“I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” – Winston Churchill, 1942
Many Americans, even a lot who never much cared for Donald Trump, voted for him in part because they believed – or at least hoped – that he would be, relatively speaking, a peace candidate compared to the hideous Biden-Harris record. To his credit, Trump’s first term was the only US presidency since Jimmy Carter’s not to get us embroiled in a new conflict, though he failed to extricate us from Afghanistan or Syria.
Such hopes need to be balanced against other aspects of Trump’s earlier tenure in office. Notably, on Ukraine, he oversaw provision of lethal aid to Kiev that had been denied by Barack Obama. Put another way, it was under Trump that Ukraine built up a NATO army in all but name, setting the stage for the February 2022 escalation of the conflict that had been brewing since the 2014 coup midwifed by Victoria Nuland.
Trump has said he would end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours, indeed, even before he takes office. While never unveiling anything resembling an actual plan, he has indicated that his “art of the deal” trademark bluster and threats would be applied to both Ukraine (terminate all aid if Kiev refuses to negotiate!) and Russia (vastly increase aid to Ukraine if Moscow refuses to negotiate!). The supposedly “transactional” President-elect is seemingly unflustered by little details like how, if both Russia and Ukraine balk at talks, he could simultaneously increase and cut off US assistance. Five-dimensional chess indeed!
While the thought of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence is balm for every peace-loving soul, the rest of Trump’s announced second-term team is anything but reassuring: Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Michael Waltz as National Security Adviser, with supporting roles at the NSC by Sebastian Gorka and special envoy for Ukraine-Russia Keith Kellogg, all of whom have a record of the standard bellicose chest-thumping with respect to evil, evil Russia and our cuddly “democratic” “ally” Ukraine.
As Trump prepares to take office next month, one thing should always be kept in mind: like Winston Churchill with respect to the British Empire, Donald Trump has not returned to the Oval Office in order to preside over the liquidation of the Global American Empire (the GAE). Rather, all indications are that he seeks to disengage the US from the Ukraine conflict in a way that avoids total, humiliating defeat for NATO (and, probably, that organization’s long-overdue dissolution) in order to “pivot” to the Middle East and a looming war with Iran following a return to his “maximum pressure” policy. The encore will be the Really, Really Big Showdown with China. Hence Trump’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.
What of the other side? Russian President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and other top Kremlin and Duma figures have made it clear that Moscow has had enough with “non-agreement capable” Washington after repeated Western deceptions: on NATO expansion (“not one inch eastward”), the status of Kosovo (UN Security Council Resolution 1244 providing for its autonomy within Serbia, trashed by the US-sponsored unilateral declaration of independence in 2008), the February 2014 power-sharing agreement in Ukraine between then-President Viktor Yanukovich and his opposition (a dead letter before even one night had passed), the February 2015 Minsk 2 agreement on the status of the Donbass that was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council (but later admitted by Angela Merkel and other western leaders to have been a ruse to allow time to build up Kiev’s forces for a Blitzkrieg), and the failed April 2022 Ukraine-Russia agreement initialed at Istanbul (torpedoed by Boris Johnson with US backing).
Accordingly, the Russians have made it clear that they will accept no temporary truces, no ceasefires, no more promises made to be broken like piecrusts, no pauses as cynical tricks to get the Russians to forgo their current and growing military advantage. (Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and the deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, even suggested recently that new regions could soon be added to Russia. Putin recently re-floated the concept of Novorossiya, “New Russia,” a region of Imperial Russia that included Odessa.) No, they insist, there must be either a genuine, definitive, binding settlement that ensures a lasting peace based on mutual security, or Russian forces will press on until their objectives – notably “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine – are achieved militarily. Such an outcome would mean at least replacement of the current regime in Kiev and, more likely, the end of Ukraine’s statehood.
For the West, this would constitute a total debacle of Afghanistan-like proportions effectively signaling the end of US hegemony in Europe, the GAE’s crown jewel. What can Trump offer the Russians to avoid that?
Moscow’s latest peace proposal was voiced by Putin in June 2024, in which he specified that he’s willing to negotiate at any time but will not halt military operations until Kiev withdraws its forces from the four oblasts that, in addition to Crimea, Moscow claims to be part of Russia: Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, Notably, this would include the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson, under Kiev’s control as of this writing. (In fact, contrary to propaganda from the usual suspects, Putin has never rejected talks, unlike Ukrainian former-president-but-still-playing-the-role Vladimir Zelensky, who in October 2022 issued a decree forbidding talks with Russia as long as Putin is in office.)
Putin’s June proposal was dismissed out of hand by Kiev and its western backers. Given Moscow’s rejection of a ceasefire at the conflict’s line of control, things are at a seeming impasse.
But are they?
With the rapid and accelerating advance of Russian forces, the physical distinction between the military line of confrontation (a freeze line rejected by Moscow) and the constitutional limits of the four oblasts (evacuation of which Moscow demands) becomes less every day. That is, the territorial question – which Russia has never stated to be paramount in its goals for launching its “Special Military Operation” (SMO) in the first place – becomes less of an issue.
Rather, the real question for the Trump Administration becomes a political one of how much wiggle room there is in the Russians’ stated determination not to rely on more promises of the sort that have been repeatedly broken in the past. Put another way: if Trump-Lucy wants to avoid utter defeat in the European theater of the worldwide confrontation between the GAE and BRICS-Eurasia, so he can get on to mixing it up with Iran and China, can he dupe Putin-Charlie Brown into taking another run at the football?
I think he at least has a good shot at it. Keep in mind that, despite the ubiquitous narrative, Putin is neither a dictator nor a hardliner toward the West. Regarding the former, he’s a balancer in a system that still retains many (too damn many, in my opinion) western liberals dying to see the day they can again send their snotty kids back to elite western universities and their fat wives and svelte mistresses shopping at Harrods, while saluting a rainbow flag raised over Lenin’s Mausoleum. As to the latter, as lately demonstrated by his restrained response to ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles launched into pre-1991 Russia by NATO personnel from Ukrainian territory, Putin has shown a dogged determination to come to an understanding with his Western “partners” long after it became clear to everyone (except him, evidently) that they have no intention of ever getting along with him or Russia but are hell-bent on destroying both. (“Hello, Volodya? It’s me, Bashar. I’m out front of Resurrection Gate, near Zhukov’s statue …)
Far from the “shock and awe” demonstrated by the United States in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, etc., or Netanyahu’s in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, Putin’s light military footprint in Ukraine – the limited size of the incursion force, declining to destroy the Dnepr bridges, limited (but now increasing) attacks on infrastructure, the pullback of Russian forces from Kiev as a good will gesture before the 2022 Istanbul talks, not eliminating Kiev regime leaders who’d kill him if they could – all point to a strategy based on accepting a reasonable deal if one might be presented, not on settling things by force of arms, 1945-style. (It’s largely forgotten now that at the outset of the conflict foreign embassies decamped from Kiev and moved to Lvov in the far west, and consideration was even given for the Zelensky regime to abandon Ukraine entirely and establish a government in exile, in the expectation that Russia would quickly overrun the whole country – then face an Afghan-type insurgency that would bleed Russia white, leading to regime-change in Moscow.) Unexpectedly, the Russians didn’t behave as the West had anticipated. Instead, it’s clear their approach was “pedagogical” from the start: show the West they mean business so they’ll come to the table. It is also suggested that a deal, not a military resolution, would be preferable to Putin’s BRICS partners, whose opinion he can’t afford to ignore.
The frustration this approach has caused in the Russian military and in large sectors of the public is well known. That said, as observed by Moscow-based John Helmer, Putin may deem that his high levels of public support allow him to accept a settlement that falls short of, or at least redefines, his SMO goals as originally stated. It’s an open question whether that support could be sustained when (inevitably, in my opinion) the West contemptuously disregards its obligations under whatever is agreed-to.
Some say Putin has finally learned his lesson about the West. Others say not, that he would jump at any remotely reasonable transaction proffered by Trump & Co., Inc. We will soon see.
Looking at the longstanding pattern of Putin’s Kremlin and the smoke signals from Washington, mediated by the good offices of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the contours of a kind of Minsk 3 or Istanbul-double-plus-good “deal” are already discernable:
1. A ceasefire in early 2025: Ukrainian forces would evacuate whatever shrinking part, if any, of the four oblasts they might still hold, plus of Russia’s Kursk region if any Ukrainians are still there. A Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) would be established. (Some ad hoc arrangement might have to be reached on the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson, if the Russians hadn’t taken them yet. Perhaps they would remain under Ukrainian administration inside the DMZ, “claimed by Russia.”)
