Trump’s Somali Insults Are a Disgrace


Donald Trump | Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

After Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was proud that his city had the largest Somali community in the United States, President Donald Trump unleashed a vicious rant during a press conference ostensibly about the auto industry: “I wouldn’t be proud to have the largest Somalian―look at their nation. Look how bad their nation is. It’s not even a nation. It’s just people walking around killing each other…They have destroyed Minnesota.”

Trump also penned a social-media post claiming Somali gangs have taken over Minnesota and “are roving the streets looking for ‘prey’ as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses.” The Hennepin County District Attorney’s Office, which is the top law-enforcement agency overseeing the Minneapolis area, released a video debunking those claims. Nearly 90 percent of Somalis there are legal residents, with 58 percent of them having been born in the United States.

“They contribute nothing…I don’t want them in our country,” Trump added, as he has pushed forward a plan to reduce the nation’s refugee-acceptance program by 90 percent. Somalis actually have revived some downtrodden Minneapolis neighborhoods as they mostly pursue the American dream, but why pick nits? The bulk of the new refugees will be white South Africans, but I’m sure race has absolutely nothing to do with his latest immigration-related tirades and decisions.

It’s seems hardly a coincidence that Trump also has directed ire at Haitian immigrants in Ohio whom he falsely accused of eating pets. His decision to eliminate free-entry days at national parks on the Juneteenth holiday commemorating the end of slavery and Martin Luther King Jr. Day also don’t seem like coincidences. In reality, the only roving gangs that Twin-Cities residents need to worry about are the masked ICE patrols Trump has sent to the region, but that’s apparently the point.

Trump is maligning “garbage,” as he referred to a Somali member of Congress and her “friends,” to justify efforts to quash immigration from non-white countries. Can the GOP stop pretending otherwise?

Conservative media are focusing on Minnesota’s social programs, with City Journal‘s Christopher Rufo explaining that “fraud has allegedly been perpetrated by members of Minnesota’s sizeable Somali community” with “millions of dollars in stolen funds have been sent back to Somalia, where they ultimately landed in the hands of the terror group Al-Shabaab.” Minnesota’s Democratic politicians and media have been loath to “connect the dots” because of their “progressive pieties,” Rufo added.

That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials’ fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have, by blaming the entire Somali community for the criminal acts of a few and using the scandal to justify heavy-handed immigration policies.

There are two schools of conservative immigration thought. The first, to which I subscribe, acknowledges immigrants often flee countries ravaged by crime, tyranny and disorder. That’s why many people come to the United States. Our nation’s settlers fled persecution. My father escaped Nazi Germany, which was literally putting people in ovens (although many Republicans lately have struggled with their views on such horrors). Under this long-standing view, Americans should welcome immigrants, but promote E Pluribus Unum.

The other conservative view, which is clearly embraced by national conservatives and populists, is that America is fundamentally a white, Christian nation and that immigration, to whatever limited degree we allow it, should align with those demographics. Some conservatives still tout the, “we’re only against illegal immigration” canard, but that’s not what’s going on here. Trump’s policies—along with much of the anti-immigration rhetoric on the right these days—are about limiting immigration in general. Minnesota’s Somalis and Springfield’s Haitians are, after all, primarily legal.

No one disputes that law-enforcement should clamp down on government fraud. The root problem is the government freebies themselves, which often are overly generous and lacking in oversight. But it’s not like fraud scandals are confined to immigrant and minority communities. One can find similar scandals involving any ethnic group (including native-born Americans).

The president always doubles down. Following the brouhaha over his comments, Trump said to supporters: “Why is it we only take people from sh**hole countries, right, why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few…We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, dirty, filthy, disgusting, ridden with crime.” It’s clear what he’s saying.

