Month: November 2024

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

On Oct. 31, Brittany Patterson, a 41-year-old Georgia mother, was arrested and accused of endangering her son – all because the unsupervised 10-year-old walked less than a mile away from home. Patterson told NBC News in an interview, “It’s not a super dangerous or even dangerous-at-all stretch of road. I wasn’t terrified for him or scared for his safety.”

Nevertheless, the sheriff’s department went to the family’s home, where Patterson was handcuffed, arrested, booked on suspicion of reckless conduct, and forced to post $500 bail.

Parenting expert Dawn Friedman responded to the arrest by declaring, “We used to allow children some freedoms that we no longer allow them. And I don’t think that’s to their benefit or to ours.”

Lenore Skenazy, the founder of Free-Range Kids, weighed in. “The crime was that she didn’t know where her kid was for a little while because she’d left them at home. And to her surprise, he didn’t stay home. It’s just so normal. And to make that into a crime is insane.”

Sadly, this case of a government body superseding parents is anything but unique.

Government-run schools have way overstepped their bounds all too often, becoming a child’s co-parent. A good example is California, where AB 1955 was voted into law in July. This outrageous legislation bars school districts from requiring staff to notify parents if their child decides to change their gender.

In a similar vein, the San Francisco school district has determined that teachers don’t have to notify parents before teaching intimate gender identity lessons.

The Turner School District in Kansas City let a 4-year-old preschooler take home Jacobs New Dress, a picture book in which “a little boy wears girls’ clothes and even competes with his friend Emily to be a princess.” (It’s no secret that there is an effort by LGBTQ groups to push gender identity dogma on schoolchildren nationwide, and all too often, the government is a willing ally.)

“Satan Clubs” are popping up all over the country. In Bakersfield, CA—a fairly conservative part of the state—the leader of the after-school club asserted that devil worship shouldn’t be a problem, explaining that he felt the need to counter “Christian-based clubs.”

What can parents do about this?

School choice is one way to escape public schools, and indeed, parental freedom continues to expand. While there were setbacks in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kentucky this past Election Day—mostly due to poorly written laws and being outspent—Florida, Arizona, Utah, and Ohio either created universal or near-universal private school choice programs or expanded existing programs to be universal or near-universal during this past legislative session.

As Michael McShane, director of national research at EdChoice, noted after the election, “Voters had a chance to make their voices heard on what they thought about that (school choice) last week. In every case, the legislative majorities that voted these programs into existence were returned.”

In Texas, several GOP wins in the state’s House of Representatives on Election Day will expand Republicans’ existing majority, giving Gov. Greg Abbott an estimated 87 of 150 seats in the lower chamber. When lawmakers reconvene in January, that should give him the votes needed to put forth legislation offering a universal voucher or education savings account—a proposal many Democrats and rural Republican lawmakers have rejected in past legislative sessions.

Additionally, beginning in the 2025-26 school year, the Georgia Promise Scholarship will provide $6,500 per eligible student. Students can qualify if they live in an area with a low-performing school, as determined by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, and meet certain other conditions.

Many Hispanic voters favor school choice. NBC political commentator Chuck Todd specifically credited school choice for record Republican gains among Latino voters. In fact, choice policies garner support from more than two-thirds of Hispanic parents.

Homeschooling is another option for parents. Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), declares that there are about 3.2 million students educated at home in the U.S.

Barbie Rivera, author of Enough Is Enough!, is a case in point. Her journey began in 1991 when her six-year-old son was erroneously labeled as “mentally handicapped” by his public school. Knowing this diagnosis was erroneous, Rivera started homeschooling her son and eventually established her own school.

But what if a family cannot homeschool?

One scenario would be a single mom who must work to support herself and her child and can’t afford a private school.

The choice for her, if available, would be a microschool, which is much more affordable than a traditional public or private school, because it doesn’t require expensive buildings and a large staff.

These tiny schools, with a median student body size of 15-30, have been described as a modern version of the one-room schoolhouse, where children of varying ages receive personalized instruction from a teacher in the same room. At this time, about 1.5 million children attend one of the country’s roughly 95,000 microschools, roughly the same number who study at Catholic schools, according to National Microschooling Center CEO Dan Soifer.

Prenda, a microschool support outfit, has helped over 1,000 inspiring adults start microschools, which house nearly 10,000 students.

