Search Results

Only a week ago, Florida State Representative Susan Valdés was campaigning to chair the Hillsborough County Democratic Party, on Monday she switched parties and will join the Republicans in the Florida House of Representatives. Her party change is effective immediately, according to reporting by Janelle Irwin Taylor for FloridaPolitics.com .   “Our Speaker, Rep. Daniel Perez, has laid out a vision for the House that focuses on empowering House members to work on real problems facing our communities,” she wrote in a lengthy post to X. “That’s what I want to be a part of. I want to roll up my sleeves and work. I want to be a part of solving problems for West Tampa.”   Valdés continued that she was “tired of being the party of protesting when I got into politics to be part of the party of progress.” “I know that I won’t agree with my fellow Republican House members on every issue, but I know that in their caucus, I will be welcomed and treated with respect,” she said. Rep. Valdés’s departure could be another sign that Hillsborough County, like much of Florida, seems to be trending more conservative. The voters of Valdés’ House District 64 supported President Joe Biden by double digits in 2020. Voters in the district supported Trump by three, according to Democratic elections analyst Matt Isbell. Valdés won reelection by five points. The party switch for Rep. Valdés gives Republicans their greatest-ever supermajority in the House with 86 Republicans to 34 Democrats. "Welcome to the GOP, Rep. Valdés," Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis wrote on X. Florida State Speaker Daniel Perez hailed the move, which expanded the GOP supermajority to 86 members in the 120-seat House. It was another blow to Democrats, whose hopes of cutting into the supermajority were dashed in the Nov. 5 elections.   “I so rarely get to send a communication solely in my role as Republican leader, but I am thrilled today to announce that Representative Susan Valdés has changed her voter registration from Democrat to Republican,” Perez said in an email. “We all know Susan as a fierce advocate for her community, and a person of uncommon common sense. She will be a great asset to our Republican team.” During the Reagan years there was a massive switch in party registration among conservative Democrats with dozens of state legislators and local elected officials leaving the increasingly liberal Democrats to join the Reagan Revolution. Notable national Democrats who switched included the late Rep. Phil Gramm of Texas, Bob Stump of Arizona, Andy Ireland and Jim Grant of Florida, and Tommy F. Robinson of Arkansas among many others. Rep. Susan Valdés’s party switch could portend another wave of party switches driven by the popularity of President Donald Trump’s MAGA agenda. 2024 Election Florida Democrat Rep. Susan Valdes Republican Party Governor Ron DeSantis Hillsborough County Democratic Party Speaker Daniel Perez party switch Republican supermajority Florida Florida House of Representatives Reagan revolution

The International Criminal Court (ICC) should be renamed the International Court Of Criminals and Clowns (ICCC). The ICC issued an arrest warrant for President Benjamin Netanyahu  of Israel for the “war crime of starvation as a method of warfare: and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts” in Gaza. Warrants were also issued against Hamas leaders but are meaningless as the Hamas leaders are purported dead. Hamas and its leaders are the ones who committed crimes against humanity with its October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel. The ICC is equating Hamas's atrocities with Israeli defense response. Though independent from the U.N., the ICC is endorsed by the General Assembly. The difference between the U.N.’s International Court of Justice ( ICJ ) and the ICC is that the ICJ cases involve countries, while the ICC is a criminal court that brings cases against individuals. The ICC lead prosecutor is Karim Khan , a British barrister of Pakistani descent. He has been accused of sexual  harassment by a well-regarded ICC female lawyer. Khan is a member of the Muslim Ahmadi sect, a group founded in 1889 in British India, which views itself as leading the propagation and renaissance of Islam. The ICC charges are baseless as Israel is responding in self-defense to the Hamas invasion of October 7, 2023, where over 1,400 Israelis and some visiting Americans were slaughtered, tortured, raped, or taken hostage. The war would end immediately if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages. The ICC, founded in 2002, is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, and its 124 member nations fund it. The current ICC membership does not include the United States, Russia, Israel, China, Turkey, Pakistan, and 60 other countries. The U.S. did not join the ICC because it was concerned that the U.S. military would be accused of war crimes, which would be contrary to existing U.S. laws. It should be noted that the ICC charter states that it does not act if a country has an existing legal system. Israel has an existing legal system. The ICC is not only targeting the Jewish state, but it is also investigating the U.S. for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The ICC assault on Judaism is a proxy assault on America.  Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stated he will honor the ICC warrant and arrest Netanyahu if he steps foot in Canada. This is the same Trudeau who danced the night away at a Taylor Swift event while anti-Israel riots led by Islamists rioted the night away in Montreal. The Trudeau-led Canadian government: ●     Arrested  a conservative reporter for disturbing the peace because he was filming a group of pro-Palestinian protestors in a Jewish neighborhood in Toronto. ●     Allocated only 1.22%  of its GDP to defense in 2023 and has not met the NATO target of 2% since the 1980s. Canada has pledged to raise the percentage to 1.76% by 2030. ●     Allows terrorists to infiltrate  the U.S. from Canada. ●     Allows Hezbollah  to wash hundreds of millions of dollars from cocaine and fentanyl with Chinese triads, Middle Eastern organized crime gangs, and Latin American drug cartels. The British government and the European Union foreign policy chief, Josep Borrel , have also supported the ICC’s arrest warrants. Borrel stated the narrative must “avoid any kind of clashes based on religion, civilization, or ethnicity.” Borrel must not be aware of Hamas calling for Islamic supremacy, the elimination of Israel, and the killing of Jews. South Africa has asked the ICJ to prosecute Israel for genocide. The Marxist-led government, and a founder of BRICS, has yet to ask ICJ to file charges against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for genocide against the Muslim Uighurs or Russian atrocities in the Ukraine invasion. American leaders have voiced their opposition to the ICC warrants against Israel: 1.    President Joe Biden declared the ICC warrants “outrageous.” 2.    Representative Mike Waltz of Florida, President-elect Trump’s designated National Security Advisor, wrote on X that “the ICC has no credibility, and the U.S. government has refuted these allegations.” 3.    U. S. Senator Tom Cotton : "The ICC is a kangaroo court, and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants." 4.    Senator Lindsey Graham  called the ICC a “joke” and corrupt to its core. Summary   The criminal and clown show ICC is one of many international organizations, including the United Nations, corrupted and influenced by anti-Western, anti-American ideologies of Marxism and Islamism. Western Civilization is under assault. The U.S. should make it very clear that any country that complies with the ICC warrant will face serious consequences from the U.S. Rather than exit international organizations, the U.S. should exert its power and money to alter them. In the case of the ICC, since the U.S. is not a member, then the U.S. could issue sanctions  against ICC leaders and lead a robust campaign against ICC corruption. In the case of the U.N., the U.S. should eliminate all voluntary contributions. In 2022, the U.S. government contributed more than  $18 billion  to the U.N., of which approximately $15 billion was voluntary. China contributed a total of $2.1 billion and yet has infiltrated and controls significant agencies within the U.N. Action   Recognize Western Civilization is at war with Marxism and Islamism. Eliminate U.S. aid and favorable trade agreements with countries and organizations that actively engage in anti-American behavior. Reform K-12 U.S. education. Teach American history of individual freedoms and free markets and not a Marxist version of racism and injustice. Stop funding universities that stifle free speech, allow anti-Semitism to flourish, and enroll CCP students to steal U.S. technologies. Peace Through Strength! Author Laurence F. Sanford  is a veteran of the United States Navy and the Central Intelligence Agency and now serves as Senior Analyst for the American Security Council Foundation. Please support ASCF’s education efforts by donating to the American Security Council Foundation at www.ascf.us . 2024 Election International Criminal Court Israel ICC Benjamin Netanyahu Gaza Hamas leaders Crimes against humanity UN General Assembly Muslim Ahmadi sect The Hague Justin Trudeau sanctions

