Noble Gold
NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com
Share this site:
Copyright 1987-2024
| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
Copyright 1987-2024
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
1/24/26
The Winter Storm Weather
The Winter Storm Weather:
The Weather, Is It Really That Bad??? (It's Only Bad If You Are Hitler Trying To Invade Russia In The Mide Of WINTER ... Just Sayin' ...
This Winter Blast is called 'FERN' When I was a kid we just called it 'WINTER'. Then it warmed up and we called it 'SPRING'. Then when it started to get 'HOT' it was called 'SUMMER' aka SUMMA' TIME. Then it cooled down and we called it 'FALL' or 'AUTUMN'. Then it got 'COLD' again. Then we were back to 'WINTER'.
All of my Science Teachers have passed away. Even Don Woods, Channel 8, Tulsa, OK, ABC, didn't talk this crazy mess.
As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying. I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.
GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!
Weathering the Storm: A Conservative Case for Common Sense Over Climate Alarmism
There’s a winter blast moving across the country, and the television tells us its name is “FERN.” A social media post, dripping with the wry, grounded skepticism of a bygone era, cuts through the noise: “When I was a kid we just called it ‘WINTER’.” This simple observation is more than just nostalgia; it’s a potent symbol of a broader conservative pushback against a culture—and a political movement—that has lost its grip on proportion, history, and basic reason. From a conservative perspective, the modern obsession with branding every weather event as a catastrophic portent of climate doom represents a dangerous departure from facts, a surrender to political hyperbole, and an insult to the resilience and good sense of the American people.
The post’s author recalls a simpler time, marked by the straightforward rhythms of nature and the trusted, local voice of a television weatherman like Don Woods of Tulsa’s Channel 8. This memory points to a foundational conservative principle: trust in local knowledge, practical experience, and observable reality over abstract, politicized models from distant elites. The weatherman was a community figure, accountable to his viewers. He explained the storm coming this week, not a hypothetical crisis decades hence. His tools were barometers, historical patterns, and a duty to inform, not to terrify into compliance with a pre-ordained political agenda.
Today, that localized, practical relationship with weather has been supplanted by a nationalized, apocalyptic narrative. Every named winter storm, every summer heatwave, is presented not as a natural occurrence but as conclusive proof of an irreversible, human-caused catastrophe. This represents what conservatives see as the core tactic of the modern progressive left: the seizure of any and all events as vehicles for expanding government control. If a blizzard can be framed as “climate change,” then the solution inevitably involves crippling regulations on domestic energy, radical “green” mandates that transfer wealth and sovereignty to unaccountable international bodies, and a fundamental restructuring of the American economy and way of life.
The author’s second crucial point tackles the science directly, and with a common-sense clarity that defies the complex jargon of the alarmists: “As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying.” He correctly identifies the technological illusion at the heart of the panic. “I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.”
This is not climate denial; it is scientific literacy. Conservatives understand that our ability to detect and measure phenomena has increased exponentially. We have satellites, advanced radar, millions of smartphone cameras, and a 24/7 global media ecosystem that broadcasts every tornado, hurricane, and flood instantaneously. We are comparing the detailed, real-time data of 2024 with the incomplete, often anecdotal records of 1924 or 1824 and declaring a “new normal.” This is a profound statistical error. It confuses improved observation with an actual change in frequency or intensity. Historical records are replete with storms of terrifying power—the Great Hurricane of 1938, the Blizzard of 1888, the Dust Bowl droughts—events that occurred long before the industrial carbon emissions blamed for today’s weather. To claim today’s storms are uniquely powerful is to ignore the vast, turbulent history of our planet itself.
This leads to the post’s final, emphatic command: “GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!” This is the quintessential conservative ethos of resilience, self-reliance, and engagement with the real world. It is a rebuke to the sheltered, digital pessimism of the climate alarmist who views humanity as a destructive plague upon a fragile, static Earth. The conservative view is the opposite: humanity is a resourceful, adaptive force, capable of thriving in all climates. Our ancestors settled this continent without central heating or air conditioning, building communities from the swamps of Florida to the tundra of Alaska. They understood weather as a fact of life to be prepared for and endured, not as a political cudgel.
The environmental left, by contrast, promotes a philosophy of fragility and retreat. Their solution to weather is not better infrastructure, more resilient power grids, or continued technological innovation in energy. It is less human activity. Less driving, less consumption, less economic growth, fewer children. It is a dreary, anti-human vision of managed decline, justified by a relentless stream of alarmism about the weather. They have taken the natural, awe-inspiring power of a winter storm and turned it into a source of guilt and a pretext for control.
