with the goal of finding ways to cut $1 trillion from federal spending. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Trump and Reagan have similar goals for government reform, but there is one fundamental difference separating them: Reagan spoke fervently for unleashing the free spirit of man—of all men and women, wherever they lived, even behind the walls that once divided East from West Germany and separated Americans from competing nations. He was unrelenting in his support for freedom and free trade, while understanding that at times the goal would be compromised. In some of Reagan’s most spirited words, he told of how he wanted America to be like a “city on a hill,” describing this vision in his 1989 farewell address to the nation: I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. Trump has another vision of America, presenting himself as a protective Colossus standing in our harbors, bargaining across America’s closed borders to determine who and what may enter by immigration controls and tariffs.  The Trump result, if somehow successful through the exercise of leverage or other means, cannot be considered a Reagan-like revolution. The government may become smaller and more efficient, in some sense of the word. But the nation’s movement toward being Reagan’s shining city on a hill will have to wait for another day. The post The Trump Program’s Reaganite Precursor appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Europe Is Woefully Unprepared for Trump II The Europeans really are about to be “alone in Europe.” The decline of past empires always began with a loss of the ability to adapt to changing environments. The American empire postponed its adjustment to the post-1989 environment until the tenure of the 45th president. It was Donald Trump who drew conclusions from the transformations in the international order after 1989. First, a serious rival emerged in Asia, whose rise has led to significant consequences at home. Second, if the fate of the world is at stake in Asia—specifically whether America will retain its leading position—it follows that Europe cannot continue to absorb so many resources and so much attention. This shift caused bouts of panic across the Atlantic. There is a growing realization that it is the EU that has irreversibly lost its ability to adapt to the changes shaping its environment.  Some believe Trump aims to pressure Europe into increasing its defense spending through threats. Others speculate he may choose a “dormant NATO” strategy. Finally, there is the possibility of abandoning the Atlantic alliance altogether. The “dormant NATO” strategy demonstrates sound geopolitical logic, and the similarities between views expressed by this publication’s Sumantra Maitra and statements from Vice President J.D. Vance lend additional plausibility to this scenario. In essence, America’s priority is Asia, and further expansion of the alliance must be halted, with the burden shared more equitably. The most important conclusion from European perspective is this: The American presence has been the primary cause for military atrophy on the Old Continent. According to Maitra, the progenitor of the dormant NATO concept, the only guarantee of a united Europe is the United States. Washington has imposed an unnatural security architecture on the continent. Maitra does not suggest abandoning Europe entirely but advocates reducing the U.S. role to that of an offshore balancer. Vance emphasized during the Munich Security Conference that there is little justification for the U.S. allocating such large sums to aid Ukraine, rightly questioning whether Europeans remain allies or have merely become clients. He holds the conviction that once the U.S. shifts its stance and compels European countries to become more self-reliant, they will assume the burden of defending their own continent. Yet the notion that Europe can adapt may, in the end, prove to be an American fantasy. The French philosopher and left-wing Member of the European Parliament Raphaël Glucksmann voiced European anxiety on social media, stating on X, “From now on, we will find ourselves alone in Europe.” One cause of this sentiment could be the growing realization that the continent’s defense ambitions are a fiasco, hobbled by the inability to muster the necessary political resolve. A telling example is the vast program of military modernization announced by Olaf Scholz after the invasion on Ukraine. One German think tank has noted that, after two years, it is clear the Zeitenwende has failed. The think tank also recommends abandoning the term altogether, as it has become discredited. Moreover, it highlights that Berlin may soon be unable to sustain 2 percent defense spending once the special fund is depleted in 2027. European defense efforts are failing in the area of harmonizing military purchases. Most notably, dependence on U.S. arms manufacturers has only grown in recent years. According to SIPRI, between 2019 and 2023, American arms accounted for 55 percent of European materiel imports, up from 35 percent in the period between 2014 and 2018. As France’s former Army Minister Florence Parly bitterly observed, NATO seems to have no Article V, but rather an Article F-35. The fighter jet has become the most frequently purchased combat aircraft by European