Taking one for the “team” will never be more challenging – and  easier – than in 2025   “Just do it.” Most people are probably familiar with the famous Nike slogan where a commercial announcer lurks silently while something sports-related takes place in the foreground, showcasing a talented athlete’s triumph that everyone realizes already happened – and was all-but inevitable. I’m specifically referring to the Tiger Woods spot where the golfing legend is shown at different points in his career before finally concluding, as a child, that “I’m going to beat Jack Nicklaus.”   “Just do it” flashed on the screen as the young Woods articulated his prophecy.   I’ll confess I’ve never been particularly fond of Woods, his personal fall as a role model for millions of kids worldwide having tarnished his “brand” in my estimation. But there’s little doubt that when it came to golf, time and again, Woods “Just [did] it.”   Instead, in today’s context, there apparently is much consternation among congressional Republicans on how to go about summonsing the courage – and votes – to pass president-elect Donald Trump’s MAGA agenda once the calendar turns to next year and all the suits (and pantsuits) return to the capital to grouse over the business of governing the country, which, to them, often includes raining money down on their favorite special interests.   But the thinking must change now. There shouldn’t be any kvetching or gnashing of teeth regarding Trump’s plans for the United States after the contentious but crystal clear result of the 2024 election. What to do? How about “Just do it”?   In an article titled, “Republicans clash over how to pass Trump 2025 agenda”, David Sivak and Cami Mondeaux reported at the Washington Examiner  the other day:   “Congressional Republicans are at odds over how to pass President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda, with a spat over taxes consuming the final weeks before he takes office. Congress is weighing competing priorities as Republicans prepare to assume unified control of Washington in January. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) wants a quick win on energy and the border, announcing a plan on Tuesday that would pair the legislation with a larger defense bill.   “But the proposal has been met with a cool reception in the House. Thune plans to punt a deal on tax reform until later in the year, prompting concern from members of the Ways and Means Committee who fear their bill will get sidelined. The timing matters because Republicans could only have two opportunities to pass their agenda without Democratic support…   “In theory, Republicans could tackle taxes in October, once the new fiscal year begins, but House tax writers believe the strategy is an unnecessary risk. The tax cuts Trump signed in 2017 expire at the end of 2025.”   I want, I want, I want… there’s a whole lotta “I” muttered on the Hill these days when members and senators should really be talking about “we” as it relates to the American people, MAGA voters and the end goals of the folks who struggled so long and hard this past year and change sizing up the non-senile Joe Biden candidates and came up with a repeat White House appearance for Donald J. Trump.   The casual politics observer, if there are any left, doesn’t care about the petty trepidations of individual members of Congress. Most people are aware Republicans have a razor-thin (to say the least) one seat margin in the House, which, for a while, necessitates Speaker Mike Johnson and every Republican giving up a piece of themselves to strive for “team” wins.   Two years ago, you may recall, Republicans made a spectacle of themselves by taking x number of votes (anyone truly remember?) settling on a new Speaker while Democrats took delight at the public displays of backbiting and discord in the GOP caucus. Back then, with two more years’ worth of president senile Joe Biden’s term left to endure, Republicans enjoyed the luxury of taking their proverbial time ironing out the wrinkles in their unity fabric.   No such allowance exists now. “Just do it” must be the new attitude, something that will be incredibly difficult for a building/chamber full of egos and pontificators to accept. Many congressmen are used to getting whatever they want (at least when they’re in the majority), but there’s no margin for error now. It’s an all or none proposition and the political incentives to conform to the will of the majority will be intense.   Needless to say, the situation isn’t much better on the senate side, though Republicans should be able to agree on the “big” things once you take Trump administration confirmations out of the picture.   The fact is, Republicans will face each day with the 800-pound gorilla – Donald J. Trump – at their side bearing his teeth and pulling at the bars, with focused eyes on the problem members/or senators. And here’s thinking Trump won’t be hesitant to call out or name names.   Who wants to be the next Liz Cheney in the Republican congressional caucus? Any volunteers?   For those members and senators who are so worried about (literally) saving their seats in the next election, they’d better give consideration to what happens to their political future if they’re seen by the whole MAGA country as upsetting the agenda purely for selfish personal concerns. Self-centered partisanship is what it is, but parties and majorities only work if you use them.   Politics may not be a “team” sport, but there is such a thing as a platform and, particularly this year, an agenda. Trump taught Republicans how to win. Will they “take one for the team” or look like donkeys (asses?) by holding out for a micro fuss? Put differently, will Republicans finally give up the title of “Stupid Party” under Donald Trump?   Just do it part two   Now that it’s been settled that Republicans simply need to “Just do it” on the 2025 Trump agenda, they’ll need guidance on how to go about it. How to get everyone to get along? How to keep everyone happy? Plan a retreat? Take everyone to McDonald’s? Fly the House and Senate caucuses over to Rome and have them go at it in the Coliseum and fight to the death?   Or just don’t try too hard?   Perhaps Republicans should take a page from the movie character Kunu in the classic off-beat comedy “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, who advised his surfing student to learn how to ride the waves… by doing less. “Don’t try to surf… just do it!” There’s one line of thought that suggests Speaker Mike Johnson will have an easier time of reaching consensus by doing little or nothing and letting public opinion and pressure do the convincing for him. He won’t be trying too hard to get something that members, with the right persuasion, would come to naturally.   Should Johnson take a page out of former Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s instruction book for how to get the “big things” through without heed of hers or the party’s position? As you may recall, Pelosi all-but sacrificed the political careers of a handful of her members to get Obamacare passed in 2010.   Thankfully for Johnson, what he’s attempting to motivate his members to do isn’t unpopular or monstrously expensive like Obamacare was. It won’t be a stretch to get all Republicans on board for stringent illegal immigration reform, energy exploration, or to renew the Trump (2017) tax cuts. Republicans should also be in the mood to “get to yes” on the major Trump campaign planks from 2024.   Budget savings can and must be achieved by ditching a healthy slice of some of senile Joe Biden’s big boondoggle spending programs.   The concept isn’t really that hard here. “Just do it”, Republicans. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

Luigi Mangione has been named as the person of interest in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. So, perhaps a disclaimer is in order that the killing of Mr. Thompson was the first successful political assassination of the Trump era, since during the recent campaign Mr. Trump himself was the target of two similarly motivated, but unsuccessful, attacks. What ties together Mangione and the two individuals who attempted to kill President Donald Trump is their Far Left politics and their rhetoric that the political system has failed and that violence is the correct solution when elections don’t go their way. Mangione, identified by an elderly McDonalds employee in Altoona, PA, was found with a gun, a silencer, and a manifesto, which outlined his disdain for the healthcare system. He was also wearing clothes that matched the description of the suspect. While the establishment media has focused on the nuts and bolts of the investigation and evidence obtained when Mr. Mangione was arrested, we are more interested in what motivated him to execute Mr. Thompson and what such information might tell us about the prospect that others might follow a similar path. Luigi Mangione’s social media profile holds some interesting clues about his politics: He follows Far Left Democrat Congresswoman Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez, and anti-corporate campaigner RFK Jr., and Far Left “journalist” Taylor Lorenz, among others. A more interesting item one of our internet sleuth friends turned up was Mangione’s review of Unibomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto “Industrial Society and Its Future.” In his review of Kaczynski's manifesto Mangione wrote, “When all other forms of communications fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it's not terrorism, it's war and revolution." “Peaceful protest is outright ignored, economic protest isn't possible in the current system, so how long until we recognize that violence against those who lead us to such destruction is justified as self-defense.”   