By contrast, in his last presidential speech, Ronald Reagan said, “We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.” Reagan was right. Trump is wrong. Americans shouldn’t be ashamed that our nation is a beacon to the tired, poor, huddled masses, but we have reason to be ashamed of him.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post Trump's Somali Insults Are a Disgrace appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/xtecsYX
via IFTTT

Trump Won on Immigration. Now Most Americans Say His Deportations Are Going Too Far.


A photo of Donald Trump alongside photos of immigrants | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Nano Banana

Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency in no small part thanks to his promise to enforce immigration restrictions that the Biden administration largely ignored. Election year polls found more voters preferred Trump over then-president Joe Biden on the issue and even favored his proposals for mass deportations. But the reality of tough border policies is a harsh reality check; since the current administration took office, Americans have cooled on its policies and warmed to immigration.

That’s not to say the country is embracing Biden’s nudge-and-wink approach to border crossings. Instead, people seem to want a middle ground combining enforcement with a touch of humanity.

Immigration Helped Win the White House for Trump

The former president took office with big plans to roll back Trump’s tough first-term immigration policies. That didn’t go well for him as border crossings skyrocketed, alarming the public. In February 2024, Bloomberg polling found a rising percentage of voters calling immigration the “single most important issue'” contributing to lagging numbers for Biden across the swing states he eventually lost.

By April, Harris polling recorded majority (51 percent) support for mass deportations. Thirty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans wanted to end constitutionally protected birthright citizenship.

Two weeks ago, in a very belated election post-mortem, The New York Times conceded that “as public concern over border security grew, partly in response to Mr. Biden’s own actions, his administration proved catastrophically slow to change course” and ultimately lost voters to his rival.

But that was then. Public attention is now occupied not by images of crowds surging across the border and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but by stories of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and often rough tactics. While federal officials have arrested some serious criminals—though the vast majority of those taken into custody have no criminal convictions and only about 5 percent have violent convictions—Americans hear far more stories about worksite raids that scoop up peaceful, hard-working laborers.

Rounding up gangbangers is popular. Separating families is not.

This week, The Marshall Project journalism nonprofit reported that “the Trump administration’s revival of family detention has swept thousands of children into ICE custody. At least 3,800 children under age 18, including 20 infants, have been booked since Trump took office.”

But Harsh Enforcement Alienates the Public

The public isn’t seeing what it expected and that’s affecting people’s opinions.

“As the Trump administration escalates its immigration enforcement efforts, 53% of Americans say it is doing ‘too much’ when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally,” the Pew Research Center revealed this week. “That share is up from 44% in March.”

As you’d expect, there are sizable differences in views between supporters of the two major political parties. Eighty-six percent of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party oppose the Trump administration’s immigration policies, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners. But opposition is rising in both groups.

Importantly, “47% of Hispanic Republicans say the administration is doing too much, up from 28% in March.” That’s a large part of the electorate that drifted in the GOP’s direction in the last election and could just as easily move away.

This isn’t a sudden shift. By July, Gallup found that support for mass deportations had plunged “with 38% now favoring this as the administration is attempting it, down from 47% last year when it was a Trump campaign promise.” The firm also reported that “support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens has risen to 78%, up from 70% last year.”

In the same survey, “a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”

That month, 52 percent of respondents called Trump’s approach to immigration policy “too harsh” in The Economist/YouGov polling.

That is, the Trump administration quickly lost the American people with its approach to border enforcement and hasn’t gained them back. Voters didn’t like Biden immigration policies and opted for something different—as a candidate, the current president was very open about what he planned to do—but they don’t like harsh enforcement any better than they cared for near-total lack of enforcement.

So, what do people want when it comes to immigration?

Americans Want a Humane Middle Ground

Obviously, Americans like a welcoming policy towards immigrants—so long as they follow the rules. That can be a problem, given that the legal path to settling in this country is almost impossible to navigate. A 2023 Cato Institute report by David J. Bier noted that “fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally” and that “immigration is now prohibited in a similar way to alcohol during Prohibition.”

Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that only a very fortunate few can find a legal path to entry.