Furthermore, this alarmism directly undermines national strength and energy security. While American conservatives champion an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that utilizes our vast natural resources—oil, natural gas, nuclear, and yes, emerging renewables—to ensure affordability and independence, the climate agenda seeks to deliberately make traditional energy scarce and expensive. It kneecaps American industry, surrenders our advantage to adversarial nations like China and Russia (who cheerfully ignore their own carbon commitments), and makes everyday life harder for working families. To watch a winter storm named “FERN” roll in while policies are advocated that would make heating your home unaffordable is the height of ideological hypocrisy.
In conclusion, the post about “FERN” is a small manifesto for sanity. It calls for a return to perspective, to trust in tangible progress over dystopian speculation, and to the enduring American spirit that meets a challenge head-on. Conservatives believe in prudent stewardship of our natural resources—clean air and water are conservative values. But we reject the weaponization of weather. We believe in data over dogma, resilience over alarmism, and human ingenuity over controlled despair. The weather isn’t “that bad.” It’s just weather. It was winter when we were kids, it’s winter now, and with the grit, innovation, and common sense that built this nation, we’ll be just fine. The real storm to watch out for isn’t brewing in the atmosphere; it’s the one of political overreach, dressed up in the clothing of a season we used to just call “winter.”
#Spring #Summer #Winter #FALL #Weather #NOAA
1/23/26
Do People Really Want A Career Politician Back In The Whitehouse?
Do People Really Want A Career Politician Back In The Whitehouse?
It amazes me how so many people all of a sudden want a career politician in the Whitehouse. Now we have the first President since George Washington to never had held any prior public office. Venezuela, peace in the Middle East, lower gas prices, food prices, INFLATION DOWN, no tax on tips/OT/Social Security ... not a single ILLEGAL has crossed the border in 8 months. Not a single Democrat supports any of this progress. Not a single Democrat supported the tax cuts. They feel as though the Government can spend your money better than you.
The Outsider Imperative: Why Career Politicians Fail and Citizen Leadership Succeeds
The question hangs in the political air, a potent challenge to the established order: Do people really want a career politician back in the White House? For decades, the American political landscape has been dominated by a professional class of lawmakers men and women who ascended from local office, to state office, to Congress, crafting their entire identities and livelihoods within the hermetic bubble of government. Yet, the presidency of Donald J. Trump, the first president since George Washington with no prior political or military office, has thrown this paradigm into stark relief, forcing a fundamental re-evaluation of what we value in our leaders.
From a conservative perspective, the answer is a resounding no. The desire for a career politician is not a resurgence of faith in the system, but often a symptom of media-driven nostalgia for a “return to normalcy” a normalcy that conservatives argue was a slow-motion crisis of managerial decline, unaccountable bureaucracy, and stagnant leadership. The conservative case for the outsider is not one of mere anti-establishment frustration, but a principled argument rooted in practical results, a different theory of governance, and a profound understanding of where true expertise lies.
The proof, as the social media post rightly highlights, is in the tangible outcomes. Consider the record: before the global pandemic disruption, we witnessed historic energy independence, with the United States becoming a net exporter. This wasn't an accident; it was the policy result of an outsider unleashing American industry from the suffocating regulations championed by career politicians. Middle East peace agreements, like the Abraham Accords breakthroughs that eluded multiple administrations staffed by foreign policy lifers were brokered by an unconventional approach that prioritized direct national interest over worn-out diplomatic platitudes. On the economic front, before unprecedented global shocks, we saw record-low unemployment for minority groups, a revitalized manufacturing sector, and tax cuts that put money directly back into the pockets of families and small business owners, not into the coffers of federal agencies.
This underscores a central conservative belief: the career politician’s expertise is in the process of government, not in the creation of prosperity. Their metric for success is the passage of legislation, the expansion of programs, and their re-election within the system. The outsider’s focus is on the health of the nation *outside* of Washington on factory floors, in small business ledgers, and at kitchen tables. When the post cites “no tax on tips/OT/Social Security” and highlights that “not a single Democrat supported the tax cuts,” it touches on the essential philosophical divide. The career political class, particularly on the left, operates from a core conviction that government is the primary engine of societal good and that centralized planners can allocate capital and opportunity more wisely than the decentralized decisions of millions of citizens. They see tax cuts not as returning resources to their rightful owners, but as a “cost” to the Treasury your money, which they believe they can spend better than you can.
The border offers the most glaring example of this disconnect. The claim that “not a single ILLEGAL has crossed the border in 8 months” may be polemical, but it points to an undeniable truth of the previous administration: a policy focus on sovereignty and enforcement that was categorical and unambiguous. For years, career politicians from both parties talked about border security while perpetuating a system of de facto open borders, driven by a mix of corporate desire for cheap labor and progressive ideology opposed to national boundaries. The outsider president treated the border not as a complex political puzzle to be managed, but as a fundamental responsibility of the federal government to be executed. The result was a dramatic shift in operational control, proving that the “unsolvable” problems of Washington are often just problems the political class lacks the will to solve.
