Politics Trump’s Win Was a Victory for Liberalism He was the liberal major party candidate in the race all along. Credit: BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP via Getty Images In this year’s presidential election, one party’s nominee took part in a primary, had the party’s voters decide whom they wanted, secured the nomination, and proceeded to get over 74 million votes in a decisive democratic victory. The other party had no primary. Eventually, they decided their de facto presidential nominee was too feeble-minded, so they couped him and installed a new nominee with no primary. And she lost. Bigly. But this is not what made Donald Trump the champion of liberalism in this race. The Democrats’ electoral process, or lack thereof, needs to be pointed out time and again. The party forever claiming that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy couldn’t be bothered to practice it. But no, on top of this, Biden-Harris Democrats and their allies weaponized the legal system against Trump, attempted to throw him off state ballots, attempted to imprison him, forced third-party challengers off ballots, restricted free speech, and threatened to continue attacking and regulating free speech should they win. These are the acts of authoritarians. This is tinpot dictator stuff not typically associated with modern American politics. And the Democratic Party was comfortable with all of it as it was happening and would have grown even more comfortable with it had they continued to occupy the White House. This sentiment is party-wide. I would argue with Democratic friends about the lawfare used against Trump. Most Democrats thought every charge against Trump was justified. They would not question it even a little. They had rationalized it. When I would insist that what so many Democrats now consider “misinformation” or “hate speech” was still protected speech, these people would reject this notion. Often vehemently. The 2024 Democratic presidential ticket openly rejected the First Amendment. So what would anyone expect the average Democratic voter to think? When the hosts of ABC’s The View were melting down on the day after the election, co-host Sara Haines said, “if we could regulate social media”—“we” meaning Democrats—that Trump’s victory might have been avoided. No one on that panel batted an eye. This kind of rampant illiberalism has devoured Democrats’ brains. Reason’s Billy Binion commented on X about Haines’s remark: “I say this as someone who is not a Republican: If the only way you can win is by using the power of the state to silence people who disagree with you, then you do not deserve to win.” Exactly. Thankfully, Democrats didn’t win. Not just because they deserved not to win. But because they needed to lose. We have reached that point. This is beyond mere disagreement, which should always be respected. If you can’t explain to a fellow American why free speech is sacrosanct, where do you go from there? If an American citizen no longer sees any harm in the government going after their political opponents, what do you do with that? You don’t do anything. All reason has left the room. So you squash them like a bug. There were people who value basic liberalism who didn’t vote for Trump for president in this election. Many old-school liberals and progressives supported the Green Party’s Jill Stein. Many classical liberals and libertarians voted for the Libertarian Party’s Chase Oliver. Millions did vote for Trump, obviously. But the one party for which liberalism was not part of the platform in 2024 was the Democrats. The increasingly illiberal left, impervious to reason or their own former principles, just had to be defeated, preferably soundly, and was. Trump is no liberal. But he is now the leader of the only major American political party that still champions and defends, however imperfectly, the most elementary precepts of what generations have long understood as basic constitutional liberties, inherited by all Americans and protected by their Constitution. This can never be tossed away. I don’t care how much blind rage Democrats have for Donald Trump. With Trump’s newer allies and fellow travelers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, Elon Musk, respected media advocates like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan—all of whom expressed a deep need to protect the freedoms I’ve listed here—we have the possibility of a brighter future. Far more than if the next president was going to be Kamala Harris. Thank God she didn’t win. For liberalism. The post Trump’s Win Was a Victory for Liberalism appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Make Way for the Colonel Douglas Macgregor would be an invaluable voice in the second Trump administration. In the wake of the former and future president Donald Trump’s historic electoral victory, the mandate for an America First foreign policy has never been clearer. The American electorate has expressed a desire for a departure from the entrenched globalist strategies that have long characterized U.S. foreign policy. At this pivotal moment, the former Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a man of valor, intellect, and a fierce advocate for national sovereignty, emerges as the quintessential figure to help Trump steer this new course. His blend of combat bravery, strategic foresight, and commitment to efficiency makes him not just a fitting candidate but the ideal steward for Trump’s vision of a redefined American military and