And later in the review Mangione wrote, “These companies don't care about you, or your kids, or your grandkids. They have zero qualms about burning down the planet for a buck, so why should we have any qualms about burning them down to survive?”   And finally, “Violence never solved anything is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.”   Echoing Kaczynski’s manifesto in his own Mangione wrote, “These parasites had it coming” and, “It had to be done.”   This places the assassination of Brian Thompson squarely in the classic Marxist tactic of “the propaganda of the deed” wherein revolutionary acts are carried out as a means of communication, as well as for their own violent results. So, why be concerned that Luigi Mangione – if he is the person who assassinated UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – is anything more than a one-off nut job, as law enforcement have claimed those who attempted to kill President Trump are? Quite simply because his rhetoric and propaganda of the deed fit into a much larger threat matrix. As an Ivy League grad and scion of a wealthy Maryland family Mangione also fits another interesting profile – the wealthy, well-educated violent Leftists who show up in the frontlines of ANTIFA riots. See James Carlson , aka Cody Carlson, aka Cody Tarlow, and the Atlanta “ Stop Cop City ” rioters for two of many examples. And Leftwing anarchist groups are now issuing joint calls for “festivals of resistance” on the weekend of 18 January 2025, just before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Anarchist media sites are promoting the idea, writing “Once Trump takes power, it will only become more challenging to make connections with our neighbors, create the networks that we will need to face down his assaults, and share the skills we will need to survive his reign. Right now, we have a precious window of time in which to prepare. Let’s make the most of it.” The statement also reads, in part, “By organizing ahead of Trump’s inauguration, we can seize the initiative and set our own timeline rather than being caught flat-footed and forced to react. We need to welcome new participants into these struggles and foster a revolutionary perspective that can orient us through the challenges ahead. No amount of internet activity could substitute for gathering face to face. The most important battles ahead will not be fought online, but in the streets of our communities. ” Luigi Mangione may have acted alone, but he was speaking to an audience of thousands of radical Leftists when he wrote, “When all other forms of communications fail, violence is necessary to survive. You may not like his methods, but to see things from his perspective, it's not terrorism, it's war and revolution." Luigi Mangione political assassination Unibomber Ted Kaczynski UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson political violence manifesto protest Brian Thompson assassination festivals of resistance leftist violence Rep. Michael Waltz National Security Advisor

Our friend Stephen Moore gave us a heads-up about a new poll conducted by J.L. Partners that found Americans think Joe Biden is the worst President ever. We wondered if perhaps the poll was as much a reflection of the sorry state of American education as it was an analysis of Biden’s presidency, until we noticed that it was limited to the “modern era” and the nine elected presidents from the last 55 years. That means that Joe wasn’t compared to James Buchanan, whose failed presidency was arguably responsible for the Civil War, and who was so reviled after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration he slipped out of Washington alone to return to his estate in Pennsylvania. And let’s not forget that means Joe wasn’t compared to Warren G. Harding, who, like Joe, garnered a huge popular vote, only to be tarnished by scandal and corruption. But it does mean Biden fared worse than Obama, who would have been our nominee for worst President ever for the James Buchanan-level of damage he did to the country. So, when you look at the details of the poll it is certainly hard to argue with its findings. About 14% of voters polled ranked Mr. Biden in the top two, while 44% placed him in the bottom two for a net score of negative 30, below Richard Nixon, who scored negative 25. At the top of the list was Republican Ronald Reagan, (no surprise) who scored plus 30, followed by Democrat Barack Obama at plus 21 (oy vey big surprise), Democrat Bill Clinton at plus 1, and Republican George W. Bush at plus 1.   Voters were evenly split on Democrat Jimmy Carter, with 15% putting him in the top two and 15% in the bottom two for a score of zero.   He was followed by Republican George H.W. Bush, who was the first president to land underwater in the poll with a score of negative 1.   Not included in the poll was Republican Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon after his resignation in 1974 but lost to Mr. Carter in 1976.   What’s really quite amazing is that Biden fared worse than Richard Nixon in this very limited group of presidents.   Nixon was reviled by Democrats long before Watergate drove him from office. Yet 'Tricky Dicky' , who stepped down after it became known that he was involved in covering up the break-in and attempted bugging of Democrat headquarters by members of a group linked to his re-election campaign, is still more popular than Biden.   A big negative for Joe was his broad pardon of his son Hunter, convicted of gun and tax charges, reversing promises that he would do no such thing.   The poll found that more than half of American voters believed he was wrong to pardon his son. And it sent Biden's historically low approval rating dropping another four points, to 37 percent, according to the J.L. Partners survey.   Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a link to the cross tabs to see how the sample was constructed or weighted by party affiliation. However, as one commentator noted, looking at Trump’s down votes compared to his up votes in this poll should give you an idea of the sampling that was used to get these results. Especially when you consider that Trump was just elected and won the popular vote as well as the electoral college, the poll shows Trump being more disliked than Biden. How could that be? That result suggests that it was heavy on Democrats. So, the fact that Joe Biden still came in as the worst on the list is telling. 2024 Election Joe Biden Worst president ever poll Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter Richard Nixon Donald Trump Hunter Biden pardon

Best Christmas gift ever – A thorough once-over from DOGE for the federal government   All I want for Christmas is a DOGE. While this isn’t a typical holiday request -- more likely people would prefer a furry, friendly kind of animal who greets them at the door to a static, cold, unfeeling stack of program cancellation papers -- this year, in 2024, The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is all the rage simply because the new non-government advisory board will bring something new and novel to the Washington swamp, an entity focused on cleaning up the gargantuan fiscal mess in the nation’s capital rather than bent on creating new complications.   The DOGE, if successful, will essentially be akin to asking for and receiving nothing for Christmas, yet will be like the best present America’s ever received as a gift. The political class didn’t talk much about it during the recently concluded campaign, but our elected leaders have piled up over $36 trillion in debt. And getting bigger by the minute, necessitating something drastic be done to rein-in the beast. It goes without saying much of the total was from fraud, waste and abuse. The federal government has gotten so large and complicated that it’s simply not possible to keep track of it all. Fraudsters understand there’s plenty of room to maneuver, too, exposing the many, many departments and agencies to a relentless attack on their flanks.   Business entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have volunteered their time and expertise to DOGE, a “pet” that will require a great deal of walking to exercise it.   Where to start? That’s the operative question. In an article titled, “DOGE sets sights first on ‘low-hanging fruit’ of government waste, fraud and abuse”, Seth McLaughlin reported at The   Washington Times  recently :   “Vivek Ramaswamy said [last week] that the Department of Government Efficiency’s initial focus will be weeding out the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of waste, fraud and abuse across the federal government — not recommending ways to overhaul entitlement programs, the biggest drivers of federal spending and the national debt.   “Still, Mr. Ramaswamy, who will co-lead DOGE with Elon Musk, said the group will seek to ensure that the entitlement programs are working as efficiently as possible in their current form.   “’It’s irresponsible to begin a discussion around cutting entitlements before we’ve actually rung all of that waste and all of that excess error out of the system,’ Mr. Ramaswamy said during an appearance at the Aspen Institute in Washington.”   It would only make sense the new pushers of DOGE would look to cut the bloat first, though here’s speculating that the layers of fat run so deep and wide it will be nearly impossible to separate the semi-legitimate from the outright useless. Anyone who’s dealt with government on a regular basis recognizes that its virtually horizontal decision-making structure doesn’t lend itself to efficiency or getting things done quickly.   