Florida is the national leader in microschooling. State lawmakers backed looser rules for establishing them as part of a sweeping education law that went into effect in July. The policy change allows private schools to use existing space at places like movie theaters and churches without having to go through local governments for approval. The shift gives these private schools access to thousands of buildings, opening the door for new education options to emerge without them having to endure potentially heavy rezoning costs. This provision could become a blueprint for other states that are looking to expand private school options.

Ryan Delk, CEO and founder of Primer, a microschooling company with 23 schools in Florida and Arizona that pushed for the law, states, “This is the silent friction point that has existed for years that no one could figure out how to solve.”

Whether it is arresting parents for letting their kids roam around the neighborhood unescorted by an adult or teaching a 4-year-old boy that it’s okay for him to wear a dress, we must minimize the role of the state in our lives. Not sending children to government-run schools is an excellent place to start, and microschools are a worthy option.

Conventional wisdom says that the weeks leading up to Christmas are the most important time of the year for retailers in the United States.

As Statista’s Felix Richter details below, according to the National Retail Federation, Americans are going to spend between $979 and $989 billion during November and December this year, with average spending for gifts and other holiday-related items expected to amount to $902 per consumer.

You will find more infographics at Statista

But how reliant are retailers on a successful holiday season? Can two months really make or break an entire year?

Well, it depends.

According to retail sales figures published by the U.S. Census Bureau, some types of retailers are more reliant on holiday season sales than others.

If retail sales were distributed evenly throughout the year, the holiday season, commonly defined as November and December, would account for 2/12 or 16.7 percent of the year’s total sales.

As our chart illustrates, most retailers’ holiday sales clock in way above that benchmark though.

Hobby, toy and game stores for example generated 26.2 percent of their annual sales in the last two months of 2023, which is not surprising considering that toys, games and hobby supplies are popular Christmas gifts.

Across all categories, the holiday season is not as important as one might think though. Last year, November and December accounted for 18.4 percent of total retail sales in the United States. There are even some retailers that don’t look forward to the holiday period as it delivers subpar results. Those include car dealerships, gas stations, office supply stores and building material and supplies dealers.

Authored by Chris Morrison via DailySceptic.org,

Earlier this week the Labour backbencher and Chairman of the U.K. Parliament’s Energy Committee Bill Esterson noted that people will have to adjust their habits to meet Net Zero emission goals for 2030. Such honesty, emerging as it does from the Parliament of Net Zero nodding donkeys, is to be applauded. As far as it goes. Try a 30% reduction in energy demand. After 2030, consider that all beef, lamb and dairy will be banned and “replaced by new diets”. Then there is a massive 45% cut in most common building materials such as cement, along with a similar reduction in road freight traffic. The attack on farming will be remorseless with fertiliser restriction halving “direct emission” from the soil. To sum up: widespread rationing and blackouts along with food, holiday and travel restrictions, all within about 60 months.

Look at what they fund and write and whom they consult, not what they say, is the best advice to counter all the whoppers that are being told about Net Zero. Sir Keir Starmer’s statement at the recent COP29 that he didn’t want to tell people how to live their lives can only be explained by noting it came from a British Prime Minister who has difficulty telling a woman from a man. Thankfully we have the Government-funded U.K. FIRES project to give us an honest heads-up on the near-term implications of Net Zero. All of the substantial reductions in energy, food and industrial materials mentioned above arise from its “pragmatic approach”. Its evidence-based conclusions rely on technologies that are available today. It excludes processes such as carbon capture and hydrogen that have yet to be proven at meaningful scale.

Its conclusions warm the hearts of the most committed green ideologues. Its reports also happen to be the most honest representation of the horrors that await if the Net Zero fantasy ever becomes a reality.

By 2028 a total of seven million heat pumps will need to be installed and massive retrofits undertaken in domestic homes. Meanwhile, all rented and non-domestic properties will need to be EPC A rated by 2030. The desire to “manage land use for Net Zero emissions” means a massive cut in chemical fertilisers, so expect food supply to fall off a cliff.

U.K. FIRES notes, correctly, that there is “insufficient time for the planning, development and construction of new large-scale infrastructure to contribute to the 2030 target”. Again correctly, it is observed that increased use of wind and solar power creates a problem with intermittency. “Eventually, this must be addressed by either demand-shifting or storage,” it states. Storage at scale is more or less impossible with current technology, and another word for “demand-shifting” is rationing. To enforce these consumption restraints across the broad range of modern industrial lifestyles, a “whole society” approach must be mobilised.