This brings us to the second major conservative argument against the career politician: their captivity to the permanent bureaucracy. A person who spends decades in Washington becomes inextricably woven into a network of lobbyists, staffers, agency officials, and party functionaries. Their worldview is shaped by the echo chambers of Capitol Hill and the Georgetown salon. They come to see the immense federal bureaucracy not as a potential adversary to the people’s will, but as their natural partner in governance. Consequently, they are often incapable of truly challenging or reforming it.
The outsider, by contrast, enters the Oval Office with no debts to this system. Their allegiance is not to the customs of the Senate cloakroom or the sensitivities of the State Department, but to the electorate that hired them to do a specific job. This is why such presidencies are inevitably decried as “chaotic” by the establishment; they represent a direct assault on the unaccountable power of the administrative state. The outsider seeks to impose the priorities of the voter onto the bureaucracy, while the career politician is often content to let the bureaucracy implement its own priorities, with congressional oversight being a gentle, perfunctory dance.
Furthermore, the conservative embrace of the outsider is a rejection of the cult of résumé. The media and political elite fetishize a specific pedigree: a law degree, a stint as a congressional aide, maybe a governorship, followed by a long Senate career. This, they insist, is “preparation.” But conservatives ask: preparation for what? For navigating parliamentary procedure? Or for understanding the struggles of a single mother balancing two jobs, the anxieties of a tradesman whose industry is being regulated out of existence, or the innovative spark of an entrepreneur? The career politician’s life is one of privilege, insulated from the very economic forces their policies create. The outsider’s experience whether in business, entertainment, military leadership, or other fields provides a real-world grounding that no amount of committee hearing time can replicate.
The visceral opposition from the left to the outsider’s agenda, as noted in the post “Not a single Democrat supports any of this progress” is not a bug in the system, but a feature. It confirms that the outsider’s successes are victories *against* the established political consensus. Lower regulation, border enforcement, tax relief, and a foreign policy of peace through strength are anathema to the progressive project, which requires a dependent citizenry, porous borders for demographic change, high taxes for redistribution, and a diffident America on the world stage. The career Democrat politician is the agent of that project. Their unanimous opposition is a badge of honor for the outsider’s policies, proving they are effectively dismantling a failing status quo.
In conclusion, the question “Do people really want a career politician back in the White House?” is answered by looking at the results of the alternative. The American experiment was never intended to be managed by a permanent political class. It was designed for citizen-leaders individuals with lived experience in the real economy, who would serve and then return to their lives, not make government their life’s work. The conservative case is clear: the career politician offers more of the same managed decline, elevated rhetoric, and a government that grows ever more distant from the people it is supposed to serve. The outsider, for all their unorthodox methods, offers a tangible record of putting America first, challenging entrenched power, and delivering real-world results that improve the lives of everyday citizens. The choice is not between experience and inexperience; it is between the experience of governing within a broken system and the experience of succeeding outside of it. The American people, conservatives believe, have seen the fruits of the latter, and they have no desire to return to the barren tree of the professional political class.
#Whitehouse #Politics #GeorgeWashington #Trump
The US Had Greenland During WWII
Greenland, Geopolitics, and the Weight of History: A Conservative Case for Prudent Interest, Not Conquest
The US Once Had Greenland:
Early in WWII Denmark signed over Greenland to the US. Germany invaded Denmark and took the place in 6 hours. Germany tried to invade Greenland and the US held them off.
At the end of WWII the US gave it back. It looks as Trump is getting it back for the US.
The recent resurgence of discussion around Greenland, fueled by historical footnote and modern political theater, presents a valuable opportunity to examine core conservative principles regarding foreign policy, national sovereignty, and strategic responsibility. A social media post recalling that “The US Once Had Greenland” during World War II, and suggesting a reclamation, simplifies a complex historical episode into a soundbite. From a serious conservative perspective, this moment demands not nostalgia for temporary administrative control, but a clear-eyed assessment of America’s interests, alliances, and the appropriate use of national power in a new era of great-power competition.
The historical facts, while often condensed, are instructive. In April 1940, following Nazi Germany’s swift occupation of Denmark, the United States—still officially neutral—acted to prevent Greenland from falling under Axis control. The Danish minister in Washington, lacking contact with his occupied homeland, signed an agreement acknowledging U.S. responsibility for Greenland’s defense. American forces established weather stations and airfields, most notably Bluie West One, which became a critical node in the Allied air ferry route to Europe. This was not an annexation, but a wartime trusteeship born of dire necessity. Crucially, in 1945, the United States honorably returned administrative control to a liberated Denmark, cementing a transatlantic alliance that would become a cornerstone of the post-war free world.