Just getting the jurisdiction correct can be half the battle. Who’s in charge here? Is this an HHS matter, or perhaps a HUD problem?   I don’t have a great deal of experience working in the federal government, but the time I spent there – in the Department of Justice’s Fraud section – over thirty years ago taught me a number of lasting lessons about how government works. Or should I say, how it doesn’t  work. The stacks of case folders are practically endless and there aren’t enough cogs to run the machine. Who manages the budget? Does anyone care?   And this was just one portion of a large department. It’s unfathomable to contemplate where everything goes. No wonder the federal leviathan is so out of control.   McLaughlin additionally reported, for their part, “Mr. Ramaswamy estimated that ‘waste, fraud, abuse, error, or program integrity issues’ account for roughly half a trillion dollars in misused taxpayer dollars.”   I surmise Vivek is a pretty smart guy, but I can’t help but think he simply pulled the half-trillion figure out of the air and used it as a demarcation point. The fact is, neither Ramaswamy nor Musk nor anyone else has a grip on how much waste, fraud, abuse and error there is in government. Here’s betting they’ll devote much of their initial efforts to compiling a team and poring over reams of statistics to try and make heads or tails of it.   It will be a herculean task, but if there’s anyone human who can handle the chore, it’s Ramaswamy and Musk. I say “human” because much of the deciphering and discerning will likely be done with innovations in AI and other technologies. The political will must come from the elected office holders themselves. Much resistance will originate with public employee unions, pension chasers and career civil servants who swear they know it all. Leaving the entitlement programs until the fraud and waste is rooted out still leaves a mountain of areas to delve into. My father’s testimonials about the atrocious excesses of Medicare are just the tip of the iceberg. Sooner or later eligibility will need to be addressed. Raising the retirement age or means-testing benefits won’t be popular either.   The federal authorities will discover that it’s much more challenging to cut jobs and red tape than it was devising the barriers in the first place. In essence, gifting efficiency and streamlining the process will bring accountability where previously there was none. But what about the lawyers? What about Congress? Will legislative staff be cut, too? Will office travel budgets be slashed? Pensions reformed? It’s hard to imagine.   The DOGE people deserve commendation for attempting to tackle the task. It’s one Christmas present Americans surely should appreciate. But the DOGE will also have a mind of its own. Here’s hoping it won’t be done away with simply for soiling the carpets.   Federal employees don’t go into work, a sickness that’s become endemic   One waste, fraud and abuse issue that’s received a lot of media attention lately is the notion that federal employees are no longer working in the office, preferring to extend their lengthy COVID-related “vacations” nearly five years after the pandemic first showed up. That’s right, America’s civil workforce is still working from the kitchen table, if at all, and the managers stare at each other unable to do anything about it.   Meanwhile, those big marble buildings in downtown DC and various places in the region sit practically empty. The only ones in these structures are the security personnel assigned to ensure peace and a safe environment for the workers , nearly all of whom are at home surrounded by their comforts unmonitored. It’s clear one of the largest chores the president-elect and his DOGE crew has is to change the culture in Washington, turn it away from the entitled mentality that’s developed under the Democrat administrations and return to some semblance of the good ol’ Judeo-Christian work ethic. Will the new overseers have power to terminate employees for abuse of their privileges?   Beyond the basics, the federal government has simply gotten too large to manage. I don’t have the statistics, but how many departments and agencies have been added in the past couple decades? I don’t really know, either, but I can guess how many have been eliminated. Zero or close to zero.   Needless to say, there’s a ton of fraud and abuse and duplicity out there. As Ramaswamy advised, they’ll start with the waste and excess, a noble goal. Like Tom Homan indicated when asked, the deportation process starts with purging the criminals and worst offenders, and those alone will take a great deal of time and money to be rid of.   So it will be for the whole of the government.   You have to start somewhere. Even with the grandest of Christmas presents, there’s some assembly required. How about disassembly? Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

People around the world are celebrating the fall of the dictator Bashar al Assad’s regime in Syria. However, the celebrations are misplaced if they are based on the assumption that what comes after Assad is some sort of Western-style peaceful democratic government. As our friend former CIA operator Sam Faddis reminded us in a post to his X account, @RealSamFaddis, the leader of the militia faction leading the military successes that have ousted Assad is Islamist terrorist Muhammad al-Jawlani, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Golani and Muhammad al-Julani. Muhammad al-Jawlani has a $10 million bounty on his head from the United States’ Rewards for Justice program. In April 2013, al-Jawlani pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda and its leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. In July 2016, al-Jawlani praised Al-Qaeda and al-Zawahiri in an online video and claimed the ANF was changing its name to Jabhat Fath Al Sham (“Conquest of the Levant Front”). On May 16, 2013, the U.S. Department of State designated al-Jawlani as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions with al-Jawlani. In addition, it is a crime to knowingly provide, or attempt or conspire to provide, material support or resources to ANF, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. The “Levant Front,” by the way, includes Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Mediterranean coastal area from Egypt to Turkey, so al-Jawlani’s ambitions do not likely to end with the ouster of Bashar al Assad. As the leading regional client of Russia and Iran, Assad’s ouster may look like a victory in the sense that anything that discomfits two of our enemies is good for us, but that is a shortsighted and shallow view of the world’s security situation. The truth is that behind all the arguments about borders, self-determination and democratic principles lurks the dark shadow of political Islam and its drive for world domination.   The truth is that the real enemy in the Near East is not Bashar al-Assad, it is political Islam, and the only way to defeat it is to drop the fiction that “Islam is a religion of peace” and use all our national power to present an alternative worldview that undermines and eventually destroys Sharia-supremacism and Iranian “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih ” (Guardianship of the Jurist). Back in 2018, when there was criticism of then-President Donald Trump’s plans to pull American troops out of Syria, we wrote:   None of the generals who have been tasked with fighting and winning the wars in Syria and Iraq, and certainly none of the politicians who have advocated United States involvement in them, have been willing to accept and confront that truth, and as a consequence the war that was supposed to be a three month intervention to defeat the “JV forces” of the Islamic State became a seven year sinkhole of American lives and treasure.   What’s more, while neocons and Obama apologists have made getting rid of brutal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad a central casus belli, it is clear that Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and the interventionists on the Left did not think through who would govern Syria if he’s gone, or what America would have to do to prevent that alternative from being even more odious – and dangerous.   And therein lies another thread in the tangled skein that is the American involvement in Syria.   In July of 2015 Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter admitted that only 60 so-called "moderate" Syrian rebels were then being trained by the U.S. in the $500 million program that had been slated to put 3,000 fighters into the field against ISIS by the end of that year.   Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he regretted disclosing that the number was so low but "I wanted to tell the truth. The number 60, as you all recognize, is not an impressive number. The number is much smaller than we hoped for at this point."   The $500 million Syrian training program authorized by Congress was intended to train and equip up to 5,400 fighters annually, with about 3,000 projected to be ready by the end of 2015.   In September of 2015 Senate the testimony of CENTCOM commander, General Lloyd Austin, revealed that the U.S. plan to train thousands of Syrian opposition soldiers had cost half a billion dollars and resulted in "4 or 5" trained people on the battlefield.   