2. Moscow would continue to regard the areas it holds as sovereign Russian territory. The rest of the world would still deem them Ukrainian under temporary Russian occupation, similar to how the US regarded the Baltic Republics of the USSR. Both sides would tolerate a rough balance between Zaporozhye and Kherson cities (claimed by Russia but under Ukrainian administration) and the rest of the oblasts and Crimea (claimed by Ukraine but under Russian administration).
3. As Trump has suggested, supposedly non-NATO European Union peacekeepers would be deployed on the Ukrainian side of the DMZ (with Moscow’s agreement, contrary to astute observers’ insistence that the Russians would never allow it), subject to strict limits on numbers, weaponry, etc. These limits, of course, would not be honored (see Lucy and Charlie Brown, above).
4. NATO membership for Ukraine world be deferred indefinitely. This is an obvious Lucy lie that Moscow would pretend means permanent neutrality. In fact, rump Ukraine would be treated as a NATO state in all but name but not receive formal membership.
5. Security guarantees: the US, NATO, Russia would sign an updated version of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (possibly in the form of a treaty, which the original Budapest Memorandum wasn’t) enshrined in a Security Council Resolution, guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity (taking into account “provisional arrangements”), its neutral status, and a bar of foreign troops on Ukraine’s territory (except those permitted in this agreement); parallel provisions would be put into the Ukrainian constitution. It goes without saying that these Lucy assurances would not be honored by the West any more than were past formal commitments on Kosovo, the Donbass, and other topics.
6. Demilitarization “guarantees”: Strict limits would be placed on the size and composition of Ukraine’s military and placement of foreign forces and weapons on its territory. More Lucy lies.
7. Denazification “guarantees”: Parties and movements with specified “extremist” ideologies would be legally banned. More Lucy lies. Elections would be held in rump Ukraine. All sides would pretend the resulting regime is democratic, legitimate, and “moderate.” Banderist neo-Nazi groups, formally illegal, would retain their guns and wield a permanent veto over any Kiev regime.
8. Kiev would commit to protections for the Russian language and Russian culture, the canonical Orthodox Church, etc. More Lucy lies.
9. The West would promise a phased lifting of sanctions and the return of frozen/confiscated Russian assets. “You can trust me this time, Charlie Brown!” Consider how long it took Russia to be removed from 1974 Jackson-Vanik sanctions only to then be immediately slapped with new Magnitsky Act sanctions.
The bottom line is that Moscow would pretend to have substantially if not entirely achieved its SMO goals, giving up its immediate military lead in exchange for false promises: déjà vu all over again. Pretenses aside, it would accept a “quarter of a loaf” truce that preserves NATO to fight another day and sustains an anti-Russia Ukrainian rump state as a de facto NATO platform, as opposed to a clear military victory – which at the very least would have to include annexation of Odessa and Kharkov, and probably Kiev, plus either liquidation of the Ukrainian state entirely or, at worst, creation of a minimal rump Ukraine that’s effectively a Russian satellite and a member of the Union State with Russia and Belarus.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he hasn’t spoken to US President-elect Donald Trump in over four years but is ready to meet with the incoming US leader “if he wants it.”
The latter outcome would shatter NATO and probably NATO’s concubine, the European Union. That’s precisely what the Washington Swamp can’t afford, Trump or no Trump. Thus, even if Trump were entirely sincere in promises to Moscow made on behalf of the United States (a very big “if” in my opinion), his ability to deliver on them would be at best highly questionable in light of an Executive Branch packed with neocons (what’s new?) and the implacable bipartisan hostility toward Russia in Congress. Then, even if, by some unbelievable miracle, Trump were able to ensure US and NATO performance on their commitments for the balance of his tenure, there would be no binding effect once he left office.
Granted, the above is just one possible scenario but one I submit is all too conceivable based on past performance of those concerned. If things go this way, not only does the GAE get a new lease on life and NATO live to fight another day, it would usher in heightened danger of war in the Middle East and the Western Pacific and, in due course, set the stage for renewed and possibly uncontrollable conflict in Europe in the not-too-distant future. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov recently warned that his country needs to be ready to fight a war with NATO within the next decade, and he’s almost certainly right – especially if he and his boss allow that organization to slip out of its well-deserved fade into oblivion, almost ensuring that war will come a lot sooner than in ten years.
In laying out this possible near-term scenario, I would dearly love to be proven wrong by events. However, I have vanishingly small hope that the foregoing could resonate with any reader with agency on the American side. Perhaps chances are slightly better on the Russian side. As for the Ukrainians and the Europeans – what they think doesn’t matter to anyone, not even to themselves.
It Never Ends: MTA Hiking Fares Yet Again, Despite Being Days From New Congestion Tolls
Everybody’s favorite financial black hole in New York City – the MTA – is said to plan another fare hike just days before it institutes its congestion toll, according to a new report from the New York Post.
Spurring the hikes, the MTA approved a $1.27 billion order for 435 new subway cars, including 80 open-gangway models, and outlined plans to raise subway and bus fares to $3 per ride. Chairman Janno Lieber noted the fare increase, expected by late 2025, requires formal board approval next year.
Lieber said this week: “This is a good deal. We are way cheaper than other major world cities.”
Well, there you have it…
But the Post writes that critics slammed the fare hikes and new $9 Manhattan congestion toll starting Jan. 5, pointing to high spending. The MTA’s plan includes 4% fare increases in 2025 and 2027, potentially raising fares to $3.14, with congestion tolls rising to $15 over time.
City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli fired back: “Chicago Transit bought 400 cars for $632 million pre-pandemic.”
He added: “So given the MTA’s incompetence factor, multiplied by their waste, abuse and mismanagement, paying only double a few years later seems par for the course. Congestion pricing was supposed to solve all these capital shortfalls, but apparently now it won’t.”
City Council Member Robert Holden added: “The Miserable Transit Authority strikes again, raiding the pockets of hardworking New Yorkers with their congestion tax scam and endless fare and toll hikes.”
He continued: “Instead of rooting out waste and abuse within their bloated system, they keep the grift alive at our expense. This is pathetic, unacceptable, and New Yorkers deserve better.”
Insiders doubt fare hikes and new tolls will affect upcoming elections for Gov. Hochul or others. Democratic strategist Jake Dilemani said commuters will feel the pinch, but political fallout is unlikely, according to the Post.
The $1.27 billion plan includes 355 R211 subway cars and 80 open-gangway models debuting in 2027 to replace older trains on several lines. Some G-line riders will see open-gangway cars by early 2025.
MTA officials praised the R211 trains for reliability, wider doors, better signage, video cameras, and smoother service, calling it a key step in modernizing the subway.
The transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in 2016 went like every other presidential transition in modern history. The old administration had extended meetings with the new, and old agency heads and their staff trained the new ones. It was managed by Chris Christie and then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence.
It was funded by the General Services Administration and the incoming team received emergency drills, confidential documents, security briefings, and training sessions on emergency protocols. The FBI was brought on board to vet all new hires.
That’s because the incoming administration believed that the system worked. It had won and therefore would be in charge. That’s how it is supposed to work in the United States.
The idea of this process is to ensure continuity in government from one administration to the other.
In normal times, all of this would be a good idea. The Founders set up a structural system of government with minimal functions, stable law, checks and balances, and established elections for president every four years to ensure that the chief executive served with the people’s consent. Most functions of government were handled by the states, in any case.
There was never supposed to be a need for a fundamental regime change. We merely changed administrators and members of Congress. The rest was supposed to take care of itself, which is why it would seem to make sense that the old administration trains the new one, and a permanent staff of experts and civil service employees helps the new kids learn the ropes from those with experience.
And yet here we are. The Trump administration’s mandate from voters is not just for a change in personnel. The mandate is in fact for fundamental regime change within the framework of democracy. The administrative state, which is nowhere found in the Constitution, has over time developed far more power than elected leaders.
That absolutely must change, as voters made clear in November 2024. It was yet another case, just like in 2016, of the candidate winning whom nearly the whole of mainstream media believed would not win, and of the whole of what anyone would call the establishment disfavoring the result. The victory was so overwhelming as to amount to a primal scream against government as usual.
In this case, it makes no sense for the machinery that the incoming administration wants to overthrow to be in charge of the transition.
Remember that this is not Team Trump’s first rodeo. Last time, it went along with all the protocols, funding, systems, and sessions. The White House staff members went through day after day of lectures from government experts on how Washington works. They sat through intelligence briefings. They were schooled in protocols for the management of nuclear war, biological warfare, natural disasters, and pandemics.
They put up with all the PowerPoint presentations, exhortations, manuals, lists, and introductions to people who really run the government. They assumed that once the president was sworn in, he would in fact be the president and those whom he appointed would be in charge.