This history underscores two foundational conservative foreign policy tenets. First, **the pragmatic defense of the homeland is paramount.** The U.S. action in 1941 was not imperial ambition; it was a preemptive move to secure a strategically vital landmass that, in enemy hands, could have threatened North American security. It was an exercise in realist statecraft, recognizing that geography and technology (in this case, weather forecasting for transatlantic flight and the threat of German U-boats) created a legitimate defensive interest. Second, **keeping one’s word and respecting the sovereignty of allies is the bedrock of durable power.** By returning Greenland after the war, the U.S. demonstrated that its actions were born of temporary exigency, not permanent design. This fidelity built immense goodwill and trust with Denmark and Europe, trust that paid incalculable dividends throughout the Cold War. Conservatism values the binding strength of treaties and the moral authority that comes from principled consistency.
Today, the geopolitical landscape has shifted, but Greenland’s strategic significance has only magnified. Its location commands the northern approaches between North America and Europe, and its waters are increasingly navigable due to changing climate patterns. Furthermore, it possesses vast untapped deposits of rare earth elements, minerals critical to modern technology and defense systems, currently dominated by the Chinese market. It is precisely this combination of geography and resources that has drawn the gaze of a revanchist Russia and an expansionist China, both of whom are actively courting influence in the Arctic.
It is within this context that President Trump’s publicly aired interest in purchasing Greenland—while diplomatically clumsy and widely mocked—touched upon a legitimate conservative concern: **the imperative to protect national security and economic interests from adversarial encroachment.** The conservative critique of the Obama-era foreign policy was that it often withdrew U.S. influence from strategic theaters, creating vacuums that adversaries like Russia and China were all too eager to fill. A proactive, albeit more tactfully executed, strategy to deepen ties with Greenland and ensure it remains within the Western sphere of influence is not only reasonable but necessary. The goal is not colonial acquisition, but ensuring that a vast, strategically located territory allied with a NATO partner does not become a beachhead for our adversaries.
However, the blunt instrument of a purchase proposal fails the test of conservative prudence in several key ways. First, it ignores the **primacy of alliance management.** Denmark is not a rival but a steadfast NATO ally. Treating its autonomous territory as a real estate commodity profoundly disrespects that partnership. True conservative statecraft strengthens alliances through diplomacy and mutual interest, not through transactions that humiliate friends. Second, it misconstrues the nature of the challenge. The threat is not that Denmark will sell Greenland to China, but that Chinese state-owned enterprises will secure critical mineral rights, or that Beijing’s “Polar Silk Road” investments will create a dependency that Copenhagen and Nuuk cannot later escape. The response, therefore, should be strategic competition, not annexation.
A truly conservative approach to Greenland would be multi-faceted, quieter, and more effective:
1. Deepen the Diplomatic and Economic Partnership: The U.S. should formally elevate its engagement with Greenland’s Home Rule government, opening a consulate in Nuuk and increasing development aid and investment specifically targeted at infrastructure and education. This fosters goodwill and provides a preferable alternative to Chinese capital.
2. Secure the Arctic Through NATO: The U.S. should lead within NATO to reaffirm the Arctic as an area of strategic interest to the Alliance, conducting more frequent joint exercises with Danish and Canadian forces and investing in Arctic-domain awareness. This projects collective strength and deters adventurism under the legitimate umbrella of collective defense.
3. Create a Strategic Minerals Alliance: Instead of a unilateral grab, the U.S. should work with Denmark and Greenland to develop a Western consortium, potentially including other allies like Canada and Australia, to finance and develop Greenland’s rare earth deposits. This creates a secure supply chain for the West, provides economic benefit to Greenland, and counters Chinese monopoly—all through free-market partnership.
4. Invest in Defense Infrastructure: Negotiate a permanent, modernized basing agreement with Denmark for upgraded facilities at Thule Air Base and potentially new locations. This is a continuation of the existing, mutually beneficial defense relationship, not a takeover.
The call to “get it back for the US” fundamentally misunderstands both history and conservative doctrine. We never “had” Greenland in the sense of ownership; we had a defensive mandate during a world war. Seeking to own it now would be a radical departure from our republican principles and a repudiation of the alliance structure that has secured our safety for 75 years. It would be an act of imperial overreach that would alienate every one of our allies, validate every critique of American hegemony, and likely prove fiscally and administratively catastrophic.