diplomatic strategy. Among well-known figures considered for secretary of defense, Macgregor has Trump’s back. Macgregor’s military record is a testament to his capabilities. His leadership during the Gulf War, especially at the Battle of 73 Easting, demonstrated not only his courage but his strategic acumen in high-stakes environments. This experience isn’t just historical, it’s indicative of a leader who can navigate complex international scenarios with a focus on achieving decisive outcomes, much like the mandate Trump has received to end the endless wars and rebuild America’s strength at home. Macgregor’s book Breaking the Phalanx did not merely criticize ineffective military bureaucracy, it was a blueprint for military transformation that resonates with Trump’s desire to streamline and optimize military resources. His advocacy for a leaner, more agile force aligns with a foreign policy that prioritizes national interests over maintaining a costly global military presence that drains American taxpayers. His foresight in military restructuring could translate into pragmatic policy-making that reduces wasteful spending, focusing instead on threats relevant to real American interests. During Trump’s first term, Macgregor was considered for several high-ranking positions, eventually serving as a senior advisor to Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller. Here, he played a crucial role in advocating for and implementing the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a policy that aligned with Trump’s promise to end America’s endless wars. If the Biden administration had followed the Trump plan, the withdrawal from Afghanistan would have been beautiful rather than the disaster it became. Macgregor’s presence in the administration provided a bulwark against what he described as the “bipartisan globalist elite,” offering a voice for restraint and peace over foolish intervention. Macgregor’s commentary has consistently pushed for a foreign policy of restraint, where military engagement is a calculated decision based on clear threats to U.S. security. His skepticism of NATO’s current relevance, advocacy for burden-sharing among allies, and his push for a negotiated peace in conflicts like Ukraine highlight his commitment to peace through strategic diplomacy rather than perpetual conflict. His vision could be instrumental in a second Trump term, where the focus would be on placing America’s interests first. ”We must focus on America’s vital interests, not on the globalist agenda that has often led us into unnecessary conflicts and overextended our military,” Macgregor has said. With Trump’s historic election, the American people have given a mandate for sweeping border security, and Macgregor’s stance here is bold. He sees the security of the nation’s borders as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty, advocating for robust measures to combat the influence of cartels and manage immigration. His perspective could be crucial in a role where national security policy intersects with domestic concerns, making him a vital asset in addressing one of America’s pressing security challenges. The potential collaboration with Elon Musk, through his planned Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), could herald a new era in how we approach military spending. Musk’s vision for government efficiency, combined with Macgregor’s military expertise, could lead to significant reforms. They could target wasteful spending, implement a historic audit of the Pentagon, and redirect military funds towards innovative technologies rather than outdated, costly systems. This partnership could ensure that military resources are aligned with the president’s agenda for efficiency, effectiveness, and American technological advancement. As Trump embarks on his second term, the role of secretary of defense seems tailor-made for someone like Macgregor. His outsider status relative to the military-industrial establishment could be his greatest asset in executing a policy that looks beyond D.C. groupthink on military engagements and towards an America First military reflective of the people’s mandate. A Macgregor leadership role in Trump’s administration would speak loud and clear: America First! In foreign policy, American interests should be paramount and military might should be driven by purpose, not special interest profits and bloated bureaucracy. Macgregor represents more than just military expertise; he embodies the change Trump’s re-election heralds. And he’s a contributing editor for The American Conservative—another point in his favor. His appointment would signal a commitment to a foreign policy where American interests lead, where military might is used judiciously, and where strategic foresight guides the nation away from the quagmire of endless wars towards a future where America leads by example, not just by force. In an America First administration, Macgregor’s role would be pivotal in translating the will of the people into a policy that is both bold and prudent, reflecting the new era of American foreign policy under Trump’s leadership. The post Make Way for the Colonel appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Trump Must Be Bold With His National Security Appointments Here are some candidates who will shake up the Pentagon. Former President Donald Trump is coming back to the White House in January. He’ll need to choose his top national security officials wisely. He promised in 2016 that he would not surround