Americans also agree with the president’s occasional promise to deport “the worst of the worst.” In the recent Pew poll, 97 percent of U.S. adults favor deporting those who are in the country illegally and have committed violent crimes. Fifty-two percent of respondents support deporting undocumented immigrants who commit nonviolent crimes.

That’s a policy with a solid base of support. But, as mentioned above, according to the most recent data crunched by Cato’s Bier, only about 5 percent of those detained had a violent criminal conviction. “Nearly three in four (73 percent) had no criminal conviction.”

Americans want border enforcement. But they’re not overall hostile to immigration—they favor increased legal immigration. They want ICE to target human predators who crossed the border illegally, not workers and their families.

So, there is an opening for a middle ground on border enforcement between Biden’s dereliction of duty and Trump’s iron fist. Arresting and deporting dangerous criminals while creating a credible legal path to immigration could win favor with the American people.

The post Trump Won on Immigration. Now Most Americans Say His Deportations Are Going Too Far. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/QdDjZYH
via IFTTT

Trump’s Somali Insults Are a Disgrace


Donald Trump | Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom

After Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was proud that his city had the largest Somali community in the United States, President Donald Trump unleashed a vicious rant during a press conference ostensibly about the auto industry: “I wouldn’t be proud to have the largest Somalian―look at their nation. Look how bad their nation is. It’s not even a nation. It’s just people walking around killing each other…They have destroyed Minnesota.”

Trump also penned a social-media post claiming Somali gangs have taken over Minnesota and “are roving the streets looking for ‘prey’ as our wonderful people stay locked in their apartments and houses.” The Hennepin County District Attorney’s Office, which is the top law-enforcement agency overseeing the Minneapolis area, released a video debunking those claims. Nearly 90 percent of Somalis there are legal residents, with 58 percent of them having been born in the United States.

“They contribute nothing…I don’t want them in our country,” Trump added, as he has pushed forward a plan to reduce the nation’s refugee-acceptance program by 90 percent. Somalis actually have revived some downtrodden Minneapolis neighborhoods as they mostly pursue the American dream, but why pick nits? The bulk of the new refugees will be white South Africans, but I’m sure race has absolutely nothing to do with his latest immigration-related tirades and decisions.

It’s seems hardly a coincidence that Trump also has directed ire at Haitian immigrants in Ohio whom he falsely accused of eating pets. His decision to eliminate free-entry days at national parks on the Juneteenth holiday commemorating the end of slavery and Martin Luther King Jr. Day also don’t seem like coincidences. In reality, the only roving gangs that Twin-Cities residents need to worry about are the masked ICE patrols Trump has sent to the region, but that’s apparently the point.

Trump is maligning “garbage,” as he referred to a Somali member of Congress and her “friends,” to justify efforts to quash immigration from non-white countries. Can the GOP stop pretending otherwise?

Conservative media are focusing on Minnesota’s social programs, with City Journal‘s Christopher Rufo explaining that “fraud has allegedly been perpetrated by members of Minnesota’s sizeable Somali community” with “millions of dollars in stolen funds have been sent back to Somalia, where they ultimately landed in the hands of the terror group Al-Shabaab.” Minnesota’s Democratic politicians and media have been loath to “connect the dots” because of their “progressive pieties,” Rufo added.

That may be true and any fraud is appalling, but perhaps one reason for the lack of dot-connecting is Minnesota officials’ fear that the administration and its supporters would react as they have, by blaming the entire Somali community for the criminal acts of a few and using the scandal to justify heavy-handed immigration policies.

There are two schools of conservative immigration thought. The first, to which I subscribe, acknowledges immigrants often flee countries ravaged by crime, tyranny and disorder. That’s why many people come to the United States. Our nation’s settlers fled persecution. My father escaped Nazi Germany, which was literally putting people in ovens (although many Republicans lately have struggled with their views on such horrors). Under this long-standing view, Americans should welcome immigrants, but promote E Pluribus Unum.