In conclusion, the conservative perspective on Greenland is not one of nostalgic reclamation. It is one of sober, strategic interest. Our history there reminds us of our capacity for both decisive action in defense of our homeland and honorable conduct towards our allies. The present moment calls for us to channel that same spirit: to be clear-eyed about the competition with China and Russia, to be robust in defending our interests in the Arctic, but to do so through the frameworks of alliance, diplomacy, and mutually beneficial partnership that have long been the true source of enduring American strength. The task is not to purchase an island, but to fortify a frontier of freedom, ensuring that Greenland remains a partner in security and prosperity, not a chess piece won or lost in a new cold war. That is the path of principled, conservative realism.
#US #Trump #Denmark #Germany #Greenland
Trump touts 'total access' Greenland deal as NATO asks allies to step up
1/13/26
Take Over Everything!!!
TOTALLY SATIRE ... IT'S A JOKE!!!
Geography:
Greenland has 57 Million people. Give each one 1 Million Dollars and have them affiliate with us. Denmark isn't providing them jobs. China and Russia are trying to move in.
We need to take Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, snatch Canada, and check the possibilities in Mexico. We can be the 'Capitalist Block'.
Oh, I forgot, we can take Gaza, and Iran ... I want Lebanon for the FOOD!!!
You get a country, you get a country, you get a country ... etc ...
The Peril of the " Block": Why Conservative Principles Reject Imperial Fantasy
The recent social media post advocating for the United States to essentially “collect” nations—from Greenland and Venezuela to Canada and Iran—under a so-called “Capitalist Block” is a troubling departure from the core tenets of conservative thought. While cloaked in the language of free enterprise and strategic competition, this fantasy of neo-imperial acquisition represents everything authentic American conservatism stands against: reckless adventurism, a disregard for national sovereignty, fiscal insanity, and a fundamental betrayal of the principles of ordered liberty and self-determination.
At first glance, the post’s frustration is understandable from a conservative viewpoint. The geopolitical maneuvering of adversaries like China and Russia is a legitimate national security concern. The notion that Denmark isn’t “providing jobs” for Greenlanders, or that hostile regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere destabilize their regions and threaten U.S. interests, touches on real issues. The instinct to assert American strength and promote economic freedom is not, in itself, misguided. However, the proposed solution—a glib, Oprah-esque distribution of nations (“You get a country!”)—is a grotesque caricature of both sound strategy and conservative philosophy.
First Principles: Sovereignty and the Limits of Power
True conservatism is rooted in a sober understanding of human nature and the limits of power, both individual and national. The Founding Fathers, deeply influenced by conservative Enlightenment thinkers, constructed a republic, not an empire. They designed a system of limited government intended to secure the blessings of liberty for its own citizens, not to administer a global collection of territories. The conservative foreign policy tradition, from John Quincy Adams’ warning against going “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” to the Reagan doctrine of supporting those fighting for their own freedom, has emphasized that America’s power is at its most potent and moral when it serves as a beacon, not a conqueror.
The proposal to “take” nations violates this foundational respect for sovereignty. It conflates leadership with domination. To a conservative, the sovereignty of other nations is not a triviality; it is a recognition of the right of all peoples to determine their own political destiny. “Snatching” Canada—our closest ally, trading partner, and a fellow democracy—is not a strategic proposal; it is an act of war against a peaceful neighbor, an idea so antithetical to the conservative value of alliance and treaty that it borders on the absurd. Similarly, the casual acquisition of Gaza or Lebanon “for the FOOD” reduces complex nations with ancient histories and profound internal conflicts to mere commodities, revealing a shocking lack of seriousness and empathy.
Fiscal Conservatism Versus Imperial Overreach
The fiscal implications of this “Capitalist Block” scheme are staggering and fly in the face of every principle of fiscal conservatism. The post’s opening suggestion—to give Greenland’s (fictional) 57 million people one million dollars each—represents a proposed expenditure of $57 trillion, a sum exceeding the entire U.S. national debt. This is not capitalism; it is the worst form of profligate clientelism, a bankrupting bribe masquerading as policy.
Furthermore, true capitalism is not imposed at gunpoint; it emerges organically from cultural values, the rule of law, and respect for property rights. You cannot “give” a country capitalism through annexation. The administrative, military, and financial cost of occupying, securing, and governing unwilling populations from Venezuela to Iran would dwarf any conceivable economic benefit, draining the U.S. treasury, overextending our military, and crippling our economy. Conservatives understand that unsustainable spending is a path to national decline, not strength. An empire is a fiscally draining enterprise, as history has repeatedly shown, and it ultimately undermines the liberty and prosperity of the citizens at home who are forced to pay for it.
Strategic Realism Versus Reckless Expansion
A conservative foreign policy is realist and pragmatic. It focuses on concrete national interests and understands that power must be balanced with prudence. The post correctly identifies adversaries like China and Russia, but its prescribed remedy—wholesale, unilateral land-grabs—would achieve the exact opposite of containment. It would instantly unite the entire world against the United States, transforming current allies into fearful neutrals and hardening the resolve of our enemies. It would make America the rogue state, the aggressor that validates every piece of anti-American propaganda.