Almost immediately, however, it became clear that the permanent government was waging some kind of an information war against the elected one. The media worked closely with deeply embedded staff in intelligence and agencies to put out the word that Trump was illegitimately elected due to supposed Russian interference. This began immediately with a bang and put those in the new administration in a tight spot, forever defending themselves against absurd charges that they all knew to be untrue.
When that finally ended, new forms of trolling began, each more severe than the last. The Trump administration always had a loose hold on power due to all of this, but it was finally and fatally upended with the onset of respiratory pandemic. The proposed solution to this, according to all the experts deeply embedded in government, was to wreck the whole of the Trump economy while waiting for a shot to inoculate the public.
Along with that came record unemployment, new permissions and mandates for mail-in ballots, school and business closures, and wild uses of power that the new Trump administration never authorized. The bureaucracies were ruling the country on their own and following the edicts of interests and powers behind the World Health Organization (WHO). Most of the Trump administration’s last year in office was spent trying to claw back power from the WHO.
Finally, in July of 2020, the Trump administration announced that it was pulling itself out of the WHO completely. But that made no difference at all. YouTube had already announced in April that it would delete any content that contradicted the WHO, and it continued to enforce that policy for years. So far as I know, it still does.
After leaving office in January 2021, the Trump team went to work trying to figure out what the heck had happened in the first term to cause everything to go so wrong, or, more specifically, what enabled the administration’s authority to be so thoroughly subverted from within.
It concluded that the real problem began with the transition itself. That was when the permanent bureaucracy first asserted its power over the incoming administration. That’s when the deep state got its hooks in.
This time, the team has a very different plan. It is being managed by trusted members of Trump’s inner circle. They have not allowed the General Services Administration to manage any aspect of the transition. They have done this by refusing to accept any money from any government source. Instead, the transition has been entirely privately funded, with methods deployed to make sure that the funding sources are not tainted by deep state contacts. The explicit purpose has been to avoid subversion.
It’s been the same with FBI vetting. The incoming Trump administration simply does not trust the process and for good reason. It was the FBI that had spied on the campaign and even raided Trump’s own home. Furthermore, it worked with other agencies to deploy myriad forms of lawfare for years.
This transition is without precedent. The permanent staff of government itself only became the U.S. norm starting in 1883, and it has grown every decade since. At some point in the past, the elected leaders became more like decorations than real rulers of government. The Trump administration cannot achieve its objectives with this status quo.
This is the reason for this very different transition. It is a good sign and symbol of what might be coming. We might in fact experience a much-needed change of regime in Washington through exactly the system and process that the Founding Fathers set up. The second term of Trump seems determined to avoid repeating the obvious errors of the last time around.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Three Dozen Luxury Condos In South Florida Are Sinking, New Study Finds
They don’t call it the swamp for nothing…
Now a study recently published in Earth and Space Science confirms that about “three dozen” luxury high rise buildings in South Florida are “sinking”, according to a new report from Fox News.
The study was conducted by researchers from the University of Miami, Florida Atlantic University, University of Houston, University of Hanover, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, and Caltech.
It found that 35 luxury condos and hotels in Florida’s Sunny Isles Beach, Surfside, Miami Beach, and Bal Harbour have experienced subsidence in recent years.
The study analyzed Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data and found affected high-rises sank 2-8 centimeters from 2016 to 2023. The University of Miami noted such settlement is common during and after construction. Most impacted buildings were constructed after 2014.
“We found that subsidence in most high-rises slows down over time, but in some cases, it continues at a steady rate. This suggests that subsidence could persist for an extended period,” the study says.
The Fox News report says that study authors attributed the sinking to sand grains settling more densely in limestone layers, possibly influenced by construction vibrations, groundwater flow, tidal movements, or stormwater injection.
“The discovery of the extent of subsidence hotspots along the South Florida coastline was unexpected. The study underscores the need for ongoing monitoring and a deeper understanding of the long-term implications for these structures,” one study author commented.
President Joe Biden oversaw the most anti-Second Amendment administration in the history of the United States – effectively creating a police state that left every American open to prosecution. But when his son Hunter Biden ran into legal trouble and was convicted of three firearm felonies, Biden seemingly forgot about his own beliefs and granted clemency for all of Hunter’s crimes spanning the last ten years. To make matters worse, Biden continually assured the American people that he would not intervene.
Now, millions of gun owners remain in legal jeopardy under Biden’s policies, while Hunter walks free with his criminal record wiped clean. This blatant double standard is a slap in the face to the American people and a betrayal of whatever trust they may have still had in his leadership.
Unsurprisingly, Biden attempted to rationalize his decision by pointing fingers at the prosecution, saying it was “unfair and selective.” Regardless of his reasons, every American now facing legal prosecution due to unconstitutional firearm policies deserves the same treatment as Hunter.
Biden’s willingness to lie to the American people about his intentions highlights the ever-hypocritical left but also begs the question: If Biden is so eager to break his promises, why not break away from his leftist handlers and help American gun owners?
After all, Biden did not focus heavily on gun control as a U.S. senator and only became a radical gun-grabber after running for president in 2020. Biden’s only course of action is to apply a blanket pardon to all gun owners who have suffered under his administration’s abuse of power.
A History of Anti-Second Amendment Policies
The Biden-Harris administration has pursued the most aggressively anti-Second Amendment agenda in U.S. history. While they stopped short of outright gun confiscation, it wasn’t for lack of trying.
Biden’s weaponization of federal agencies, particularly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), led to a series of sweeping regulatory actions that turned millions of lawful gun owners into felons overnight.
Biden also advanced and implemented numerous policies that violated the Second Amendment by restricting every American’s right to bear arms. His administration sought “assault weapon” bans, red flag laws, magazine capacity limits, and universal background checks—all while limiting the places where law-abiding citizens may exercise their unlimited right to carry firearms.
These measures have not only undermined the Second Amendment but also emboldened federal agencies to act with impunity. In March, the consequences of this overreach turned deadly when Brian Malinowski was fatally shot during a botched ATF raid.
The ATF justified the raid by accusing Malinowski of illegally selling firearms at gun shows—a claim rooted in a controversial 2023 rule approved by the agency without congressional oversight. This rule redefined what qualifies as a “gun dealer,” allowing the ATF to target law-abiding citizens under a broader, unchecked mandate.
Malinowski, who was never proven guilty of the alleged crimes, was denied his day in court and lost his life over accusations far less severe than those against Hunter Biden.
Last-Minute Redemption
Biden will never outlive the detrimental policies his administration has implemented and will always be remembered as a hypocrite for pardoning his own son, but he could salvage some of his reputation if he applied his reasoning to all gun owners in America.
A blanket pardon for law-abiding gun owners—those now labeled as felons under ATF’s arbitrary and unconstitutional mandates—would be a step toward restoring trust and fairness.
If Biden is willing to protect his son, he should have no qualms about protecting ordinary Americans from his own unjust laws and regulations.
By breaking from the radical left’s playbook, Biden has an opportunity to show that clemency applies to all—not just to his family. The millions of gun owners affected by these policies deserve more than an apology.
In November, President Trump and Republicans won a broad mandate to govern. Consequently, Democrats are now seeking refuge in traditions and institutions they once sought to destroy – the Senate filibuster and courts of law. President Trump and Republicans should seize this opportunity to use Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution to protect these institutions for generations to come.
Article 5 provides a two-step process for amending our Constitution. First, an amendment must be proposed. Under Article 5, there are two ways for proposing an amendment to the Constitution: (1) an amendment passes by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, or (2) two-thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention and two-thirds of the delegates support an amendment. Once an amendment is proposed, three-fourths of states must ratify it for it to become law. Since there are fifty states, that means to change our constitution, 38 states must ratify an amendment.
In the 2024 election, President Trump carried 31 states. Moreover, Republicans control the state legislatures in 26 states, including some states Trump lost, like New Hampshire. Moreover, they flipped one chamber of state legislatures in Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They also made inroads in deep blue states like Maine and ended the Democratic supermajority in Vermont. From the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ballot, the country shifted right. President-elect Trump and Republicans should seize this opportunity to push for constitutional amendments that protect key norms and institutions from future attacks.
First, Republicans should support an amendment constitutionalizing the Senate filibuster for all legislation, excluding spending bills from the House. The filibuster – a Senate procedural mechanism that requires 60 votes for legislation to be passed – plays a key role in requiring bipartisan cooperation in the Senate. It has been used by both parties to prevent radical legislation from becoming law.
While Democrats recently found support for the filibuster, there is a movement on the left calling to abolish it. For example, in 2022, Democrats tried to kill the filibuster. This effort only failed because independent Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema voted against the filibuster-killing plan. In August, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed a desire to change the filibuster again so Democrats could have an easier time passing legislation. Democrats clearly only value the filibuster when they’re in the minority – but have no issue destroying it when they control the Senate. Adding the filibuster to the Constitution would preserve bipartisan cooperation and debate in the Senate, ensuring it remains the “greatest deliberative body in the world.”