The other conservative view, which is clearly embraced by national conservatives and populists, is that America is fundamentally a white, Christian nation and that immigration, to whatever limited degree we allow it, should align with those demographics. Some conservatives still tout the, “we’re only against illegal immigration” canard, but that’s not what’s going on here. Trump’s policies—along with much of the anti-immigration rhetoric on the right these days—are about limiting immigration in general. Minnesota’s Somalis and Springfield’s Haitians are, after all, primarily legal.

No one disputes that law-enforcement should clamp down on government fraud. The root problem is the government freebies themselves, which often are overly generous and lacking in oversight. But it’s not like fraud scandals are confined to immigrant and minority communities. One can find similar scandals involving any ethnic group (including native-born Americans).

The president always doubles down. Following the brouhaha over his comments, Trump said to supporters: “Why is it we only take people from sh**hole countries, right, why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few…We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, dirty, filthy, disgusting, ridden with crime.” It’s clear what he’s saying.

By contrast, in his last presidential speech, Ronald Reagan said, “We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation.” Reagan was right. Trump is wrong. Americans shouldn’t be ashamed that our nation is a beacon to the tired, poor, huddled masses, but we have reason to be ashamed of him.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post Trump's Somali Insults Are a Disgrace appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/xtecsYX
via IFTTT

Trump Won on Immigration. Now Most Americans Say His Deportations Are Going Too Far.


A photo of Donald Trump alongside photos of immigrants | Illustration: Eddie Marshall | Nano Banana

Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency in no small part thanks to his promise to enforce immigration restrictions that the Biden administration largely ignored. Election year polls found more voters preferred Trump over then-president Joe Biden on the issue and even favored his proposals for mass deportations. But the reality of tough border policies is a harsh reality check; since the current administration took office, Americans have cooled on its policies and warmed to immigration.

That’s not to say the country is embracing Biden’s nudge-and-wink approach to border crossings. Instead, people seem to want a middle ground combining enforcement with a touch of humanity.

Immigration Helped Win the White House for Trump

The former president took office with big plans to roll back Trump’s tough first-term immigration policies. That didn’t go well for him as border crossings skyrocketed, alarming the public. In February 2024, Bloomberg polling found a rising percentage of voters calling immigration the “single most important issue'” contributing to lagging numbers for Biden across the swing states he eventually lost.

By April, Harris polling recorded majority (51 percent) support for mass deportations. Thirty percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans wanted to end constitutionally protected birthright citizenship.

Two weeks ago, in a very belated election post-mortem, The New York Times conceded that “as public concern over border security grew, partly in response to Mr. Biden’s own actions, his administration proved catastrophically slow to change course” and ultimately lost voters to his rival.

But that was then. Public attention is now occupied not by images of crowds surging across the border and crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but by stories of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and often rough tactics. While federal officials have arrested some serious criminals—though the vast majority of those taken into custody have no criminal convictions and only about 5 percent have violent convictions—Americans hear far more stories about worksite raids that scoop up peaceful, hard-working laborers.

Rounding up gangbangers is popular. Separating families is not.

This week, The Marshall Project journalism nonprofit reported that “the Trump administration’s revival of family detention has swept thousands of children into ICE custody. At least 3,800 children under age 18, including 20 infants, have been booked since Trump took office.”

But Harsh Enforcement Alienates the Public

The public isn’t seeing what it expected and that’s affecting people’s opinions.

“As the Trump administration escalates its immigration enforcement efforts, 53% of Americans say it is doing ‘too much’ when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally,” the Pew Research Center revealed this week. “That share is up from 44% in March.”

As you’d expect, there are sizable differences in views between supporters of the two major political parties. Eighty-six percent of Democrats and independents who lean toward that party oppose the Trump administration’s immigration policies, compared to 20 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners. But opposition is rising in both groups.