A realist conservative strategy focuses on strengthening alliances (like NATO), competing economically and technologically, and using diplomatic and financial leverage to check adversary influence. It means supporting democratic movements within countries like Venezuela and Cuba, not invading them. It means offering Greenland a mutually beneficial economic partnership, not treating its people like lottery winners in a geopolitical game show. It means maintaining such overwhelming conventional and nuclear deterrence that nations like Iran are contained without needing a ground war. Expansionism dissipates strength; focused deterrence and alliance-building concentrate it.
The Moral Hazard of "Easy" Solutions
Finally, the flippant tone of the post exposes a deeper moral hazard: the attraction of easy, drastic solutions to complex problems. Conservatism is inherently skeptical of grand schemes and utopian visions, recognizing that societal change is slow, difficult, and often messy. The problems of international relations—terrorism, economic coercion, ideological subversion—are not solved by drawing new lines on a map. They are managed through persistent, disciplined statecraft.
.png)
The desire for a “Capitalist Block” is, in essence, an impatient rejection of the hard work of diplomacy, economic competition, and cultural persuasion. It is the foreign policy equivalent of demanding a single pill to solve obesity rather than committing to the daily disciplines of diet and exercise. It promises a quick, clean victory that does not and cannot exist.
In conclusion, the vision of a neo-imperial “Capitalist Block” is a profound betrayal of conservative values. It swaps the sober realism of limited government and national sovereignty for the intoxication of limitless power. It trades fiscal responsibility for fantasy economics. It abandons the moral high ground of leading by example for the morally bankrupt path of conquest. True American strength does not lie in how many countries we can “take,” but in how successfully we uphold our own principles at home, how reliably we stand with our allies, and how wisely we deter our adversaries. We do not need an empire; we need to faithfully conserve the exceptional republic we already have.
#ForeignPolicy #Venezuela #Cuba #Greenland #Iran
Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games
Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games
The crazy lady in Minneapolis had gone to 2 other sites to harrass Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers that same day. I guess when they say '3rd Time Is a Charm' means something.
"You gotta know when to holdem', know when to foldem', know when to walk away, know when to run" ... ~ Kenny Rogers
She rolled the dice ... and LOST!!!
Professional Protesters Play Stupid Games
A recent incident in Minneapolis has reignited a crucial debate about the nature of protest, law and order, and personal responsibility. A woman, identified as a repeat activist, confronted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers—her third such confrontation in a single day. The encounter ended as these situations often do: with her arrest. The online commentary was swift and stark, borrowing from Kenny Rogers’ timeless wisdom in *The Gambler*: “You gotta know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” In this case, the protester, having rolled the dice one too many times, lost.
From a conservative perspective, this episode is not an isolated event but a symptom of a broader cultural malady. It exemplifies the rise of the “professional protester”—individuals who engage in performative civil disobedience not as a last resort of the oppressed, but as a primary vocation, often detached from the practical realities of governance and the rule of law. This phenomenon represents a dangerous shift from earnest civic engagement to theatrical antagonism, and its consequences undermine both social order and the very causes these protesters claim to champion.
The Theater of Grievance vs. The Reality of Law
The central issue here is one of deliberate escalation and disregard for lawful process. ICE officers, whether one agrees with their mission or not, are federal agents carrying out duties mandated by laws passed by Congress. They are not a roving militia but a component of the executive branch’s enforcement apparatus. To seek out and deliberately harass these officers at multiple locations in a single day is not protest; it is a targeted campaign of obstruction and intimidation.
Conservatives believe in the fundamental necessity of a society governed by laws, not by mobs or individual passions. The right to peacefully assemble and petition the government is sacrosanct and enshrined in our First Amendment. This right, however, does not confer a license to block buildings, disrupt lawful operations, or harass public servants performing their sworn duties. There is a profound difference between holding a sign in a public square and actively seeking to impede the function of government. The former is dissent; the latter is often delinquency masquerading as civil rights activism.
The “professional protester” model thrives on blurring this line. Their currency is the viral video clip, the dramatic arrest photo—the “martyrdom” moment designed for social media amplification. The goal is less about persuading the public or changing policy through reasoned discourse and more about staging a spectacle of conflict. In doing so, they treat law enforcement not as fellow citizens in uniform but as props in a political theater piece. This dehumanization is corrosive. It ignores the reality that these officers have a job to do, families to support, and a right to safety while performing their duties.