Second, Republicans should back an amendment that sets the size of the Supreme Court at nine justices. Currently, the Constitution does not set the size of the Supreme Court. Democrats have spent years undermining the Court’s integrity to justify expanding it. Other Democrats like President Joe Biden claim the historically low public approval of the Supreme Court shows there is a need to reform our highest court. Yet, the Supreme Court still has higher approval ratings than Congress and President Biden. Moreover, the Supreme Court still has higher public confidence than Congress or the presidency.
The court’s size has not been changed since 1869 when Congress set the size at nine. The court’s size remaining at nine has played a key part in allowing the court to maintain the public’s support and its independence. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to expand the court in 1937, he failed because the public viewed his attempt at expanding the Court as an attack on a sacrosanct institution. There is a long institutional and democratic tradition of nine justices, which has allowed our highest court to remain isolated from the political fray. Alexander Hamilton famously defended an independent judiciary insulated from politics in Federalist Paper No. 78, where he argued liberty would be extinguished if the judicial power were co-opted by the executive or legislative branches. Hamilton’s fear may become reality as Democrats may push for more justices when they retain power – especially if President Trump gets to appoint more justices.
Adding more seats would destroy the public’s trust in any decision rendered by changing the public’s perception of justices to politicians in robes instead of neutral arbiters of law. Enshrining the number of Supreme Court justices in the Constitution would preserve the high court’s independence from political pressures and ensure the public’s trust in our independent judiciary isn’t destroyed.
President Trump and Republicans should utilize their momentum and get Congress to propose an amendment or pressure state legislatures to call a convention of states. Doing so will preserve core American institutions for years to come.
Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova’s McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has previously appeared in the New York Daily News, Post & Courier, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Virginia Will Be Home To The World’s First Nuclear Fusion Power Plant
Nuclear adoption continues accelerating, and now Virginia sure thinks it has found the way to “clean energy, billions in investment, and a solution to surging power demand”. The state is going to host the world’s first fusion power plant, according to the Virginia Mercury.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin said this week: “Commonwealth Fusion Systems plans on building the world’s first grid scale commercial fusion power plant in the world, full stop, and it’s going to be right here in the commonwealth of Virginia.”
Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), founded in 2018 in Cambridge, Mass., plans to build a fusion power plant in Chesterfield County’s James River Industrial Park. The facility, set to produce 400 megawatts of electricity to power 150,000 homes, could be operational by the early 2030s.
Fusion power, replicating the sun’s energy production, offers a cleaner alternative to traditional fission. The 25-acre project highlights Virginia’s role in advancing energy solutions amid surging demand from energy-intensive data centers supporting big tech.
A JLARC report projects Virginia’s data center energy demand could triple to 30,000 megawatts by 2040 if infrastructure supports it. To meet rising needs, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power are exploring modular nuclear reactors, wind, solar, and natural gas, the Virginia Mercury reported.
Fusion power offers a clean alternative, avoiding emissions tied to climate change. It combines hydrogen isotopes under extreme heat and pressure, using magnets to generate electricity via steam turbines, with helium as the only byproduct.
Dominion Energy Virginia President Edward H. Baine said: “Our customers’ growing needs for reliable, carbon-free power benefits from as diverse a menu of power generation options as possible, and in that spirit, we are delighted to assist CFS in their efforts.”
The report says that CFS chose Chesterfield after a global search and will lease the site from Dominion Energy. Virginia secured the project with $2 million in state and county funding, a tax exemption for equipment, and federal DOE support. Gov. Youngkin estimates it will bring “billions” in development and “hundreds” of jobs.
CFS is building its SPARC demo plant in Massachusetts to pave the way for ARC technology in Chesterfield. Unlike laser-based fusion by California’s Lawrence Livermore Lab, CFS uses a tokamak, a donut-shaped device, to confine and fuse molecules.
Alex Creely, CFS director of tokamak operations, concluded: “One of the big advantages of fusion is that it doesn’t produce any long lived waste material, and there’s no risk of some kind of meltdown even. It’s a very safe energy source — something that you can live right next to and feel very comfortable with.”
Recall earlier this week we wrote that nuclear startup Oklo joined the long list of names signing deals with data centers for power heading into the next decade.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released their final report earlier this month, concluding that the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Tony Fauci funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where a lab accident likely started the initial outbreak.
Multiple U.S. agencies aided by virologist sought to cover-up this evidence, the Select Subcommittee charged, and several people broke the law by misleading congressional staff including Peter Daszak of EcoHealth, who funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab; NIH employee David Morens who served as Tony Fauci’s advisor; and former New York Governor Cuomo who lied about nursing home fatalities in his state.
The Select Subcommittee’s report will likely serve as roadmap for incoming Trump officials seeking to clean up federal research. However, Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen sought to invert the report’s findings, posting a series of false allegations about the report’s conclusions on Bluesky a social media app popular with Democrats fleeing X. Andersen was previously caught misleading Congress by myself and Ryan Grim at The Intercept, and his latest actions pile on the evidence that the Scripps scientist cannot tell the truth and lacks even a mob lawyer’s fleeting interest in candor.
Follow the Documents
Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, emerged as a controversial researcher early in the pandemic, and has been one of the most outspoken cheerleaders for the theory that pandemic started with a natural spillover from an animal to humans outside of a lab. But emails released a year after the pandemic’s beginning showed that Andersen initially thought the virus had been genetically engineered. However, after a phone call with Fauci and another major virology funder, Jeremy Farrar, then with the Wellcome Trust, Andersen reversed course.
Along with other virologists funded by Fauci and Farrar,Andersen then published a March 2020 Nature Medicine paper called “Proximal Origins” which concluded a Wuhan lab accident was not “plausible.” The Nature Medicine paper thus diverted any blame from Fauci for possibly starting the pandemic, as he was funding that same lab in Wuhan. Emails later showed that Fauci and Farrar helped guide the Nature Medicine piece to publication, a fact which Andersen continues to deny.
Emails and other private messages released in the summer of 2023 by Congress also indicated that Andersen’s co-authors on the Nature Medicine paper may have put politics before science.
“[G]iven the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content with ascribing it to [a] natural process,” Andersen’s colleague, Dr. Andrew Rambaut, wrote to a group of virologists over Slack in February 2020.
“Yup, I totally agree that that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances,” Andersen replied.
Andersen did not return a request to explain his false statements, nor provide an explanation for who paid his lawyer when he appeared before the Committee.
Follow My Lies on BlueSky
Continuing his political campaign to deny a possible lab accident, Andersen posted excerpts of the House final report on Bluesky. In particular, Andersen posted a screenshot of a memo found on page 20 of the Select Subcommittee report. “This memo proves that Dr. Fauci can’t possibly have orchestrated a cover-up,” Andersen wrote. Andersen then repeated the dishonest claim that the memo is proof that Fauci had no involvement in directing the Nature Medicine paper, despite emails to the contrary.
In a later Bluesky post, Andersen charges that these emails are “a conspiracy theory, to be clear.” But Andersen’s Bluesky posts omit one small detail about this memo found on page 20—the report’s next page, page 21.
On the following page of the report, investigators note that Andersen testified that Fauci had suggested that he write a peer-reviewed paper (this is the Nature Medicine, Proximal Origins paper) on the possibility of a lab accident at Wuhan. Page 21 also reveals that Andersen emailed to Nature that Fauci and others “prompted” the paper:
When Dr. Andersen presented a draft of Proximal Origin to Nature, he stated it was “prompted” by Dr. Fauci and later stated the goal of Proximal Origin was to “disprove the lab leak theory.”
And here’s the email Andersen wrote to Nature Medicine, where he explained that the Nature Medicine Proximal Origins paper was “prompted by Jeremy Farrar, Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins.”
To be clear, nothing is stopping Andersen from lying to his followers on Bluesky. He can continue posting truncated portions of the report to falsely assert Fauci had no involvement in his Nature Medicine paper. Lying liars lie.
But Andersen also got caught lying to Congress, and that’s where he can run into legal peril. Unlike lying on Bluesky, lying liars can be prosecuted when they lie to Congress.
Will DOJ Prosecute Lying Liars?
To mediate the Select Subcommittee’s demand for answers and to protect him during a deposition and public hearing, Andersen hired criminal defense lawyer, John P. Rowley, a former federal prosecutor who defended Trump before the Department of Justice.
But after Nature Medicine accepted the paper in March 2020, Andersen sent Fauci and Collins the paper’s draft and a draft of the press release. Andersen then thanked them for “advice and leadership” on the matter. “Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, or questions about the paper or the press release,” Andersen wrote the two NIH officials who funded his research.