countries, with contracts signed by Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland, the Czech Republic, the UK, and others. The money currently spent by European countries is barely sufficient to maintain their existing military capabilities, let alone boost them. European companies remain skeptical about how long the trend of increased defense spending will persist and are hesitant to invest in expanding their capacities. Joint projects between Germany and France to develop new aircraft or next-generation tanks are mired in disputes and face constant delays. The fragmentation of the defense industrial base persists, along with the asymmetry of geopolitical interests. In addition to dismantling the illusion of a cohesive European defense, Trump 47 is expected to push the countries of the Old Continent toward a more protectionist attitude. Will they be able to present a united front against Trump’s “New American System”? Experts caution that the tariffs proposed by the president-elect are likely to hit Germany the hardest. Germany’s export-driven growth model finds itself in the crossfire: Not only must it contend with Trump’s neomercantilism, but it also faces challenges from China’s industrial policy. Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, has already expressed the EU’s readiness to negotiate, stating, “We could offer to buy certain things from the United States and signal that we are prepared to sit at the table and see how we can work together.” It seems EU’s elites only response is to repeat the same banalities about “strategic autonomy” that President Emmanuel Macron has been promoting since Trump’s first victory. European elites have made two critical mistakes: They allowed themselves to believe that Trump’s first victory was a mere fluke, and they failed to prepare for the possibility of his comeback. Platitudes about “strategic autonomy” were merely a publicity angle during Ursula von der Leyen’s previous term as president of the European Commission. Truly achieving it would have required a large-scale industrial policy and meeting one of two conditions: either persuading Germany to fund it or cutting subsidies for French agriculture. The first option is unlikely to work—not because Paris couldn’t stomach even more imposing German hegemony, but because Berlin has no intention of paying for it. The second option is equally unfeasible, as it would amount to the controlled demolition of the French agricultural sector, which, as the late historian Tony Judt quipped, has sometimes seemed like the EU’s primary raison d’être. Nevertheless, posturing aside, the EU oligarchy does have its own worldview, distinct from the concept of strategic autonomy. This ideology is encapsulated in Anu Bradford’s book The Brussels Effect. The titular “effect” refers to the EU’s status as such a vast market that its confrontational regulatory demands are effectively exported worldwide. This is intended to compensate for the EU’s weaknesses in other areas. Perhaps Brussels cannot spark innovation, defeat Islamic terrorism, stem the rise of populism, or transform the EU into a military power, but it can aspire to dictate the world’s regulatory architecture.  The central premise of the regulatory empire concept is that Europe is an indispensable market. But the EU is no longer as indispensable as it once was. For instance, Apple’s financial statements categorize “Europe” to include not only the EU but also the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey, and the entire Middle East. A closer examination reveals that EU member countries account for only 7 percent of Apple’s revenue. Moreover, companies like META and Apple have refrained from launching some of their latest AI-based services in the EU, deeming the regulations overly burdensome. This suggests that market bifurcation in cutting-edge technologies like AI could become a reality.  Just as cars in South America tend to be slower, less safe, and less fuel-efficient than the models sold in the EU or the U.S., Europe may now find itself stuck with older AI models. If AI proves to be the engine of growth that many predict—a possibility that cannot be dismissed—the Old Continent risks becoming an economic backwater. The dream of strategic autonomy would drift even further out of reach. The reality of the EU, however, is neither strategic autonomy nor a regulatory superpower. As the German-American technologist John Loeber observes, Europe, on a macro scale, is primarily a consumer. Almost everything of significant value is imported from either the U.S. or China. In contrast, the U.S. is a producer on a macro scale, continuing to drive progress in areas like scientific research, technology, and space exploration. The defining feature of the EU, according to Loeber, is “providerism”: “the ability to ignore political-economic realities because everything is provided for you, with the underlying mechanics and costs abstracted away.” One of the facets of providerism is, of course, the outsourcing of security to the U.S. Less discussed, however, is the outsourcing of the European Green Deal to China—and, more recently, to the U.S. through the purchase of LNG. Brussels’ flagship project is heavily dependent on PRC, as Beijing dominates the supply chains for clean technologies: “China