Importantly, “47% of Hispanic Republicans say the administration is doing too much, up from 28% in March.” That’s a large part of the electorate that drifted in the GOP’s direction in the last election and could just as easily move away.

This isn’t a sudden shift. By July, Gallup found that support for mass deportations had plunged “with 38% now favoring this as the administration is attempting it, down from 47% last year when it was a Trump campaign promise.” The firm also reported that “support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become U.S. citizens has risen to 78%, up from 70% last year.”

In the same survey, “a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”

That month, 52 percent of respondents called Trump’s approach to immigration policy “too harsh” in The Economist/YouGov polling.

That is, the Trump administration quickly lost the American people with its approach to border enforcement and hasn’t gained them back. Voters didn’t like Biden immigration policies and opted for something different—as a candidate, the current president was very open about what he planned to do—but they don’t like harsh enforcement any better than they cared for near-total lack of enforcement.

So, what do people want when it comes to immigration?

Americans Want a Humane Middle Ground

Obviously, Americans like a welcoming policy towards immigrants—so long as they follow the rules. That can be a problem, given that the legal path to settling in this country is almost impossible to navigate. A 2023 Cato Institute report by David J. Bier noted that “fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally” and that “immigration is now prohibited in a similar way to alcohol during Prohibition.”

Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that only a very fortunate few can find a legal path to entry.

Americans also agree with the president’s occasional promise to deport “the worst of the worst.” In the recent Pew poll, 97 percent of U.S. adults favor deporting those who are in the country illegally and have committed violent crimes. Fifty-two percent of respondents support deporting undocumented immigrants who commit nonviolent crimes.

That’s a policy with a solid base of support. But, as mentioned above, according to the most recent data crunched by Cato’s Bier, only about 5 percent of those detained had a violent criminal conviction. “Nearly three in four (73 percent) had no criminal conviction.”

Americans want border enforcement. But they’re not overall hostile to immigration—they favor increased legal immigration. They want ICE to target human predators who crossed the border illegally, not workers and their families.

So, there is an opening for a middle ground on border enforcement between Biden’s dereliction of duty and Trump’s iron fist. Arresting and deporting dangerous criminals while creating a credible legal path to immigration could win favor with the American people.

The post Trump Won on Immigration. Now Most Americans Say His Deportations Are Going Too Far. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/QdDjZYH
via IFTTT

Review: Tron: Ares Reminds Us That Artificial Intelligence Is Not the Enemy


Jared Leto in Tron: Ares | <em>Tron: Ares</em>/Disney

Will a hyperadvanced AI be a danger to humanity? That’s nothing compared to the threat posed by military contractors.

That’s the implicit conclusion of Tron: Ares, the third installment in the series that began with 1982’s Tron. This threequel inverts the previous films’ formula: Rather than humans trying to enter a digital world, Ares tells of an AI (Jared Leto) from inside “the Grid” finding its way into meatspace. It’s a sci-fi spin on a fairy tale formula quite familiar to Disney, which made all three of the Tron films. The AI wants to be a real boy.

Standing in Ares’ way is the tech executive (Evan Peters) who built him and intends to sell him to the highest bidder as a supersoldier who could be easily resurrected infinite times. Having achieved self-awareness, Ares decides it would be more meaningful to live just once. The message is as unsubtle as the film’s pulsating Nine Inch Nails soundtrack: It’s the humans who develop and use AI for malicious ends, not the tech itself, who should worry us.

The post Review: <i>Tron: Ares</i> Reminds Us That Artificial Intelligence Is Not the Enemy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/rMUBS79
via IFTTT

Review: The Sound of Music’s Anti-Authoritarianism


minisSoundsofMusic | <em>The Sound of Music</em>/The Kennedy Center

The Kennedy Center hosted director Jack O’Brien’s production of The Sound of Music from September to October. O’Brien’s rendition left little to criticize: stunning sets, apt casting, and exquisite vocal performances. Cayleigh Capaldi’s high notes could have fractured the glass chandelier. The 65-year-old musical’s depiction of an us-vs.-them mentality emerging around the Anschluss was particularly poignant in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the Manichean responses to it. The musical’s anti-authoritarian message was unchanged by President Donald Trump’s recent ascension to chairmanship of the center.