Most of the trainees that constituted the “Free Syrian Army” were killed in their first contact with the enemy or went over to the jihadi forces aligned with the Islamic State.   So, after the Obama-Hillary Clinton-Lloyd Austin-Joe Biden inspired failures what comes next? Done right, U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war might have offered the possibility of a strategic defeat of Iran. If the United States acted to tip the balance of power in the civil war, Iran would have been weakened by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, its single Arab ally and a vital link to their important clients – Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia. However, America through its generals and diplomats never fought that war, because they never engaged it on the most important battlefield – the battlefield of secularism versus Sharia-supremacism and Iranian Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih . Now, having failed to think through who would govern Syria once Assad was gone, or what America would have to do to prevent that alternative from being even more odious – and dangerous – than Assad, we have been left as impotent observers with no friends on the winning side. In an intramural Muslim war between Assad’s Alawis, Iran’s Shia and Syria’s Sunni Arab majority, from which the uprising emerged, there are no “good guys” in terms of western-oriented factions friendly to the United States. And the last time Islamists gained control of a large swath of territory in the Near East Christians, Kurds and Yazidis were massacred, raped, and sold into slavery. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Lloyd Austin, Joe Biden never thought through or had a plan for what and who comes next if Assad was overthrown. Now, what comes next in Syria is not going to be good for the United States, or for our friends and allies, such as Israel and Jordan. At best Syria looks likely to become another failed state, like Libya or Somalia, at worst, it will become another aggressive Islamist state, like Afghanistan, on the doorstep of Israel and Europe. George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com  and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for retired Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then-Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for retired Rep. Mac Thornberry, former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Syria Bashar al Assad Hamas Iran Israel ISIS Muhammad al-Julani Muhammad al-Jawlani Levant Front Russia Political Islam Sharia supremacy General Lloyd Austin Free Syrian Forces Islamist State

In the final days of the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate, sponsors of the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA) are pushing for Congress to ram through a massive bill to give federal bureaucrats the power to oversee social media platforms. The bill, which was re-released with never-before-seen changes on December 7, has not been vetted, is poorly understood, and would create a sprawling regime for censoring conservatives online. KOSPA has been endorsed by some otherwise sensible people, like the corporate leaders of Elon Musk’s X, but we think it is a very bad idea, as we explain below. What does KOSPA do? KOSPA is all about government censorship, masquerading as “protecting the children.” It creates a “duty of care” so that online platforms (loosely, social media) must “mitigate or prevent” any feature that could arguably cause any of various harms, including “patterns of use” that impact “socializing” with peers. If they don’t, they’re subject to legal action. What kind of “features” must be mitigated? In short, everything. KOSPA defines a “design feature” as literally anything about the platform that might increase the amount of time that someone spends using it. But a useful platform is one that people are more likely to use, so everything counts. Anything that users find helpful, such as the ability to find people who share their views on a political topic, is a feature that must be “mitigated” because it might increase their time online.  Doesn’t KOSPA Only Prevent “Addictive” Features for Minors? Who’s Censoring Speech? No, although that’s what the bill’s proponents want you to think. The new, eleventh-hour version of the bill in December 2024 claims to limit the covered features to ones that “a reasonable and prudent person would agree” is “a contributing factor” to a “reasonably foreseeable” harm. But who gets to decide what’s “reasonable” and “foreseeable”? Government bureaucrats!  The bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in D.C. to enforce KOSPA’s provisions. It tells the FTC to issue “guidance” to online platforms—and then says it can sue any platform that doesn’t follow the dictates of those unelected bureaucrats, as long as they “allege” that the platform violates KOSPA.1 The FTC that KOSPA puts in charge of “protecting children” online is the same one that the House Judiciary Committee under Republican Chairman Jim Jordan has found to have engaged in “abuse of power, waste of resources, and fear.”2 Even when a Republican-led FTC might not censor the internet, KOSPA has a backup plan: The bill empowers each state attorney general to enforce KOSPA anytime they have “reason to believe” a platform isn’t following KOSPA’s dictates. So, if a blue state AG doesn’t like that a social media platform allows young people to discuss conservative information, he can claim that the “design feature” of allowing minors to access pro-life information hurts their ability to “socialize” with peers or “learn” the state-approved orthodoxy, and he can bring the social media platform to court. Finally, KOSPA explicitly gives states the right to institute “greater protections” than KOSPA, meaning that a blue state can go even further in its censorship regime and claim federal blessing to do so.3 Will Bureaucrats and Blue-State AGs Really be Able to Attack Free Speech? Yes. The bill’s proponents claim to prevent this outcome through language in the bill that says KOSPA enforcement can’t be “based upon the viewpoint of users,” but this is insufficient. A blue state AG or an abusive FTC would argue it’s not enforcing based on the “viewpoint,” but based on the “design feature” of having particular “problematic content” show up in search results or newsfeeds. So, if a scared teenager searches for “unplanned pregnancy,” the inclusion of pro-life content could be a “design feature” subject to enforcement even if the content isn’t actually deleted. In other words, it allows “shadow-banning” content that bureaucrats find objectionable. But Doesn’t KOSPA Protect Kids Online? Not at all! Despite impassioned rhetoric from the bill’s proponents, the bill explicitly says that no online platform will be required to do anything to “implement an age gating or age verification functionality.”4 In other words, any teen who wants to evade the parental controls in the bill can simply say they’re an adult and turn off any parental controls.  While KOSPA is toothless when it comes to protecting kids online, it nonetheless empowers Washington, D.C. bureaucrats and leftist state government officials to police the internet for anything they claim could hurt a minor’s “socialization,” impact their “sleep,” or cause “anxiety.” The result would be nothing but politicized censorship.  KOSPA Sets a Dangerous Precedent for Disfavored Products In a section entitled “transparency,” KOSPA requires that social media platforms publicly issue reports every year about the alleged harms of their products. They don’t even put this together themselves—the bill requires that they pay an “independent third party” to complete the assessment. In addition to requiring detailed disclosure of user data, KOSPA also requires an assessment of the “safeguards” against harm to minors and the “efficacy” of those safeguards. In other words, the report must list potential harms according to a third party and describe whether the social media platform meets the third party’s view of how it should handle those alleged problems.  Whatever one thinks about social media, conservatives should worry about how this new precedent will be weaponized against other disfavored products. How long before a firearm manufacturer like Smith & Wesson is required by law to pay a gun control activist group to write and publish annual reports on Smith & Wesson’s website, outlining potential dangers of gun ownership and whether the gun control activists think that Smith & Wesson does enough to mitigate those alleged dangers? How long until homeschooling curriculum publishers have to put similar warnings—written by teachers’ unions—on the covers of their textbooks?  How Would KOSPA be Weaponized in Practice? EXAMPLE #1: Blocking Conservative Content   Step 1: Imagine that the southern border was wide open, with a flood of illegal aliens coming across. On social media, Americans start sharing news stories about how cartels mistreat those they smuggle to the border, or crimes committed by gang members who were released into the country. Step 2: California Governor Gavin Newsom says the “fear mongering” about the southern border is all misinformation.5 He says that it’s also causing teens, especially 16-year-olds who will be 18 before the next election, to spend too much time reading these articles. What’s worse, spending so much time hearing about the effects of illegal immigration could “impact their sleep and socialization,” according to the governor. Step 3: Governor Newsom orders the California Attorney General to bring every social media platform to court, picking a jurisdiction in California where they know the judge is likely to agree that it’s “harmful” to have a website that allows minors to know about the effects of illegal immigration. Those websites are forced to block content about illegal immigration for minors or face billions of dollars in damages. Step 4: Emboldened by the first case, Governor Newsom and other governors intent on running for president in 2028 start filing more cases, using KOSPA to censor content about abortion and pro-life causes, the Second Amendment, gender debates, and more. They rinse and repeat from there.  