is responsible for the production of about 90 per cent of the world’s rare earth elements, at least 80 per cent of all the stages of making solar panels and 60 per cent of wind turbines and electric-car batteries. In some of the materials used in batteries and more niche products, China’s market share is close to 100 per cent.” How is this providerism faring? At the Lisbon Summit in March 2000, the European Council and heads of state set highly ambitious goals, including surpassing the American economy by 2010. In hindsight, it was an exercise in self-delusion. Over the past 15 years, the eurozone economy has expanded by approximately 6 percent in dollar terms, compared to 82 percent growth for the U.S. As a result, the average EU country now has a lower per capita income than every U.S. state except Idaho and Mississippi. A couple of years ago, the European Commission published a report titled Global Europe 2050, which included a scenario called “Europe where nobody cares.” It’s difficult not to imagine the EU’s future settling somewhere between a stagnant “Europe where nobody cares” and Europe of national egoisms. As France’s Prime Minister Michel Barnier noted, there will be a strong temptation for countries to prioritize bilateralism and focus solely on their own interests. The likelihood of a Hobbesian “everyone for himself” logic prevailing in Europe, with states pursuing pragmatic deals with great powers, does not seem remote. The economist Reuven Brenner observed that when a country’s position declines relative to others, it often creates an incentive to bet on new ideas. This risk-taking fiber, however, has been weakened on the Old Continent by two factors: the already mentioned growing burden of EU regulation and the liberal gerontocracy. Never before has Europe been so old, with the elderly wielding unprecedented influence. Many European states have become fictions through which one generation lives at the expense of the young. The weight of the pension systems will become overwhelming, while the assets accumulated by the old only continue to increase in value, making it harder and harder to buy a home and start a family. Consider one example: On average, between 2015 and 2023 house prices rose by 50 percent in Europe.  The pensioners make up the largest voting bloc, which helps explain, for instance, the limited investment in new infrastructure. Long-term projects often conflict with political parties’ focus on short-term priorities, aimed at satisfying the largest segment of the electorate—the older generation—who have less interest in the distant future. Gerontocracy and regulatory impulses have permanently reduced the risk tolerance Europeans so desperately need today. Will the EU be capable of a correction of its trajectory? Can the leopard change its spots? Europeans know how to be afraid together, but they have never learned to work well with each other. However, the greatest danger is not that Europe will stand alone, but that it will become irrelevant. With Trump 47 we will find out whether hope for more than occasional glimmers of lucidity is justified. The post Europe Is Woefully Unprepared for Trump II appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Responsible Leadership Required Assassination of Healthcare CEO sends shockwaves through political discourse. In the days following the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the left side of social media erupted in what ranged from a bizarrely gleeful reaction —or “joy,” to use former Washington Post and New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz’s preferred terminology—to at least not an especially empathetic one. One Columbia University professor who billed himself as a “trauma expert” and “anti-violence,” though also a “Commie,” wrote a viral post saying, “Today, we mourn the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I’m sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who needlessly die each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.”  A progressive author claimed on another website that “the jacket the CEO-murderer wore is flying off the shelves” and wondered if Democrats had failed to capitalize on the “popular anger” that was out there in the country this election year. The suspect in the CEO killing, Luigi Mangione, appears at first blush to have somewhat more complicated politics than the cooks of the initial hot takes about the fatal shooting. But among the interesting issues raised by this crime, including the ethics of the American healthcare system and vigilante justice, is whether there is a huge reservoir of untapped anger on the left. Compared to eight years ago, public response to Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election has been muted. Buildings were boarded up in a few places in Washington, D.C., but there were no large riots or public disturbances. Democrats and even left-wing activists mostly seem resigned to his return to power. Perhaps that will change in January, but even the paroxysms of rage against the hosts of Morning Joe for “normalizing” the once and future president didn’t have the same feeling as the Resistance in its heyday.  