“Nice job on the paper,” Fauci replied.
But in his July 2023 testimony, Andersen alleged that Fauci had not provided “advice and leadership” on the paper. Instead, Andersend proclaimed some monumental difference between asking someone to comment or offer suggestions about a paper instead of on a paper.
“Note, that I say ‘about the paper’, not e.g., ‘on the paper,’” Andersen testified.
Andersen sought to clarify later in his testimony, “Sending a copy of a paper that has been accepted and is in ‘proof’ (i.e., at a stage where only changes directly requested by the journal can be introduced) is simply a professional courtesy.”
Emails impeach this portion of Andersen’s testimony, as Fauci was provided multiple drafts of the paper. A month before Andersen emailed Fauci and Collins the “proof” of the paper in March 2020, Jeremy Farrar forwarded Fauci a “rough first draft” from Andersen’s co-author Edward “Eddie” Holmes.
“Please treat in confidence—a very rough first draft from Eddie and team—they will send on the edited, cleaner version later,” Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins. The following day, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins, “Tony and Francis, The revised draft from Eddie, copied here.”
If this is not enough, one more bit to chew on. Andersen stated in his July 2023 testimony that Fauci had received the final “proof” of the article as “simply a professional courtesy.” But we know this is not true. Some months after Andersen’s congressional testimony Fauci testified that he had been sent multiple drafts.
Q As the minority said, we’ve talked to all the U.S.-based authors or those who are acknowledged on that paper, so I won’t go through all of the science in it, except for I want — you were sent drafts periodically?
A Right.
Q A couple. I think it was less than 10, more than 5, drafts —
A Right.
Fauci’s January 2024 deposition impeaches Andersen’s July 2023 statement before Congress.
But it doesn’t end there. After Andersen was caught lying in his July 2023 congressional testimony, The Intercept published an expose a few days after, noting Andersen had also lied to Congress about his NIH funding from Fauci.
During the 2023 hearing, The Intercept discovered, Andersen sought to distract Members of Congress about a serious conflict of interest. While writing the Nature Medicine paper, whose conclusions diverted any blame from Fauci for funding research in the Wuhan lab, Andersen was awaiting Fauci’s approval for a major grant.
Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research, who testified at the hearing along with Bob Garry of Tulane University, preempted the charge in his opening statement, telling the committee he had no live fundraising requests before Fauci’s agency at the time of the call. “There is no connection between the grant and the conclusions we reached about the origins of the pandemic. We applied for this grant in June 2019, and it was scored and reviewed by independent experts in November 2019,” Andersen testified. “Based on the actual timeline of this grant, it is not possible that the merit-based federal grant awarding process was influenced by a call in February, 2020.”
But Andersen’s testimony was false, The Intercept reported. While Andersen’s grant had been reviewed, it was still waiting for Fauci’s final approval and signature.
The grant wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020. In other words, it was on Fauci’s desk at the time of the conference call. Andersen’s lab announced the funding in a press release in August 2020, nine months after he claimed it was already finalized. The press release describes it as a “new $8.9 million grant.”
In case you’re still not certain if Andersen is a liar, The Intercept posted a screenshot of Andersen’s grant, showing that Fauci had given final approval on May 21, 2020.
Congress is far from finished with addressing all the problems that happened during the pandemic. Just last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (HSGAC) sent letters to a dozen federal agencies, demanding they preserve documents pertaining to Covid’s origins.
Blinken Admits Past 20 Years Of US Regime Change Efforts Abroad Basically A Failure
Now with just weeks to go before the Trump administration takes over the White House, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has issued some interesting and surprising admissions. He told an audience of the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday that Biden’s policy on Iran hasn’t been more muscular because Washington’s regime change efforts in the region over the past two decades have basically been failures.
It’s rare for a top official who is still in office to so bluntly describe that regime change efforts have been doomed. Blinken had been asked specifically of the US supporting Iranian opposition groups to overthrow the government in Tehran.
Via AFP
“I think if we look at the last 20 years, our experiments in regime change have not exactly been resounding successes,” he responded. “So, I think we have to have an appropriate degree of humility in focusing in that way on a problem.”
He also said at one point, “There’s no doubt this has not been a good year for Iran, and we’re seeing that play out every single day.”
He laid out that Iranian leaders now have to make “fundamental” choices:
“One choice it could make and should make is to focus on itself and focus on trying to build a better, more successful country that delivers for its people … and to stop getting involved in these adventures or misadventures throughout the region.”
Foreign media seized on the comments, particularly state media in Russia and China. For example, Russia’s RT ran a headline which somewhat stretched Blinken’s words to say “US admits attempts at regime-change in Iran.”
“US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has publicly admitted that over the past two decades Washington has conducted experiments seeking regime change in Iran,” the RT report said. “Efforts to topple the Islamic Republic’s leadership, however, have failed, he admitted.”
And China’s Xinhua had this headline: “Blinken admits failure of decades-long U.S. effort seeking regime change in Iran.”
The Chinese state media report also reads a lot into Blinken’s words, claiming that he “publicly admitted Wednesday that his country’s efforts spanning the last 20 years to seek regime change in Iran did not yield much success.”
While it’s clear that countries from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria were all targeted for regime change in the last twenty years, it’s uncertain whether Washington ever made a decision to focus efforts on overthrowing the leadership of the Islamic Republic. Certainly, however, there have been efforts to weaken and degrade the country, including Trump’s 2020 assassination by drone strike of IRGC Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.
Blinken also had some interesting words on Iran’s nuclear program, saying that it is “not inevitable” that Iran will purse and achieve a bomb. “This is something that may be more a question now because they’ve lost different tools. They’ve lost different lines of defense,” he said.
“Sure, you’re going to see more thinking about that, but the costs and consequences for them for pursuing that route, I think, would be severe,” he added.
Are we heading into a year that will be characterized by great turmoil? Every year, a magazine known as “the Economist” publishes an issue that is dedicated to what is coming in the year ahead. In the past, many of these issues have turned out to be eerily accurate. For example, the cover of last year’s issue featured images of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin with very large missiles standing next to each of them. Of course this ended up being one of the biggest news stories of 2024. Ukraine started firing long-range missiles provided by NATO deep into Russian territory, and the Russians responded with long-range missiles of their own. Unfortunately, it appears that the cover for this year’s issue could be previewing some very alarming events that are coming in 2025.
The Economist has been one of the most important mouthpieces for the western elite for decades. It has offices all over the globe, but it is based in the city of London…
Based in London, the newspaper is owned by the Economist Group, with its core editorial offices in the United States, as well as across major cities in continental Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include Cadbury, Rothschild (21%), Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.
Ordinary people don’t read the magazine much.
It is truly a magazine by the elite and for the elite, and so it provides a tremendous amount of insight into what the elite are thinking. Below, you can see what the cover for their 2025 preview issue looks like…
The first thing that stands out is how dark and ominous this cover is.
Are they expecting 2025 to be a dark and ominous year?
A black and white image of Donald Trump outlined in red is right in the center of the cover.
Obviously they expect him to be the center of attention.
Interestingly, a raised red fist that is outlined in red can be seen near the bottom of the cover. Needless to say, a raised fist is often used as a symbol of “resistance” to Trump.
There are several other world leaders on the cover as well. Just like in 2024, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin are featured, and this year Chinese President Xi Jinping also appears.
It is already clear that the conflict in Ukraine will continue to be a major theme in 2025. Are the elite expecting war with China to break out too?
Right next to Trump, you can see a very tall white missile, and right beneath Trump there is something that looks like a mushroom cloud.
In addition, there are a couple of other symbols on the cover that are related to nuclear war.
This sort of imagery should deeply alarm all of us.
Are they trying to warn us that we are getting dangerously close to nuclear war?
Or could it be possible that they are suggesting that nuclear weapons could actually be used in combat at some point in 2025?
2024 was certainly a year of war, and I fully expect things to go to an entirely new level in 2025.
But let us hope that nuclear weapons are not used any time soon.
Switching gears, directly next to the very tall white missile is an image of a syringe that is more than half-filled with red liquid.
That can’t be related to the previous pandemic, because the previous pandemic has been behind us for quite some time.
So what are they trying to communicate with this image?
Are they suggesting that the world could soon be facing another major pestilence?
Red is a color that is often associated with death.
So the fact that the liquid inside the syringe is red is more than just a little bit creepy.
As I have detailed in previous articles, at this moment global health authorities are dealing with an outbreak of a mystery illness that is being referred to as “Disease X” in Africa, a new strain of the monkeypox that has started to pop up all over the world, an eruption of the Marburg virus in Rwanda, and a bird flu crisis that never seems to end and that has now jumped into humans.
I am convinced that pestilence will be a major theme in 2025, and apparently the Economist does too.