himself “with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.” Even so, Trump hamstrung his first administration with conventional choices that pushed his foreign policy in a conventional direction. Worse, some on his foreign policy team even worked to undermine him. Yet many names raised for cabinet-level national security roles these days are not people who will drive change. So who should Trump add to his list for critical jobs like secretary of defense and secretary of state? Senator Rick Scott It’s strange we don’t see Scott (R-FL) floated for secretary of defense. He has the executive experience—he was the governor of Florida for eight years. He’s on both the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, and his state is loaded with bases, servicemembers, and veterans. He’s used his platform to lay out a more Trumpian GOP foreign policy. His 2022 “Plan to Rescue America” opposed nation-building, emphasized burden-sharing in alliances (“We will not send our kids to do what their kids will not do”), and touted economic competition with China over war. (That last bit rhymes with J.D. Vance’s views, too.) The plan even spoke of stopping “woke ideological indoctrination” of the military—a contributing element to the recruiting crisis, and a problem sure to be a theme in a new Trump term. Scott also served in the Navy as an NCO, not a senior officer, and thus might be better able to engage with the common servicemember and find the gaps that emerge between Pentagon ideas and on-the-ground realities. Scott might jump at the job. He’s aiming to be Senate majority leader, but success in that fight is far from certain. If he’s not the master of the Senate, Trump should consider him to head the Pentagon. Former Senator Jim Webb The Virginian has a stellar resume for a job like secretary of defense, having served as a senator, secretary of the navy, and assistant secretary of defense, in addition to collecting a chestful of medals as a Marine officer in Vietnam. Trump’s team considered him for SecDef in 2019 before elevating Patrick Shanahan and then Mark Esper; the latter became a significant thorn in Trump’s side.  It’s unsurprising Webb was considered: he is cut from the same Jacksonian cloth as Trump. And Webb was right on the Iraq War, having made a strong, reality-based case against the invasion. His argument is worth rereading today. He correctly diagnosed the problems of the pre-war debate: “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.”  He got the geopolitics of the war right, too: “Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall.” True, indeed—and it took political courage to say true things in the war fever of late 2002.  Webb has since been focused on China, and his extensive experience in Southeast Asia (including speaking Vietnamese) would be an asset to U.S. relationships in that region. Webb even negotiated—as a senator!—the release of an American prisoner in Myanmar. Hostage releases were a major priority for the first Trump administration. Another plus for Webb: He ought to be an easy confirmation. He’d be a former Democratic senator with a nomination from a Republican president. His oppo file has been aired to death—he ran in 2006’s tightest Senate race and then challenged Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. He has the knowledge for the job— remember him stumping the sitting Senator George Allen with a question about the Senkaku dispute? He’s older than most contenders, but only a few months older than Trump himself and years younger than the current commander-in-chief. Plus, putting an Asia-focused official atop DoD or State would be a step toward realizing the long-promised pivot to Asia. Representative Warren Davidson Davidson (R-OH) has made a name for himself as a thought leader in foreign policy circles, taking on subjects from NATO to Yemen. His sharp criticism of NATO’s inequitable burden sharing would be a powerful signal to Europe. This could enable Trump to play “good cop” to Davidson’s “bad cop.” His emphasis on clarity concerning our goals in Ukraine would be a vital addition to conversations about bringing that conflict to a close. Another point in his favor: When Trump spoke of withdrawing from Syria, the Beltway melted down, but Davidson called an exit “appropriate and long overdue.” His advice looks wise as American troops hunker down around the Middle East. Davidson has served as both an officer and an enlisted member of the Army, and Trump already appointed him to West Point’s Board of Visitors. The more eye-catching move would be to place Davidson in the intelligence world, since he’s been a strong critic of mass surveillance. Senator Mike Lee Lee (R-UT) would be a bold pick, but one that would show a clear change in direction from both current policy and the personnel-induced challenges of the first Trump term. Lee has served on both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees. (His exit from Armed Services had much to do with friction between him and the late Senator John McCain.) He shares Trump’s critique of Washington foreign policy circles, saying in 2023, “When the same people making decisions about foreign policy are wrong over and over and over, maybe the room of people making these decisions should be bigger.” Lee has encouraged debate on aid to Ukraine. He’s also highlighted the need for NATO members to take up a greater role in defending themselves.  