Much of the outrage that is on display today comes from the Trump-era grifter networks, like orange man Bibles and other MAGA merch but marketed to different, pink hat-wearing people. Yet anecdotally, I do regularly encounter both in public and on social media partisan Democrats and anti-Trump voters making “Stop the Steal”-style claims about the 2024 election, typically involving Elon Musk, the Russians or just a generalized lack of will to stop Trump among. None of this is amplified by Democratic politicians or media figures of any significance, but in my admittedly blue-state-biased experience—I’m from Boston and live in the Northern Virginia suburbs of D.C.—as widespread as some of the conspiracy theories about Kremlin-altered vote totals that were actually reflected in the polls during Trump’s first term. Trump was himself the target of two assassination attempts, though we know less about those would-be assassins’ motivations than Mangione’s apparent manifesto. (Though we know a little bit about the surviving suspect and the Trump-Russia conspiracies appear to have some relevance.) But the people trafficking in 2024 election conspiracy theories are more fringe and less influential than those celebrating, or at least excessively nuancing, the healthcare CEO’s slaying, who are in turn less influential than those sowing division over Daniel Penny’s acquittal in New York. “We need some black vigilantes,” New York BLM co-founder Hank Newsome said after the verdict. “People want to jump up and choke us and kill us for being loud? How about we do the same when they attempt to oppress us?” Few leading Democrats are trying to stoke whatever rage exists on the first two fronts. President Joe Biden, perhaps feeling a bit of schadenfreude toward Democrats who unceremoniously dumped him and lost anyway, has been magnanimous in the aftermath of Trump’s win. Vice President Kamala Harris has spoken like a self-help guru to her supporters. Both appear determined to offer Trump the normal White House transition that he famously denied them four years ago. After Mangione was apprehended in Altoona, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who many Democrats wish was on the 2024 ticket and could be the party’s presidential nominee in 2028, said, “The killer is not a hero. He should not be hailed as one.” This is responsible leadership, whether that is what the base wants or not. But in the current environment, it can be difficult to determine whether “very online” people are numerically insignificant despite their large internet presence or represent something larger. Biden won in 2020 in part by ignoring online discourse. Trump won four years later by tapping into low-propensity voters on the internet. Democrats who listened to Joe Rogan were more informed about what was happening in the campaign, and more prepared for Trump’s eventual election, than consumers of older media like the more liberal cable news channels. Time will tell whether there is a deeper rage and whether it looks to be calmed by Kamala Harris’s joy or Taylor Lorenz’s. The post Responsible Leadership Required appeared first on The American Conservative.

Dr.SHIVA™ LIVE: Syria: The Truth. Zionist-USA-Trump-Biden-Russia-Assad Jihadist Collusion - (SEE VIDEOS LINKED BELOW AND PROOF OF JEWISH/BRITISH REVOLUTIONS) - 6,333 views December 9, 2024 Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD - Dr.SHIVA™ LIVE: Syria: The Truth. Zionist-USA-Trump-Biden-Russia-Assad-Jihadist Collusion In this presentation, Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, Inventor of Email, Scientist, and Engineer, provides a systems analysis on Truth about Syria and how the collusion of Zionist-USA-Trump-Biden-Russia-Assad-Jihadist has led to squashing the emerging bottoms up movement of working people in Syria. There is much to learn for all of us on what must be done to prevent this in the future to #ShatterTheSwarm. Full Blog Post: https://vashiva.com/dr-shiva-live-syr... - Dr. Shiva's links are continued below - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@drvashiva *** This in no way is in any disrespect to Dr. Shiva. But the Revolutions in Europe are a Crucial Part of the British Empire and the Transformation Towards the NWO. And everyone Needs to Understand this. Ok. To a Greater extent Dr. Shiva is right about the Russian Revolution. There were bottom's up movements in Russia before the Bolsheviks that were put down with much difficulty. But what happened before that is a very complicated situation. Predatory Jews had gone too far many times and were eventually retaliated upon. This made the Jews thirsty for blood and revenge. There was a Jewish Communist attempt Prior to 1917 that failed. But this factors in greatly to the entire big picture. I Highly Recommend This 3 Part Series: Russia & The Khazarian Century. 100 Years of War, Revolution, Suffering and Death. Part 1 of 3 https://rumble.com/v2sdwcy-russia-and-the-khazarian-century.-100-years-of-war-revolution-suffering-and.html Russia & The Khazarian Century Part 2. 100 Years of War, Revolution, Suffering and Death https://rumble.com/v2sdz6i-russia-and-the-khazarian-century-part-2.-100-years-of-war-revolution-suffer.html Russia & The Khazarian Century Part 3 of 3. 100 Years of War, Revolution, Suffering and Death https://rumble.com/v2se0lg-russia-and-the-khazarian-century-part-3-of-3.-100-years-of-war-revolution-s.html See This Article Described Below: JEWISH INVOLVEMENT IN THE YOUNG EUROPE COLOR REVOLUTIONS OF MAZZINI Giuseppe Mazzini: Grand Magician (33° Freemason) of Divide-and-Conquer, Co-Opted Nationalism https://www.winterwatch.net/2024/05/giuseppe-mazzini-grand-magican-of-divide-and-conquer-co-opted-nationalism/ THERE DEFINITELY WERE POPULIST BOTTOMS UP MOVEMENTS BY THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE BIT THEIR MOVEMENTS WERE HIGHJACKED BY LENIN AND HIS CONSPIRATORS However, Lenin was indeed mentored and his cohorts were working together. They were all indeed supported and funded by the British Ruling Elite, America and the Jewish Bankers and their Corporate allies. LENIN AND HIS BOLSHEVIKS WERE ABLE TO TAKE OVER BECAUSE THEY HAD ELABORATE PLANS, WERE WELL COORDI