On the cover of the magazine, we also see a dollar sign appear twice, and there are numerous arrows that are pointing both up and down.
Are they anticipating that there will be economic and financial turmoil during the year ahead?
Of course economic problems have already begun in the U.S., in Europe, and in China. The global economy is rapidly heading in the wrong direction, and many are warning that 2025 is going to be a very hard year.
That is really bad news for those that are on the bottom levels of the economic food chain. Here in the United States, demand at food banks is already at all-time record highs. So what will things look like if a full-blown global economic crisis suddenly erupts in 2025?
There are other images on this cover that also seem rather odd. There is an image of Saturn, there is an image of an all-seeing eye, and there is an image of an hourglass.
An hourglass is often used to depict the fact that time is running out.
The truth is that we have been living on borrowed time for quite a while.
The elite love to create order out of chaos, and based on this magazine cover they certainly seem to believe that 2025 will be a year of chaos.
Perhaps the elite hope that the chaos that is approaching will represent an opportunity for them to regain some of the control that they have lost in recent years.
I think that they are starting to understand that the system that they have worked so carefully to construct is beginning to crumble, and now they are desperate to regain the upper hand any way that they can.
NOPE: Trump-Backed Funding Bill Fails House Vote As 38 Republicans Say ‘No’
Update (1752ET): The first vote to kick the can down the road until 2027 has failed the House, by a vote of 174-235-1, with 38 Republicans voting ‘no’.
The bill required 2/3 of the vote under a fast-track method, yet didn’t even clear a simple majority.
Polymarket odds of a shutdown have spiked to 76% as of this writing
That’s 38 Republicans voting to express no confidence in Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. A stunning rebuke for a guy who won unanimous support in conference just weeks ago. What a turnaround. He’s in very big trouble. https://t.co/bcOHiNWCTn
Update (1752ET): In what comes as a surprise to nobody, Democrats want their pork – and have said “Hell no” to the massively reduced spending package that Mike Johnson rolled out after conferring with the Trump team.
“The Musk-Johnson proposal is not serious. It’s laughable. Extreme MAGA Republicans are driving us to a government shutdown,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters as he walked into a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday afternoon.
In short, it’s doomed.
“I’m not simply a no. I’m a hell no,” Jeffries then said at the closed-door meeting, Politico reports, citing three people familiar with the meeting.
Other Democratic lawmakers also expressed doubts about the legislation, which Republican leaders were teeing up for a vote Thursday evening. It would suspend the debt ceiling through early 2027, fund the government through March, and include billions in disaster relief funds, a top Democratic priority.
The vote on the bill is scheduled to come up via a process called suspension, which means it needs to meet a two-thirds vote threshold to pass. If Democrats are roundly against it, it will fail on the floor — leaving Congress without an obvious solution to avoid a shutdown.
“This was done on short notice,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, who said he was opposed. “We reached an agreement on a bipartisan basis between the respective leadership and the membership of both parties, only to have an interruption take place and then a veto occurs after the agreement has been rendered and reached.”
President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk worked to spike the original deal on Wednesday, sending the House careening down an alternate path with a deadline looming.
“Elon Musk is not my constituent. My constituents are hard-working people who work very hard every day for every dime they have, and I’m sure as hell not bailing out on them in the final week,” said Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-N.H.), chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.
Top Democrats weren’t involved in the drafting of the legislation, and the unveiling caught senior lawmakers by surprise.
“All I know is it was just reported by the press. We have not been involved in anything that they have done,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Appropriations Committee Democrat.
Republicans argue the burden is now on Democrats to justify any opposition to a continuing resolution — “CR” for short — that averts a government shutdown and also prevents the U.S. from defaulting on its more than $36 trillion in debt next year.
* * *
Update (1350ET): Republican lawmakers have reportedly struck a newspending deal to keep the lights on in Washington until at least Jan. 30, 2027, according to Politico, citing two GOP lawmakers meeting in Speaker Mike Johnson’s office Thursday afternoon.
“There is an agreement,” said Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK). “The plan is to put a bill on the floor that we think is a reasonable step forward.”
The new package is just 116 pages, down from 1,547 in the original draft.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), who was also in Johnson’s office, didn’t say whether congressional Democrats or the White House had agreed to it, however Bloomberg reports that it has Trump’s blessing.
Late Wednesday afternoon, President-elect Trump demanded Johnson abandon the previous revision he’d worked out with Democratic congressional leaders.
Meanwhile, Trump is now gunning for… Chip Roy?
* * *
‘With Friday’s government shutdown looming – and odds spiking after everyone figured out that the 1,547-page Continuing Resolution (CR) was full of Orwellian bullshit and other malarkey, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has gone to Donald Trumps team with hat in hand.
The new plan will be a federal funding stopgap plan that includes disaster aid, pushing off the debt limit fight for two years, and a one-year farm bill extension, Politicoreports, citing Republicans familiar with the discussions.
No word on how close this comes to a “clean” bill, or how much of the aforementioned bullshit is gone – such as funding the Global Engagement Center, shielding the Jan. 6 committee from subpoenas, and funding new biolabs, but we guess we’ll find out.
Also unknown is whether Democrats will support the plan.
But Trump had made an 11th hour public demand that any stopgap bill should deal with the debt limit. Trump’s team is pushing for at least a commitment to lift the debt limit before Jan. 20.
The level of disaster aid and whether it’s completely paid for is still unclear. The package would also likely include some additional economic aid for farmers, amid threats from rural Republicans to oppose any stopgap that doesn’t include the funding. -Politico
In a closed door meeting on Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told Democratic lawmakers: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate,” citing JFK.
Polymarkets odds of a government shutdown went from 15% yesterday to 49% this morning.
According to Punchbowl News, here’s what happened, and what’s next;
At some point today, House Republicans and Democrats will likely have separate party meetings to chart their path forward. Democrats have announced their meeting for 9 a.m. We’ll talk more about them below.
But make no mistake — this is Johnson and Trump’s mess to solve. And we’re inching toward a shutdown as government funding runs out at midnight Friday.
Johnson was mostly MIA Wednesday, holed up in his Capitol office for hours without showing his face. Even the House GOP leadership team felt like they were being kept in the dark about what was happening.
Late in the evening, Johnson met with Vance, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Rules Committee Chair Michael Burgess (R-Texas). Jordan and Roy are conservative hardliners. Diaz-Balart is a senior appropriator.
As Scalise left around 10 p.m., he told reporters “We’re not there yet” when asked whether the debt-limit boost would be part of any new government-funding plan. “A lot of things have come up,” Scalise added.
A somewhat obvious play may be a funding bill with a two-year debt-limit extension. Why? Because Trump supports increasing the debt limit now. Given how volatile Trump was during his first term, there’s no guarantee he’ll do this again. (For what it’s worth, Biden administration officials estimate the debt limit won’t be reached until sometime next summer. GOP leaders were planning to handle it in a reconciliation bill).
Trump is giving Johnson cover for the time being. It’s limited, however. Because Trump,once again, has put his party in a bind. There are probably dozens of Republicans who have never voted for raising the debt ceiling. Now Trump is forcing them to do so.
More ATACMS, Storm Shadow Missiles Launched At Russia As Putin Threatens ‘Missile Duel’ With US
The Kremlin on Thursday revealed that the day prior Ukraine’s military launched six US-made long-range ATACMs missiles and four British-made Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory.
The projectiles targeted the southern Rostov region, with Russia’s military saying its anti-air defense systems were able to intercept all four ATACMS missiles and three of the four Storm Shadows.
Launch of an ATACMS, via Sky News
The statement further vowed a harsh response to the attacks, given this is at least third of fourth major wave of long-range attacks. Western missiles have been used perhaps half a dozen times or more against Russian territory at this point, only a month after Washington initially gave Kiev permission.
The ATACMS and Storm Shadow assault on Wednesday was accompanied by other conventional weapons as well. In the overall attack some targets, including an oil refinery, were struck:
Ukraine struck Russian territory with at least 13 missiles and 84 drones, triggering a fire at an oil refinery in the southern Rostov region that burned for hours, Russian officials said on Thursday.
As Russia advances at the fastest pace since the start of the war in 2022, Ukraine has repeatedly tried to strike Russia’s oil infrastructure – which funds a significant chunk of the Russian war economy.
“The actions of the Kyiv regime, supported by its Western curators, will not go unanswered,” the Russian defense ministry said in follow-up.
This retaliation could involve more hypersonic ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine, a threat which has been sounded more frequently of late, specifically more debilitating attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid headed into the cold winter months.
On Thursday, during President Putin’s year-end Q&A session with journalists, Putin warned that more Oreshnik missiles could be used, emphasizing that there is no defense against them.