EXAMPLE #2: Deplatforming President Trump When social media sites began deplatforming President Trump in late 2020, they said it was to “protect people” from “misinformation” and “hate.” Under KOSPA, bureaucrats at the FTC or blue state attorneys general would have the authority to sue social media companies for allowing President Trump back onto their platforms, or for refusing to deplatform him in the first place. According to them, it’s not just about the content of his views—they say his very existence on social media platforms incites people to become violent mobs. He captures so much attention that allowing him online or to show up in news feeds sucks in minors who, whether they agree or disagree with Trump, spend more time on the platform and then lose sleep or have anxiety. We urge all CHQ readers and friends to share this important information widely. The Capitol Switchboard is (202-224-3121), we urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Senators and Representative TODAY to demand they vote NO on KOSPA.   1 KOSPA (LYN24589), p.39, line 24, through p.40, line 2. 2 https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-02- 22%20Abuse%20of%20Power20Waste%20of%20Resources%20and%20Fear_0.pdf     3 KOSPA (LYN24589), Sec. 130, p.63, lines 6-12. 4 KOSPA (LYN24589), p.97, lines 16-18. 5 See, e.g., https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1806517103635358074 2024 Election Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA) KOSPA censorship First Amendment Free Speech Congress Social Media Platforms Duty of Care Addictive features Federal Trade Commission FTC Jim Jordan Conservative viewpoints Pro-life content shadow banning deplatforming

Democrats won’t come back if they don’t discover their version of Donald Trump   It’s been remarkable to witness what’s happened in this nation in the weeks since the 2024 election. President-elect Donald J. Trump is finally receiving the popular accolades he’s merited for years, and suddenly, even long-time Trump foes and antagonists are giving him his due.   As if from spontaneous generation, Americans have accepted that our government needs a thorough overhaul and its leaders must be open to letting in non-traditional outsiders to start making decisions. Like an old car that’s been in a garage for years without any kind of attention, the federal government is finally being exposed to daylight with interested eyes looking under the hood.   Better pump some air back in those tires, people. It’s going to take years for Americans to adopt an “out with the old, in with the new” mentality. This is doubly true for the Democrat party, which is receiving bits of advice from every direction whether they seek it or not.   In an opinion piece titled, “Democrats Need Their Own Donald Trump”, J. Peder Zane wrote at Real Clear Politics  just before Thanksgiving:   “…Democrats need their own Trump – a wrecking ball who will challenge the party’s dogmas; a disruptive outsider who can force them out of their ideological cul-de-sac. The radical transformation Democrats need seems beyond the capacity of the party’s entrenched leadership: To expect people who cannot admit error to change their minds and ways seems like wishful thinking. They probably don’t need a Trump-like figure to win elections, but they need one to find a way to govern effectively. This would not require abandoning progressive ideals, but developing new ways to actually achieve them.   “This will not be easy. As a spur, Democrats should consider the fate of their allies in the legacy media. The partisan, left-wing turn many news organizations have taken in the last decade has undermined the trust Americans once had in their reporting – while contributing to shrinking audiences and mass layoffs. That failure is a major reason millions of Americans are turning to alternative outlets, including X, Substack, and podcasters such as Joe Rogan, for news.”   All true. In the month or so since the election was decided in Trump’s favor, I’ve heard precious little non-emotive soul-searching from most Democrats, the preponderance of which can barely believe they lost. As everyone knows now, Democrats had talked themselves into assuming Americans would ignore the common sense signals in front of their faces and agree to four (or more) years of Obama/Biden-ism, where, as Rush Limbaugh used to say, every morning begins by asking themselves, “How do we fool ‘em today?”   Democrats also permitted the fringe voices among them to persuade the most gullible to buy-in to the “Trump’s a felon” line of argument, a non-truth that violated the sensibilities of people who recognized otherwise.   On the whole, yes, Democrats do need their own Trump, though most of them would never admit it, and even the ones who do would probably choke as the words exited their mouths. It’s a well-known fact liberals never admit to being wrong on anything, so contrition is not exactly their strong point. The terms “know-it-all” and “liberal” go hand-in-hand.   And many, many liberals still aren’t ready to let go of 2024 yet. As Zane pointed out earlier in his piece, most Democrats gave other rationales for their loss last month, such as failing to get their message out, or Kamala Harris simply not have enough time and opportunity to let the voters know her, or Republicans and Trump lied through their teeth and the mind-numbed MAGA zombies lapped up every Trump-ian word like a hungry canine perched over a bowl of Alpo.   Essentially, Democrats reason, anything – anything  – explains why they lost. For example, they’ve blamed senile Joe Biden for hanging on too long. Whereas they were thanking him profusely just a few months ago for “putting the good of the country” over his personal legacy ambitions, Democrats lit into the poor old doddering dolt recently for being mentally enfeebled and deserving of a quick trip to the care facility after he abdicates the office.   Democrats have also tried hard to concede that their own fill-in candidate was, in a word that might be too kind, awful. So was her running mate. The first rule in politics (at least at the presidential level) is to advance a leader who’s relatable and likeable to the greatest number of people. Kamala Harris wasn’t that, was she? Remember how, when she first started her candidacy, that Facebook liberals kept running the picture of high heels to embody all that is Kamala? American voters – just over half of them, anyway – were sick to death of being bombarded by less-than-up-to-it candidates who got far simply because they had two X chromosomes and/or pigmented skin. The notion engenders a natural negative reaction from men and social conservatives because these days, such imagery automatically equates to abortion and radical feminist ideology.   So, there were lots of reasons why the Democrats lost. And historians (assuming a truth-telling side wins out to write the record the way it really happened) will record how the 2024 election was a turning point in this nation’s journey precisely because Republicans had a man like Trump – and why Democrats failed because they couldn’t offer a competent alternative.   It’s taken decades for the concept to sink in, but voters no longer trusted the political class to provide the ideas and leadership to sufficiently improve the way things are in America. Most thinking folks don’t want government to do everything, just fulfill its constitutional duty and leave the rest to those who do the working and living and tax paying.   Donald Trump is a rich man, but he’s not an elitist. He likes tailored suits but he understands those who put on jeans in the morning. Trump also enjoys fine cuisine but appreciates a Big Mac as well. Is there someone on the Democrats’ side who can say the same? Democrats are snobs and obnoxious activists at the same time. Who likes that?   For their part, Democrats couldn’t find their own Trump fast enough. And while they’re at it, they could use their own Elon Musk, too, a hybrid business leader/celebrity who isn’t a “woke” kook. Mark Cuban wasn’t the one, was he? Republicans went through their own wilderness time prior to Trump   It’s difficult to recall now, but it wasn’t all that long ago when Republicans were themselves struggling with the notion of allowing an outsider to come in and wreck things so that the party could grow in a positive – and electable – direction.   Think of the natural landscape after a catastrophic volcanic explosion. Everything looks dead or destroyed or buried, but after a period of time, cracks develop in the lava and plants start to emerge and small animals appear. That’s the Democrats now – they’re just like rodents scavenging for food on a blackened panorama. Lest we forget, Trump and MAGA spent years battling to displace the stodgy Republican establishment, the Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans of the old guard sticking around to try and throw him off course.   Some of those people are still there, too, particularly in the U.S. Senate, where good ideas go to starve to death and the old Washington swamp ways thrive virtually uninhibited by conservative boat-rockers.   Democrats will struggle for a good long while, but a look at past history suggests they’ll soon discover a liberal politician who makes them viable to the masses. Such an occurrence won’t necessarily be good for America’s future, but it is inevitable. And Republicans, post-Donald Trump, had better be prepared to keep the momentum going. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz

My old friend Richard V. “Dick” Allen passed away November 16 at his home in Denver, Colorado. Dick Allen, who served as National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, was one of the most influential conservative national security voices and thinkers of the Cold War era. With the rise of the Tea Party, constitutional conservativism and now Donald Trump’s MAGA Movement it may be difficult for some to realize that once upon a time the American conservative movement consisted of two somewhat disparate blocks of voters: Economic Conservatives and National Security Conservatives. This “two-legged stool” could win an occasional national election, but until Ronald Reagan and his team added a third leg – cultural conservatives – it was not a majority coalition. Thanks to the wisdom and political savvy of Dick Allen, Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell, North Carolina’s Senator Jesse Helms, Nevada’s Senator Paul Laxalt, Lyn Nofziger, Ed Meese, Marty Anderson, Jeff Bell, Tom Ellis, Judge William Clark, and others, the Reagan majority was stitched together. Dick was a devout Catholic and staunch anti-Communist who studied political science at Notre Dame, and later earned his Ph.D. at the University of Freiburg in Germany. After earning his Ph.D. Dick taught political science at Georgia Tech and helped to establish the Center for Strategic Studies at Georgetown University, where he edited a massive volume about the influence of communism around the world. In 1966, he relocated to the Hoover Institution at Stanford, becoming Editor of the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1968. Among his other best-known publications are Peace or Peaceful Coexistence? (1966) and Communism and Democracy: Theory and Action (1967). He got his start in presidential politics in Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign, where he was Chief Foreign Policy Coordinator. After Nixon won Dick served as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and special assistant to the president. Dr. Allen then served as principal foreign policy advisor in Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 campaign for the Republican nomination. As I explained in my book TAKEOVER , one day at his golf course, Allen related to me how in 1977 he had contacted Reagan to let him know that he was exploring a run for governor of his home state of New Jersey, and if he decided to get in the race, he would have to bow out as Reagan’s campaign advisor on national security matters. Reagan liked and relied on Allen and didn’t want to lose him, so he said, “Dick, do you want to know what my approach to dealing with the Soviets will be when we get to the White House?” Allen said he’d like to know, and Reagan replied, “I tell them, ‘We win, you lose.’” Dick was so impressed by Reagan's clear articulation of his theory of the Cold War that he immediately committed to supporting Ronald Reagan's campaign. Over the next several years, he traveled extensively with Reagan, helping forge deep relationships with conservative leaders around the world, including Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, and shaping U.S. foreign policy goals. During the 1980 transition and throughout his tenure in the Administration, Allen helped President Reagan manage many foreign crises, including the American hostages held in Iran, aggressive actions by the Soviet Union, instability in the Middle East and unrest in Latin America. He is credited with helping Reagan coin the phrase “trust, but verify,” and setting the stage for the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union. Dick was a friend for many years, and we shared a joke about our initials – his were RVA and mine are RAV, so we often greeted each other with a play on them, “RVA, this is RAV.” As a confidant of President Reagan, Richard V. Allen was in large measure responsible for the victory of the United States and the West over Soviet Communism, would that we had his clarity on matters of national security today. Incline Thine ear, O Lord, unto our prayers, wherein we humbly pray Thee to show Thy mercy upon the soul of Thy servant, and my friend, Richard V. Allen, whom Thou hast commanded to pass out of this world, that Thou wouldst place him in the region of peace and light, and bid him be a partaker with Thy Saints. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Ronald Reagan cabinet Dick Allen Richard V. Allen National Security Advisor Cold War Era National Security Conservatives Cultural Conservatives Anti-Communist We Win You Lose Margaret Thatcher

President-elect Trump intends to end the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.  He has named Lieutenant General (retired) Keith Kellogg as special envoy to begin negotiations with Russia and Ukraine.  I know General Kellogg as a personal acquaintance and through our work together at the America First Policy Institute.  I support President Trump in his initiative to appoint General Kellogg and in his desire to stop Vladimir Putin’s murderous war against the Ukraine nation.  As a former ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),  I understand Ukraine’s right to be a free and sovereign nation.        Putin has stated he will continue his aggression until he achieves his military and political goals.  He intends to reduce Ukraine to a vassal state and achieve his first conquest in his long-term plan to reestablish the Russian/Soviet empire.  General Kellogg will challenge that objective by insisting on negotiations.    If Putin refuses negotiations, President Trump has said he will support Ukraine. Putin will make demands on Trump and Europe that will mean a long-term threat to the independence not just of Ukraine but of Europe itself. If those negotiations stall or don’t even start, I have a suggestion for General Kellogg’s consideration.  First, Russia needs to withdraw its military from Ukraine entirely, and Ukraine would withdraw from its occupation of Russian territory.  Russia’s withdrawal would restore its pledge made under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 wherein Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.   A fundamental principle of the OSCE, as set down in the Helsinki Accords of 1975 and signed by Russia, prohibits one country’s invasion and conquest of another sovereign country.   Full Russian withdrawal would restore its adherence to the principles of the OSCE.   If Putin is successful in conquering Ukrainian territory, “all bets are off” in international relations in the 21st century.  China would certainly see Russian success as an invitation to launch its often-threatened attack on Taiwan.  Sooner or later America would wake up and understand that they cannot live in such a world.  A new world war would then ensue.    Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine may seem fanciful in the face of Putin’s fascist aggression, but maybe it could happen.  All reports suggest that Russia cannot continue its war forever.  Sanctions are finally damaging the Russian economy and more sanctions can be imposed.     The value of the ruble is collapsing.  North Korean soldiers have been brought into the war because Putin doesn't want to conscript more Russians. Putin has failed to conquer Ukraine, and losses on the battlefield exceed 700,000 killed and wounded, and more every day.    Putin can’t sustain his war much longer.    Second, a security zone should be established on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border.  The Ukrainian side would be occupied by peacekeepers from allied countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and others.   Several of those countries have already expressed their intention to enter the conflict if there is no settlement.  On the Russian side of the border, Russian police and civil authorities would patrol the security zone.   The allied peacekeepers patrolling the Ukrainian side of the border in this settlement need not be under NATO auspices.  Those allied peacekeepers could be provided under bilateral agreements between the providing countries and Ukraine.   Participating allied countries should agree in advance they would reinforce their units if Russia again threatened aggression. After all, Russia has already violated all agreements with Ukraine and cannot be trusted not to start the war again after a period of calm and refitting.   Third, to support a Putin claim that he has achieved Russian security, Ukraine should agree to postpone its application for NATO membership for ten years.  Under OSCE principles, any country can join any alliance it chooses, but a postponement would not reject those OSCE principles.   Putin tells the Russian people they are under threat from Ukraine. That story is ridiculous, but Putin controls the information the Russian people hear.  Putin’s real goal is conquest, not Russian security, but if Putin can claim he has won security for Russia, he may have a face-saving way out of the war he started and is losing.      Should any of these negotiations fail, an alternative strategy would be to force Russia back into a war of attrition, which Putin would not want.  Through the use of modern weaponry, maximum losses can be inflicted on Russian soldiers, while implementing a defensive strategy by Ukraine to preserve Ukrainian soldiers.  This strategy works all the time.  It worked against the U.S. in Vietnam. It worked against the U.S. and also Russia in Afghanistan.    President Trump and General Kellogg should be supported in this initiative to stop this war in the heart of Europe.  President Biden has been intimidated by Putin in a way Trump is not.  One thing is clear, a Putin conquest in whole or part compromises all of Europe, threatens the safety of the United States itself, and ushers in a third world war, All of us should support Trump and Kellogg in this historic mission for peace and security.   James S. Gilmore III was President Trump’s ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) from 2019-2021.  He was the 68th Governor of Virginia. 2024 Election Donald Trump General Keith Kellogg Russia Ukraine War Vladimir Putin Soviet Empire Negotiations Independent Ukraine Russia Withdrawal Ukraine sovereignty Sanction on Russia Russian losses Security zone Allied peacekeepers Organization for Security and Cooperation OSCE principles