The Cult of Stupid Games and Stupid Prizes
The adage “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” is a blunt but accurate piece of folk wisdom. It speaks to a core conservative belief in causality and personal accountability. Actions have consequences. If you choose to repeatedly confront and obstruct armed federal agents, the probable consequence is arrest and prosecution. This is not oppression; it is the predictable outcome of a deliberate choice.
A stable society depends on its citizens understanding and respecting this basic social contract. When certain groups are encouraged—by activist networks, partisan media, or a permissive cultural narrative—to believe they are exempt from these consequences because their cause is “just,” it fosters a dangerous entitlement. It creates a class of individuals who believe their moral self-certification places them above the law. This is the antithesis of the equality under the law that is the bedrock of the American system.
The Kenny Rogers lyric cited in the commentary is profoundly apt. It is about strategic judgment, a virtue often absent in the heat of performative activism. Knowing “when to run” isn’t cowardice; it is the prudence of living to fight another day within the bounds of the law and effective strategy. The relentless, confrontational approach disregards this wisdom. It mistakes constant escalation for commitment and views any de-escalation as surrender. This mindset leads to losing battles that never needed to be fought in such a manner, draining energy from more productive, long-term efforts like lobbying, public education campaigns, or judicial challenges.
The Undermining of Legitimate Dissent
Perhaps the most damaging effect of the “professional protester” industry is the cheapening of legitimate, grassroots dissent. When every policy disagreement is met with the same toolkit of staged confrontations and performative outrage, it creates protest fatigue among the general public. Serious citizens with genuine grievances are lumped in with serial harassers and agitators.
For conservatives who may themselves protest federal overreach, state mandates, or other issues, this is particularly frustrating. It allows opponents to dismiss all protest as the work of unhinged or unserious people. It moves the Overton Window away from substantive debate about the scope, scale, and methods of government agencies like ICE, and refocuses the conversation solely on the drama of the confrontation itself. The woman in Minneapolis is no longer a citizen with a viewpoint on immigration policy; she is “the crazy lady” who wouldn’t stop harassing officers. Her cause, whatever its merits, is instantly marginalized by her conduct.
The Path Forward: Principled and Prudent Opposition
Conservatism at its best is not merely about supporting law enforcement uncritically. It is about upholding the rule of law as the indispensable framework for a free society. This framework allows for—indeed, protects—vigorous political debate and change. The proper conservative response to an agency one believes is overstepping or acting unjustly is not to harass its rank-and-file officers but to use the powerful tools our system provides: vote for representatives who will change the law, support lawsuits that challenge unconstitutional actions, engage in public persuasion to shift the consensus, and peacefully picket in designated areas.
The individual in Minneapolis had every right to oppose ICE’s actions. She had no right to persistently obstruct its officers. Her choice to do so resulted in a “stupid prize” that was entirely avoidable. Her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dead end of performative activism. Real, lasting change is built through the hard, unglamorous work of democratic engagement—work that respects the very structures it seeks to reform. It is built by citizens who know not just when to hold ’em, but when to use the legitimate political tools at their disposal, and when to walk away from counterproductive theatrics that serve only to make them the main character in a story of their own defeat.
#Good #Minneapolis #ILLEGALS #Shooting #ICE #Protesters #ReneeNicoleGood
1/8/26
An Unholy Alliance: Hezbollah’s Foothold in Venezuela and the Threat to Hemispheric Security
An Unholy Alliance: Hezbollah’s Foothold in Venezuela and the Threat to Hemispheric Security
From a conservative perspective, national security is predicated on a clear-eyed assessment of threats, both overt and covert. It requires calling malign actors by their proper names and opposing the ideologies that fuel them, regardless of political expediency. Few alliances so perfectly encapsulate a failure of this duty than the deepening, deliberate partnership between the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela and the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, Hezbollah. This is not a matter of speculation or alarmism; it is a documented, strategic penetration of the Western Hemisphere by a dedicated enemy of the United States and its allies, facilitated by a corrupt and anti-American regime in Caracas.
The foundation of this alliance is not incidental but ideological and strategic. The Bolivarian revolution, initiated by Hugo Chávez and ruthlessly maintained by Nicolás Maduro, was from its inception built on a foundation of virulent anti-Americanism. Chávez did not merely seek a different economic model; he actively sought to build a global axis of resistance against U.S. influence. This naturally led him into the arms of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and a regime whose foundational creed is likewise opposition to “The Great Satan.” From this state-level partnership between Caracas and Tehran sprouted the operational branch: Hezbollah, Iran’s most powerful and capable terrorist proxy.
Hezbollah’s role in Venezuela is multifaceted, operating across three interconnected domains: criminal finance, logistical support, and ideological solidarity. Firstly, Venezuela has become a critical node in Hezbollah’s global financial network. The regime’s rampant corruption, control over natural resources, and porous borders have created a paradise for illicit finance. Hezbollah’s external security apparatus, along with its allies in the Lebanese diaspora in the tri-border area of South America, have leveraged Venezuelan resources for decades. Key to this has been the regime’s complicity.