‘We should have a duel — Oreshnik v NATO missile defense over Kiev’
“There is no chance of shooting down these Oreshnik missiles. Well, if those Western experts you mentioned think they can be shot down, we propose they – and those in the West and the United States who pay them for their analysis – conduct some kind of technological experiment, a high-tech duel of the 21st century,” Putin explained to the press.
“Let them name some object, let’s say, in Kyiv, concentrate all their air defence and missile defence forces there, and we will hit it with Oreshnik and see what happens. We are ready for such an experiment. Is the other side ready?” he posed.
Incoming border czar Tom Homan estimates that at least 100,000 beds for illegal immigrants in detention will be needed for the Trump administration to carry out its deportation plans.
President-elect Donald Trump has promised mass deportations, and he tapped Homan, the former acting head of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to lead the operation.
ICE is currently holding about 38,700 illegal immigrants, according to agency data. An additional nearly 185,000 are being monitored by cellphone or ankle bracelet at a cost of $232,800 per day, ICE data show.
Homan told CNN on Dec. 18 that the operation will involve building new detention facilities and that officials will be seeking to hire more ICE agents.
“It all depends on the funding I get from the Hill,” Homan said, referring to lawmakers in Congress.
Both congressional chambers will be controlled by Republicans come January 2025. Republicans currently control the House of Representatives, but not the Senate.
Homan also said that he will request assistance from the military.
“They’re not going to be out arresting people, but they can be a force multiplier in doing things we need to do that doesn’t require a badge and a gun,” he said.
The first wave of arrests, at least, will target illegal immigrants with a criminal history and those deemed national security threats. But when officials in so-called sanctuary cities decline to allow ICE to take custody of criminals from jails and courts, ICE agents will go into neighborhoods to track them down. That will result in collateral arrests, Homan said this week.
Homan said on CNN that “immigration officers aren’t going to be told to walk away from somebody here illegally.” He also said that illegal immigrants whose children were born in the United States and thus have citizenship, will not be shielded from enforcement operations.
“They put themselves in this position. We didn’t,” he said.
He said that the children can go live with the other parent or a relative.
Some lawmakers and groups have praised Trump’s mass deportation plans.
“Deportations are a critical step in delivering on that promise, restoring the rule of law, and protecting American communities across the country,” the Federation for American Immigration Reform said in a recent article.
Others say that deportations will cause harm.
“Trump’s plans for mass deportation will tear families apart, raid homes, and harm our communities,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) wrote on Wednesday on the social media platform X.
“We need to resist his hateful agenda and fight back to protect our immigrant neighbors because immigrants make our communities stronger.”
The first Trump administration carried out about 1.2 million deportations over four years. During President Joe Biden’s first two years in office, deportations plunged to about 65,000 a year, though they jumped to 253,488 in fiscal year 2024, which ended in September.
Does California’s Bird Flu Emergency Portend The Next Trump-Era Outbreak?
This week California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) declared a state of emergency over avian influenza, aka Bird Flu.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles on Sept. 25, 2024. Eric Thayer/AP Photo
And while Newsom says the order was simply a precaution after one person in Louisiana was hospitalized with the first severe illness caused by the bird flu in the United States, one has to wonder – WTF…
“This proclamation is a targeted action to ensure government agencies have the resources and flexibility they need to respond quickly to this outbreak,” Newsom said in a Wednesday statement.
According to the governor’s office, Bird flu has been found in dairy cows in Southern California – therefore, the emergency is needed to “contain and mitigate the spread of the virus” despite the fact that there have been no reported cases of person-to-person transmission in the state.
What makes this extra-interesting is a tidbit at the end of the new documentary, Thank You Dr. Fauci – notably aninfamous op-ed penned by Fauci and his former ‘boss’, NIH head Dr. Francis Collins, in which they suggested that their dangerous research was a “risk worth taking.”
Fauci and Collins penned infamous op-ed for @washingtonpost claiming this dangerous research could cause a pandemic but it was a “Flu Risk Worth Taking” See past 🧵from @Bryce_Nickelshttps://t.co/rq4tfVzQXP and continue this 🧵 for more…
Click into the tweets to read the rest of the thread…
Which brings us back to California – where the new emergency declaration will empower state and local agencies with additional funding and flexibility in dealing with the virus, that nobody in the state has caught… yet.
As the Epoch Times notes further, While not linked to human bird flu cases, a raw milk dairy based in California issued a voluntary recall several weeks ago after avian influenza was found in a lot.
All of the illnesses in the United States, except for the Louisiana case, have been mild, and the vast majority have been among farmworkers exposed to sick poultry or dairy cows. This year, more than 60 bird flu infections have been reported, with more than half of them in California, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In the Louisiana case, the infected person is older than 65, has underlying medical problems, and has also been in contact with sick and dead birds in a backyard flock, according to the CDC.
Last month, Canadian officials reported that a teen in British Columbia was hospitalized with a severe case of bird flu. CDC officials did not answer a question about whether the new U.S. case and the case in Canada had any similarities or differences, directing reporters to ask Louisiana officials.
Health officials say bird flu is still mainly an animal health issue and that the risk to the general public remains low. There has been no documented spread of the virus from person to person in the United States or elsewhere.
In the years leading up to the 2024 presidential election, the Democrats and establishment Republicans who wanted to see Joe Biden, and later Kamala Harris, remain in office went all in on one overarching narrative above all: that Donald Trump represented an existential threat to American democracy.
Biden’s team and their allies in politics and media repeated this claim day after day, essentially trying to convince millions of Americans that elections would literally stop happening in this country if Trump won.
Taking a step back, Trump was framed as the domestic enemy in a broader international fight that saw “autocratic” leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and others facing down a coalition of “democratic” governments.
Democracy versus autocracy was meant to be the defining dynamic of the day. Meaning everything from the war in Ukraine to the fight over climate change was framed as one big battle where the “good guys” were defined purely by their commitment to the democratic process.
And, in that global fight, no effort was more important—we were told—than keeping Trump out of the White House.
But then he won.
Despite the establishment’s efforts, a majority of American voters were not swayed by the “democracy-versus-autocracy” narrative. Or, at least, they demonstrated that they preferred the candidate who promised to close the border, wind down the war in Ukraine, cut down the extremely bloated federal bureaucracy, investigate the weaponization of the DOJ in recent years, and roll back federal climate policies while celebrating and vowing to continue the appointment of conservative judges and justices—among other campaign promises.
Now, President Biden – and, really, all the people around him who are actually running things – are in their so-called lame-duck period. And what are they doing as they wait to hand power over to the next administration? They’re doing whatever they can to make it harder for Trump’s team to implement the very policies voters just sent them to the White House to carry out.
Last week, we learned that the Biden administration is moving unassembled border wall material away from the southern border and selling it at an auction. Groups allied with the president are also calling on him to close immigration and customs enforcement detention facilities before leaving office to hamper Trump’s plans to deport illegal immigrants.
After losing the election last month, the Biden administration escalated the war in Ukraine by helping Ukrainian forces shoot long-range American missiles further into Russia. Now, the president’s team is rushing to send another $725 million to Ukraine before Trump is sworn in on January 20.
Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a ruling that makes it much harder for Trump’s team to overhaul the federal workforce. While Trump could still carry out this campaign promise, he now cannot do so through executive order. He is required to propose a new rule, which will likely bring years of legal battles.
Biden pardoned his son Hunter after he was facing prison sentences for federal felony gun and tax convictions. Now, the president is reportedly considering “preemptive pardons” for numerous allies that his team expects to be investigated by Trump’s DOJ.
Members of the president’s cabinet are rushing to spend as much money as possible in the various departments they oversee, EPA officials are hurrying to implement as many new environmental and climate policies as they can, and the president and Senate Democrats are racing to fill as many federal judicial positions as they’re able to before losing the White House and Senate.
Depending on where you stand on Trump’s agenda, you could see these efforts as heroic or disgraceful. But because the president and political establishment are ramming through policies that a majority of Americans just voted against, it’s impossible to seriously label these actions as anything other than explicitly undemocratic.
As someone who does not believe democracy is an ethical system or the best way to organize society, this alone does not bother me. But the hypocrisy is still important to call out.
Because, with their actions, the political class has again revealed that they do not actually care about democracy. They only use the fact that much of the public does care about democracy to try and serve their own ends.
The same goes for human rights abuses and crackdowns on dissent carried out by foreign governments that Washington wants to overthrow. When true, these are totally legitimate criticisms to level at these state leaders. But our government officials have demonstrated a complete willingness to ignore, support, and even partake in the same abuses when it’s useful to them. So, again, they are only using the fact that decent people care about these issues to serve their own agenda.
It is important to have principles. But it’s also important to recognize when people who do not share your principles are using your commitment to those principles to manipulate you. The political establishment in recent weeks has shown, yet again, that they do this. It’s time we stop falling for it.