Trump receives backing from unlikely source for his new tough tariff policies   It’s safe to say, Donald J. Trump backers – including the man himself – agree that the new president can use all the support he can manage for his top-tier priorities/policies in his upcoming administration.   This is true even if one of the public boosters of a particular policy happens to be former vice president Mike Pence. For those who’ve paid attention during this transition period – and the campaign before it – the former governor of Indiana and the 2016 Republican presidential nominee’s choice for running mate has all-but disappeared from conversations involving today’s movers n’ shakers. It’s almost as though Pence never existed in a crucial chapter of the Trump story, the disgraced remnant from the first administration having completely lost favor in Trump world.   These days, on the odd occasion Pence gets a mention in the news, chances are it has something to do with Trump, the successful 2024 campaign, or to serve as a contrast to something Pence’s former boss has done recently. Such is the case presently, as Pence weighed-in on Trump’s bold use of tariffs to steer foreign relations.   That’s a good thing, isn’t it? In an article titled “Former Vice President Mike Pence supports Trump’s tough approach on trade”, Tom Howell Jr. reported at The Washington Times :   “Former Vice President Mike Pence says President-elect Donald Trump isn’t bluffing in his threat to impose new tariffs on China and other countries. Mr. Pence, speaking at a gala [earlier this week], said China is a rival and economic adversary to the U.S. but doesn’t need to be its enemy. He said the short-term pain of Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods could produce long-term benefits.   “‘I fervently hope his proposed tariffs will bring China back to the negotiating table. It may be uncomfortable in the short term, but it will be well worth it in the long term. We want better for America and China — and Donald Trump’s firm but fair approach is the best way to get there,’ Mr. Pence told the China General Chamber of Commerce, which represents Chinese enterprises in the U.S.   “Mr. Trump has threatened to impose a tariff of 60% on goods from China and 25% on products from Canada and Mexico if those countries do not control illegal immigration and drug trafficking.”   Hmmm… for a policy – tariffs – that has stirred such genuine resistance with cries of, “It won’t work” and “American buyers will suffer!”, the initial moves from the president-elect have sure generated a whole boatload of comments, and, for the most part, support.   Trump’s reintroduction to the tariff subject have basically just revived debate over a government policy that is quite old, the notion that America could protect and promote its industries – and raise revenues -- at the expense of, well, everyone else’s. Proponents of unfettered trade have always argued that consumers are the ones who ultimately pay for tariffs, figuring that impacted countries will naturally retaliate against domestic manufacturers and their goods, resulting in a trade war where no one wins.   The period before the American civil war was rife with strife between the rapidly industrializing northern states and the cotton-growing, slave utilizing agrarian south, a conflict that contributed heavily to the split – and war – between the states. Slavery is a much juicier topic for the race-obsessed historical revisionists to delve into, but essentially the confederate states felt they needed to secede in order to have their economies survive.   Yes, slavery was a major component of those southern economies, growing cotton being labor intensive (especially after the advent of the cotton gin) and necessary to make it profitable. All facts, but this is a subject for another time.   It’s my theory that tariffs have been largely discounted because America’s big business interests feared they would make certain corporations and big conglomerates less competitive overseas. America is also one of the leading food producers in the world… I’m not sure how modern tariffs effect commodity prices. But when you think about it, tariffs are the ultimate America First policy. No wonder Donald Trump is so fond of them. And, as everyone who’s studied Trump’s negotiation behavior grasps, the former president-turned president-elect loves to talk big in public so as to generate news buzz and keep the strategic initiative. By doing so, he keeps everyone off balance.   Though he didn’t exactly say so, Mike Pence appears to understand what makes Trump tick, even if the two Trump 45 key figures barely speak to each other any longer. One speculates that winning in 2024 has helped heal many of the wounds that opened up in the waning days of 2020 and applied salve to the scars.   Victory has a way of doing that, even if Pence is no longer in the picture.   From appearances alone, it looks as though J.D. Vance is a much better temperament fit for Trump than Pence was. Vance, like Trump, seems to relish the fight as much as the lead-up, something Pence never was comfortable with. The fact Pence is now speaking out in favor of one of Trump’s populist America first plans will only speed the healing process – if there’s a need for one any longer.   And Trump’s views on tariffs is gaining acceptance and support, yet another sudden change from the Bush/McCain/Romney Chamber of Commerce Washington swamp days.   Trump possibly to boot the old establishment media reporters out of their prime seats   Though I wouldn’t rate this as particularly fresh news or a big shock, president elect Trump’s representatives have let it be known they’re considering a shakeup to the way press relations is conducted in the new administration. To put it mildly, Trump is planning to kick the establishment media out of the briefing room and replace them with podcasters and others with a more direct connection to the people themselves .   As would be expected, the perpetuators of “the way it’s always been” aren’t fond of the idea. And much of their angst involves being moved to the back rows in the briefing room itself. The elites, it seems, feel they are entitled to sit closer to the press secretary so they can more readily get their questions acknowledged and appear on camera.   I can’t say for sure, but it’s a prestige thing.   Who can forget the old press conferences when the legendary (for what, exactly?) Helen Thomas  would squat in the front row and loft remarkably liberally biased queries at Ronald Reagan. Thomas was the embodiment of the way Americans used to get their information, basically confined to watching the evening news on the major networks and relying on the big newspapers to offer more in-depth stories.   Times have changed, and Donald Trump has never been shy about hiding his contempt for the “fake news” outlets, some of which were responsible for fanning the flames of “Russian collusion” and basically acting as boils on the president’s backside, spreading sensationalistic rumors and revealing leaks as though they were legitimate news stories. What did Bill Clinton used to say? “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”   At any rate, Trump hinted he was moving towards a change in the way the media will be treated under his new administration. Nothing has been officially announced yet, but here’s guessing the press room will look a lot different starting in about a month and a half.   Just because it’s what they do, the media won’t alter the way they cover things. The liberal journos are still overwhelmingly Democrats, after all, so expect more of the same from that quarter. But the days of the so-called establishment sources holding a monopoly on access to spokespeople and being given a pass because of the names on their press badges are (hopefully) over. Joe Biden economy inflation Biden cognitive decline gas prices, Nancy Pelosi Biden senile Kamala Harris candidacy Donald Trump campaign Harris Trump debates J.D. Vance Kamala vice president Speaker Mike Johnson Donald Trump assassination Donald Trump 2024 presidential election Tim Walz