30C3 - The Militarization of the Internet - Jacob Appelbaum To Protect & Infect Presentation (12/30/2013) - Corporations and Governments using our own technology against us for Total Surveillance. - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://rumble.com/c/GovCorpWatch

"IT HARMS SOCIETY WHEN HUMANS LIVE BEYOND 70"!! The World Economic Forum has reportedly instructed World governments to dismantle age of consent laws while introducing something even more sinister: “Age of Death” laws. Under this new system, individuals will no longer have the right to live beyond a government-mandated age - let’s say 70 years old, for example - without first obtaining state approval. If you’re deemed unworthy by a death panel, it’s straight to the “suicide pod” for you. This is not science fiction. This is the reality being planned behind closed doors. Stay tuned as we uncover the dark implications of this global agenda and what it means for your future. Get Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Fenbendazole here: https://pills4ever.com - use coupon code 'peoplesvoice' for 15% off. - Become a member of the world’s first ever cyber nation: https://joseon.com - Visit https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/IPV6 to take back control of the Internet

Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick have been #marriagegoals for a long time—36 years and still going strong, in fact. The actors met on set of the film "Lemon Sky" in 1987, got married 18 months later, and have been happily hitched ever since. Though they've both managed to work on films and television series throughout their marriage, they put a lot of focus on raising their two kids (now both in their 30s), splitting their time between Hollywood, New York and their farm in rural Connecticut. Bacon and Sedgwick like to share videos from the farm, often featuring one or both of them singing together with their farm animals, which is every bit as endearing as it sounds. Any couple thriving after nearly four decades of marriage is a joy to see, but for a famous couple it's particularly heartwarming. Fame and marriage don't always make the best bedfellows, but these two have made it work. Even when they're complaining about one another, their genuine affection shines through. Bacon and Sedgwick made a video playing with the "We listen and we don't judge" social media trend, where couple share relationship confessions with one another. Unlike other couples who shared things that made people question the health of their relationship, these two demonstrate how humor, honesty and respect work together in a happy marriage. See on Instagram People are loving the playful dynamic between them and the obvious love they have for one another."I like these two so much. They love each other dearly and they can make fun out of each other without being offended and get mad. Great humor, essential for a relationship.""That's why you two beautiful people have been married for 37+ year's. Real love; openness, respect, loyalty, toleration, learning, growth, evolving together. A billion positive reasons.. even when "trying" not to judg, with a healthy dose of communication and getting it all out""Such a nice way to counsel each other and those watching, putting it into song and talking things out. Being married after all these long years, doing stuff like this together is the icing on the marriage that keeps it together. How wonderful is that. This put a smile on my face.""How beautiful it would be if we could really really practice this in our lives and laugh about the small things and not let the “bigger” things be as big a deal as we make them out to be. ?☺️? You two are beyond adorable and give us all relationship goals.""I love you guys. The fact that you can do this with humor and do it publicly speaks loudly of your strength & tenacity as a couple. Be love,?, be peace ☮️. Perhaps you should be marriage counselors??…"People who have been married for a long time know that honesty and communication are important in a relationship, but so is not sweating the small stuff and forgiving one another's minor annoyances. Throw in the ability to laugh at ourselves and some sweet harmonies, and you have the magic combo we see working for Bacon and Sedgwick here. But you don't have to have a guitar-playing spouse to share fun moments together, communicate with love and kindness, and listen without judgment—truly. You can watch Bacon and Sedgwick's other collaborations and see glimpses into their life on the farm on Kevin Bacon's Instagram page.