The exclusion of “I Have Confidence” and the deviation from the original lyrics of “Something Good” and “Sixteen Going on Seventeen (Reprise)” are the only areas where this production could be improved. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing our capacity for wickedness or the mutual sense of ownership that characterizes marriage.

The post Review: <i>The Sound of Music</i>'s Anti-Authoritarianism appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ARP6HkJ
via IFTTT

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

Why Should Americans Die For European Tyranny?

Authored by J/B/Shurk via American Thinker,

After the European Commission levied a several-hundred-million-dollar fine on Elon Musk and his social media platform X earlier this month, journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote a damning post in which he excoriated Europe’s rank censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.  He accused the commission of engaging “in a deception campaign aimed at confusing” Europeans and Americans into thinking that European elites’ “goal” is anything other than “to censor the American people.”

Shellenberger pointed out that Musk’s fine came while European governments are demanding backdoor access to all private text messages (under the pretense of combatting the transmission of child pornography) and creating a so-called “Democracy Shield” of government-funded “fact-checkers” that enables “censorship by proxy.”  He also noted that the European Commission announced the fine to coincide with the rollout of the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy, in which President Trump makes this promise: “We will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.”

Shellenberger put two and two together to make a provocative observation:

“The EU is now in direct violation of the NATO Treaty,” which “requires member states to have free speech and free and fair elections.  France and Germany are actively and illegally preventing political candidates from running for office for ideological reasons, namely their opposition to mass migration.  And the Romanian high court, with the support of the European Commission, nullified election results under the thin and unproven pretext of Russian interference, after a nationalist and populist presidential candidate won.”

As a parting shot, Shellenberger accused the European political class of betraying its own constitution, a document that purports to protect free speech:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”  

How can the European Commission pretend to defend its own charter when it seeks to eradicate the free exchange of ideas on X, censor Americans’ speech, spy on citizens’ private text messages, and create an army of government-funded NGOs to justify censorship and push the commission’s propaganda?

Shellenberger’s pointed observations reinforce Vice President Vance’s recent criticisms of European censorship:

“Germany’s entire defense is subsidized by the American taxpayer.  There are thousands upon thousands of American troops in Germany today.  Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet?”  Vance has explicitly warned European elites that America and Europe “do not have shared values if you’re jailing people for saying we should close down our border” or canceling “elections because you don’t like the result — and that happened in Romania.  You do not have shared values if you’re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.”

When the leading candidate for the American presidency in 2028 and one of America’s pre-eminent journalists are both warning the European political class that its ongoing censorship activities are threatening the foundations of the Western alliance, the capitals of Europe should pay attention.

Unfortunately, it appears the paper tigers of Europe believe that their gentle purrs sound like ferocious roars and that their distorted shadows still convey strength.  As President Trump’s emissaries work to deliver peace between Russia and Ukraine, there are rumors on the continent that the European Commission is threatening behind somewhat closed doors to sell $2.34 trillion in U.S. Treasury holdings should the American government impose an “unsatisfactory” peace settlement or outright withdraw military and financial support from Ukraine.  Such economic warfare against the United States could trigger a financial crash more severe than what occurred in 2008.

The fact that European powers would consider destabilizing the global economy in order to prolong war on the European continent says a great deal about the Old World’s twisted priorities.  While tens of millions of illegal immigrants erase Western civilization and insane “green energy” policies doom the economies of Europe, the aristocratic elites insist on censorship, government-approved propaganda, and perpetual war.  Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin are so committed to total war with Russia that they will sacrifice every last Ukrainian and outlaw peace.  Better to remain master over a dominion of poverty, division, and bloodshed than to permit non-globalist political parties to win elections and defend their respective nations’ sovereignties.