Like Davidson, Lee places a strong emphasis on the Constitution, including congressional war powers. Putting either in a top role would weaken partisan arguments that a Trump administration will challenge rule of law in the national security realm. Many see Lee as a strong contender for attorney general. That would give him a window on national security decisions; he could also, to win Democratic votes in the Senate, promise to revisit or revoke expansive DOJ interpretations of presidential war powers. CEOs, not GO/FOs Secretary of defense is a huge job. The Department of Defense is one of the world’s largest employers. It has an enormous and complicated budget. Its people do dangerous jobs in some of the world’s most difficult environments. It develops and buys expensive systems that take years to come online—and it does all that without the discipline of profit and loss. The SecDef has 536 bosses—the President, plus Congress—with competing priorities. And the competition isn’t just trying to put you out of business, but to kill you.  All that makes it hard for anyone to be a strong candidate. Add in the erosion of American civil-military relations, and we’ve had several recent secretaries who were recently retired generals, including Trump’s first secretary of defense, Jim Mattis. There’s a logic to that—generals have experience leading large organizations. Nevertheless, generals are company men, and have struggled to impose real financial and strategic discipline on the organization they came up in or, in Mattis’s case, to develop policy changes pursuant to the president’s vision.  So why not some corporate bigshots instead? They also have run vast, complicated organizations, and they might come in without the organizational and strategic baggage the company men carry. Give one of them a good team and clear guidance, and they could deliver for the president. This would be especially helpful if civil service reforms enable a new secretary to staff the department down to the lowest policy-shaping levels. As Trump learned in his first term, a newbie to Washington needs a savvy, politically aligned team to ensure the bureaucracy is rowing in the same direction as its senior leaders. There’s a big pool of cabinet-level corporate talent. There are about 50 U.S. companies whose annual revenues are at least a tenth of the Pentagon budget. There are around 100 whose market capitalization meets that level. All of these entities have CEOs, former CEOs, and boards. There must be at least a few Trump-friendly or Trump-curious figures in that pool. Their Wall Street pedigrees would be an asset in confirmation and in engaging Trump-wary Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Their independent wealth would help them run the department without one eye on a defense industry board seat—and their experience with corporate books might give them more gusto for finally getting the Pentagon to pass an audit.  It would be wise to look beyond the defense industry here, or at least to choose from one of the defense world’s rowdy upstart companies. (Secretary Elon Musk or Palmer Luckey, anyone?) This would bring new thinking into the ossified and chummy world of defense acquisition and reduce the power of the companies most inclined to win by political maneuvering, rather than product quality.  Donald Trump’s second term must heed the lessons of his first. Personnel is policy. A bad cabinet will stop him from building a good foreign policy. A good cabinet will take Trump’s best instincts and turn them into action.  The post Trump Must Be Bold With His National Security Appointments appeared first on The American Conservative.

NOTE:- SORRY I UPLOADED THE WRONG VIDEO THIS MORNING HERE IT IS..... UTL COMMENT:- When will this utter madness end? Not just killing animals, now humans!!! Plus ruining the lives of those that live in the region & destroying productive farmland!! For something built on a FRAUD!!??

Leaked footage from a United Nations assembly meeting reveals a decades-long agenda for global control, aimed at weakening the population by 2025 through invisible, insidious methods. The footage reveals that toxic, mind-altering chemicals have been covertly released over major population centers for years, damaging human health and ecosystems alike. Those streaks in our skies, dismissed as harmless vapor trails, are in fact bioweapons used to quietly destabilize societies around the world. And now, the most disturbing plan of all is set to unfold: the release of toxic, man-made clouds designed to trigger a global famine in 2025. UTL COMMENT:- We should trial then lock up Bill Gates + others involved, seize all of their assets to pay for the damage they've done... 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

"There's an uncertainty." The post “Disgusting”: The Arctic Monkeys song Josh Homme likened to John Lydon first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

by Ambrose Kane, The Unz Review: Donald Trump’s massive win for the highest office in the land shocked much of the world. Not only did Trump earn a second term, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, but he won the popular vote as well, including securing both the Senate and House of Representatives (House to be […]

Did you know that Columbia University gets $3.5 billion per year in grants from the U.S. Government? Under President Trump, that is all about to change. What the fuck? Columbia students held a memorial for Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas who was the mastermind behind the October 7th massacre. Am I tripping, or is […]