Reports from the U.S. Treasury Department and investigative journalists have detailed how Venezuelan state entities, including the national oil company PDVSA, have been used to launder money and move resources, often through complex schemes involving overvalued contracts, shell companies, and trade-based money laundering. The Maduro regime, in exchange for hard currency and political support from Iran, has provided Hezbollah facilitators with Venezuelan identity documents, passports, and diplomatic cover. This transforms terrorists into “businessmen,” allowing them to move freely and bank securely. The profits from narcotrafficking, embezzlement, and fraud flowing through these channels directly fund Hezbollah’s military arsenal in Lebanon and its global terrorist operations. In short, the collapse of the Venezuelan economy under socialism has created a black market bonanza that helps bankroll jihadism.
Secondly, Venezuela serves as a potential logistical and operational platform in America’s backyard. Conservatives understand that terrorism thrives in ungoverned spaces. The Venezuelan regime’s deliberate collapse of institutional controls, combined with its control over ports, airports, and vast, remote land borders, has created such a space. There is deep concern among national security experts that Venezuela could be used as a launchpad for attacks, a transit point for operatives entering North America, or a safe haven for planning. The presence of sympathetic regime elements in intelligence and military units lowers the barrier for such activities. While Hezbollah’s primary theater remains the Middle East, its history of catastrophic attacks in Buenos Aires in the 1990s proves its capability and willingness to strike in the Western Hemisphere. A friendly regime like Maduro’s provides an invaluable contingency option, a threat-in-being that constrains U.S. options and provides Iran with leverage.
Thirdly, there is a disturbing ideological synergy. The Maduro regime and Hezbollah both style themselves as revolutionary vanguards in a global struggle against American “imperialism” and “Zionism.” State media in Venezuela has consistently parroted Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. This is not a mere marriage of convenience but a meeting of revolutionary minds. For conservatives, this highlights the truly global nature of the anti-American, anti-Western coalition. It bridges the socialist “Bolivarian” left and the Islamist far-right, united only by their hatred for the United States, Israel, and the concept of liberal democracy. This alliance demonstrates that the threat is ideological as much as it is military; it is a coalition of those who seek to dismantle the U.S.-led international order.
The response from successive U.S. administrations, until recently, has been woefully inadequate, often hamstrung by a reluctance to confront the full nature of the regimes involved. From a conservative viewpoint, a robust strategy to counter this threat must be unequivocal and multi-pronged:
1. Maximum Pressure and Designation: The U.S. must maintain and intensify maximum pressure campaigns on both the Maduro and Iranian regimes. Every individual and entity facilitating this nexus must be hit with crushing sanctions. Venezuela must be formally designated, without ambiguity, as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This is not a symbolic gesture; it triggers a cascade of legal and financial consequences that can disrupt the alliance’s lifelines.
2. Support for Democratic Legitimacy: U.S. policy must remain unequivocally aligned with the cause of Venezuelan freedom. This means recognizing the legitimate, democratically elected National Assembly and continuing support for the Venezuelan people’s right to self-determination. A free, democratic Venezuela would naturally expel Hezbollah and rejoin the community of peaceful nations. Support must be material, diplomatic, and rhetorical.
3. Hemispheric Solidarity and Intelligence Sharing: The U.S. must lead a concerted effort with regional allies, particularly Colombia and Brazil, to share intelligence, secure borders, and dismantle the criminal-terrorist networks operating in the region. This is a shared threat to hemispheric security, not just a U.S. problem.
4. Military Deterrence and Preparedness: The U.S. Southern Command must be resourced appropriately to monitor, deter, and, if necessary, neutralize any emergent terrorist threat from Venezuelan soil. This includes enhanced surveillance, cyber capabilities, and clear messaging that the use of Venezuelan territory for attacks will be met with a devastating response.
The Hezbollah-Venezuela nexus is a chilling case study in the consequences of American weakness and ideological blindness. It is the direct result of allowing a hostile, socialist regime to consolidate power, collapse a once-prosperous nation, and open its doors to the world’s most sophisticated terrorist organization. For conservatives, this is a stark reminder that isolationism is a luxury we cannot afford. Threats gather in the shadows of failed states and are nurtured by regimes that hate us. To protect the homeland, we must be willing to confront evil abroad, name it accurately, and act decisively to counter it. The people of Venezuela are the first victims of this unholy alliance, but if left unchecked, we will not be the last. The time for clear-eyed recognition and resolute action is now.
#Hezbollah #Iran #Venezuela #Marudo #Lebanon
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)