Given how ill prepared Europe is to fight its own battles without the assistance of America’s military machine, it is maddening to watch the deranged posturing of Europe’s bellicose ruling class as it salivates for more war.  While mourning the recent death of a British soldier in Ukraine, U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer tacitly admitted that a military contingent of unknown size is already operating in the country.  This led one of Russia’s most prominent political commentators to conclude that “a nuclear strike on Britain is inevitable.”  Should the British people perhaps have a say in whether their political leadership will risk nuclear war over Russian-speaking territories in eastern Ukraine?

Meanwhile, the French government is not so quietly preparing hospitals for the arrival of tens of thousands of wounded soldiers in the next few months.  Given that French president Emmanuel Macron is reportedly planning to announce a rapid expansion of the country’s military service, a significant military engagement on the continent appears increasingly likely.  Similarly, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia, Poland, and Germany are all working to increase the sizes of their military forces.  Military spending in Germany is set to “mark the largest single-year investment in defense equipment in the country’s history.”  And NATO chief Mark Rutte recently told foreign policy pooh-bahs in Berlin that Europeans “must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.”  As far as Europe’s political elites are concerned, all signs point to World War III!

Is this really what Americans want?  Must we really permit Europe’s totalitarian political elites to recklessly provoke a U.S.-NATO-Russia War?  It is revealing that Europe’s speech police work so assiduously to censor social media posts that dare to question the ruling class’s apparent desire to transform a regional conflict between Russia and Ukraine into a battle royale involving the whole of the continent.  How duplicitous with regard to their motivations and desperate in their political calculations could Starmer, Macron, Merz, and Queen Ursula von der Leyen be if they feel compelled to silence every European commoner who prefers to keep his children safely away from exploding drones on the battlefield?

I go back to the questions that Michael Shellenberger and Vice President Vance have asked concerning Europe’s diminishing commitment to Western values.  What is the point of defending a royal court of unelected European aristocrats who cynically prattle on about the need to “defend democracy” while spying on fellow citizens’ private communications and silencing their online debates?  Why should Americans fight and die for European elites who conspire to prevent non-globalist politicians from holding office and summarily cancel elections whenever preferred globalists flat-out lose?  Why should America’s military defend a European ruling class that regularly censors American citizens?

If Brussels, London, Paris, and Berlin want war, let those socialists pick up a rifle and fight.  As for Americans, our cause should be to defend liberty.  And right now, unfortunately, liberty is of little concern to Europe’s political elites.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/19/2025 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/q9DF3zB Tyler Durden

Review: Tron: Ares Reminds Us That Artificial Intelligence Is Not the Enemy


Jared Leto in Tron: Ares | <em>Tron: Ares</em>/Disney

Will a hyperadvanced AI be a danger to humanity? That’s nothing compared to the threat posed by military contractors.

That’s the implicit conclusion of Tron: Ares, the third installment in the series that began with 1982’s Tron. This threequel inverts the previous films’ formula: Rather than humans trying to enter a digital world, Ares tells of an AI (Jared Leto) from inside “the Grid” finding its way into meatspace. It’s a sci-fi spin on a fairy tale formula quite familiar to Disney, which made all three of the Tron films. The AI wants to be a real boy.

Standing in Ares’ way is the tech executive (Evan Peters) who built him and intends to sell him to the highest bidder as a supersoldier who could be easily resurrected infinite times. Having achieved self-awareness, Ares decides it would be more meaningful to live just once. The message is as unsubtle as the film’s pulsating Nine Inch Nails soundtrack: It’s the humans who develop and use AI for malicious ends, not the tech itself, who should worry us.

The post Review: <i>Tron: Ares</i> Reminds Us That Artificial Intelligence Is Not the Enemy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/rMUBS79
via IFTTT