TruGO: Liberal Canadian Lawmakers Revolt, Demand Regime Change In Ottawa
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing a mounting political crisis within his own Liberal Party, with an increasing number of party members voicing their desire for his resignation ahead of the scheduled 2025 election. This internal discontent has gained momentum after the shock resignation of Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s finance minister and a key ally.
Jenica Atwin, a Liberal parliamentary secretary from New Brunswick, openly stated that Trudeau should step down, and says she won’t run for reelection if Trudeau remains in leadership. Atwin’s call was echoed by Chad Collins, a Liberal MP from Ontario, who revealed that around 50 Liberal MPs are part of a faction pushing for Trudeau’s resignation. This represents about one-third of the Liberal representatives in the House of Commons.
“I don’t know who’s giving him advice. I can guess. It’s not good advice,” Collins said. “But the buck stops with him with the decisions he makes, and we’re now seeing the fallout that’s come with what many would consider a very poor decision.”
Monday’s resignation of Chrystia Freeland, Trudeau’s powerful finance minister and his longtime deputy, was a massive shock that has irreparably damaged the prime minister, Collins said in an interview.
Freeland said she quit after being told she would be moved to a different role in the cabinet. Trudeau delivered that news on Friday, she said — just three days before she was due for a major speech that would update the country on its fiscal and economic situation. -Bloomberg
“In terms of who the successor is, I don’t know at this point whether or not we could do much worse,” Collins continued.
Meanwhile, Trudeau has canceled his customary year-end media appearances, only making limited public comments at Liberal Party events. And at a recent press conference, Justice Minister Arif Virani avoided direct questions about Trudeau’s leadership, instead focusing on his role and expressing confidence in the prime minister.
“Decisions will be taken by the parties that are involved,” said Virani, trying to bring the discussion back to an announcement about wrongful convictions. “I have absolute confidence in the prime minister in terms of what he has asked me to do. That is serve as a minister of justice who defends people’s rights.”
According to polling data, Canada’s Conservative Party, under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre, is likely to secure a majority in the next general election. Wayne Long, another Liberal MP from New Brunswick, stressed the urgency of the situation in an open letter, suggesting that the party must act to prevent a historic electoral defeat.
Collins warned that continued support for Trudeau might lead to a significant exodus of experienced politicians from the party, potentially leaving it with a “skeleton crew” of seasoned representatives.
Democrats are stumbling all over each other to blame Biden for staying in the presidential race too long. Ha!
Axios reported that “Vice President Harris’ loss raised a feeling among Democrats that Biden’s refusal to leave the race until July cost the party dearly—even as they got caught up in a global anti-incumbency wave.”
Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) blamed Biden: “I think there’s a widespread sense that he took too long to get out and that it made it very difficult for Vice President Harris to run the most impactful campaign.”
Sen. “Hindsight” Chris Murphy (D-CT) said, “Well . . . in hindsight, knowing that he ultimately made the decision to stand down, yes, of course, it would have been better for President Biden to have made that decision earlier. I think there’s no question about it.”
Yup. No question at all.
Now.
But what about then?
On the first day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) who said: “I want him to run . . . I see no reason for him not to run . . . . We all age differently. They said the same thing about . . . Ronald Reagan. How many people said Ronald Reagan was too old? Do you remember in his debate with Walter Mondale, the classic line?”
On the second day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who said: “Everything I read is they’re trying to get him to cut back his hours because he’s got too much energy.”
On the third day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Kamala Harris who said that in the days following the October 7 attack by Hamas she had spent countless hours with Biden and other officials and that he was “on top of it all.”
On the fourth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) who said that “[Biden is] sharper than anyone I’ve spoken to.”
On the fifth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D-IL) who said: “I’ve been with the president of the United States many times. He is on the ball. The man knows more than most of us have forgotten.”
On the sixth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas who said: “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented, and focused.”
On the seventh day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who said: “So Joe Biden has vision, he has knowledge, he has strategic thinking. This is a very sharp president in terms of his public presentation. If he makes a slip of the tongue here or there, what’s the deal?” And then, “Anyone who would think that they’re at some advantage because of his age thinks that at their peril, because he’s very sharp.”
On the eighth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Mitch Landrieu (Biden campaign co-chair) who said: “When you go in to brief the president, you better have your big boy pants on. And this kind of sense that he’s not ready for this job, it’s just a bucket of BS that’s so deep, your boots will get stuck.”
On the ninth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Chuck Todd (NBC Host) who said: “There’s an easy way to basically make this report [of Biden’s memory issues] pointless. The easiest way to get rid of this storyline is to get him out there.”
On the tenth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) who said: “I’ve spent time with both of those guys privately. Spent time with Biden and Trump privately. I’ve spent time with every House Speaker over the past thirty years. And Joe Biden, I’m not just—it’s just not close. If you want to talk about international affairs, if you want to talk about how to get bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden is light-years ahead of all of them.”
On the eleventh day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) who said: “[Biden is] incredibly strong, forceful and decisive.”
On the twelfth day of Schadenfreude, all Democrats agreed . . . with Kamala Harris who, when asked by Axios whether she could “fully assure” voters that there is nothing to be concerned about Biden’s “hour-by-hour performance,” quickly responded, “Of course.”
Things are so bad for the Democrats now they may not even celebrate Kwanza this year.
For the rest of us, however, we can give thanks to an Almighty and Provident God, and say, remembering Ronald Reagan, that America’s best days are yet to come.
Putin Says ‘Ready’ To Meet Or Talk To Trump At Any Time
Russian President Vladimir Putin in fresh Thursday remarks has emphasized that he is ready for a direct conversation with US President-elect Donald Trump at any time and agrees to meet with him when the US side is ready.
“I am ready for this [conversation], of course, at any time. And I will also be ready for a meeting, if he wants it,”Putin said at Russia’s annual year-end Q&A press conference with the president. He gave this response to an American journalist when asked about a potential future meeting with Trump.
“First of all, I don’t know when we will meet with him. Because he doesn’t say anything about it. I haven’t talked to him at all for more than four years,” Putin followed with, acknowledging the unpredictability of the US side’s intentions.
Via Associated Press
The Kremlin has still taken a pessimistic view on the possibility of achieving peace in Ukraine anytime soon, given especially that Western long-range missiles are being used against Russian territory.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow is ready for contacts with Washington to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, but has not yet received any serious proposals from Trump’s team. According to the diplomat, the Russian Foreign Ministry has recently regularly received many questions about whether Russia is ready to contact Trump and his team.
Trump’s pick for national security advisor, Mike Waltz, explained to CBS News at the start of this week, “What does success look like in line with our interests? How do we end the war? Who’s at the table? How do we drive, you know, all sides to the table, and what’s the framework for an agreement? Those are things that we’re thinking through with his fantastic team that he’s (Trump) assembling.”
He also said that the current Biden administration policy of escalation with no end in sight is a recipe for disaster which could turn the conflict into another “forever war”. He said that a “blank check… just isn’t a strategy.”
And yet it could be President Zelensky himself who stands in the way:
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the prospect of freezing the conflict started by Moscow to facilitate negotiations to end hostilities, telling French daily Le Parisien that Donald Trump “knows about my desire not to rush things at the expense of Ukraine.”
Below is the key section of this latest Zelensky interview:
Zelensky told Le Parisien resolving the war was “not easy” and that Trump wanted a peace deal “quickly” but the Ukrainian leader said the Trump team did not yet have access to all the information from diplomatic and intelligence channels.
Zelensky said regardless of what world leaders want, “we are not just going to give in and give up our independence.”
“The danger would be to say—we freeze the war and we will come to an agreement with the Russians,” he added, noting that Putin “has killed many Ukrainians.”
Freezing the front lines is a central component of what has thus far been reported as ‘Trump’s peace plan’. Moscow hasn’t appeared too keen on it either, and it has less incentive to agree to this, given by all metrics it is winning on the ground in the Donbas.
Still, Trump has pushed forward with his promise to find a swift close to the war which has been raging for about three years. He’s vowing to push the warring sides to the negotiating table from his very first day in office.
Fani Flushed: Court Rules Fulton DA Disqualified From Trump ‘Election Interference’ Case
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been disqualified from prosecuting President-elect Trump in his election interference case by a Georgia court of appeals.
While the court didn’t throw out Trump’s indictment, Willis and the assistant DAs working in her office were found to have “no authority to proceed” with the case.
🚨JUST IN🚨
Fulton County DA Fani Willis is disqualified from the so-called election interference case against President Donald J Trump.
The new ruling means that Georgia’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council will need to find another prosecutor to take over the case and decide whether to continue pursuing it – though if Willis decides to appeal to the state Supreme Court, that could be delayed.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
Saving...