U.K. FIRES received a £5 million grant from the British Government and its warnings – or should that be wishes – about 2030 are contained in a report called ‘Minus 45’ prepared ahead of the Glasgow COP26 in 2021. It is based on a U.K. Government promise to reduce carbon emissions by 45% from 2018 to 2030. Its recommendations are relevant today, not least because Starmer tried to curry favour at the recent COP29 in Baku by promising to reduce emissions further.

That would be the COP29 conference that made great progress in destroying the system of bribes paid out as so-called climate aid to developing countries to stop them developing with the aid of hydrocarbons. Nobody knows who will pay for a promised £1.3 trillion a year by 2035, not least because President Trump will sweep away any American commitment with a stroke of the executive pen come January 20th. Helpfully, if anyone cares enough to move from lip service to actual action, creative climate accounting is still possible. A requirement to ban the construction of coal-fired power stations was removed from an early draft and it failed to make it into the final communiqué. This will no doubt please the Japanese who backed the building of the Matarbari ultra-supercritical coal-fired power station in Bangladesh on the grounds that it used Japanese technology to generate more energy with less coal. At COP29, diplomacy was “truly the art of agreeing to nothing”, notes David Wojick from CFACT.

The shamble at COP demonstrates that the world is moving away from the idea that hydrocarbons can be removed from a modern economy. But an accident of recent electoral politics has left Britain with a fanatical Government of Net Zero zealots. The anti-working class Labour party was returned to power with a popular vote count less than its losing Marxist leader obtained in 2019. The U.K. FIRES work demonstrates what lies in store. A resurgent America bounding ahead on cheap energy and unleashed entrepreneurial spirits will contrast with its European allies shutting down industrial manufacturing in pursuit of an increasing unpopular state-mandated doomsday cult.

A recent report in Bloomberg has collected and analyzed five years of satellite images monitoring the South China Sea off Malaysia to detail something which should come as no surprise: Iran and China’s sanction-busting activity regarding Iranian oil exports has been going strong.

The working assumption of the report is that it is Washington’s responsibility – and that of its global allies – to better monitor and enforce sanctions. Bloomberg is essentially calling on American Empire to better enforce its stranglehold on the Islamic Republic. But this is precisely what President-elect Donald Trump is vowing to do when he enters the Oval Office in January.

Trump’s pledged ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Iran is likely to have huge repercussions for Beijing as well, given as the world’s biggest buyer of oil China would face a squeeze on its flow of cheap Iranian crude to its shores. Iranian crude has been estimated to make up about 13% of its supply imports.

Trump’s national security advisor pick, Mike Walz, has pledged to stop or greatly reduce Iran’s petroleum revenue, which the US says will have positive benefits for the Ukraine and Gaza wars from a US policy perspective.

He said the incoming administration will strongly engage China toward reducing its purchases of Iranian oil. But the aforementioned Bloomberg investigation shows that business is booming.

“Forty miles east of the Malaysian peninsula sits the world’s largest gathering point for dark fleet tankers. Aging ships, often operating under flags of convenience and without insurance, come here daily to transfer cargo away from prying eyes. It’s how billions of dollars of sanctioned Iranian oil finds its way to China annually — even though the country, officially, hasn’t imported a drop in more than two years,” the report begins.

“A Bloomberg analysis of nearly five years of satellite images from the hotspot shows the vast size of the shadow industry that’s developed as the US has tightened its sanctions on Iran,” the report continues.

“It’s impossible to gauge precisely how much oil is moving via this channel. But even making conservative assumptions about tanker size, the data suggest some 350 million barrels of oil changed hands in this hotspot in the first nine months of this year,” Bloomberg speculates.

“Taking into account the average oil price for 2024 and the discount applied to sanctioned crude, that amounts to more than $20 billion. The true value is likely far higher.”

“Traders and shippers put the scarcity of Iranian supply down to the broadening of US sanctions in October to include more dark fleet tankers plying the Iran-China trade. That move has crimped the number of vessels available for ship-to-ship transfers.”https://t.co/X6DqTiLYQf

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) November 28, 2024

One approach the Trump administration could take is to go after those Chinese companies involved in the ‘illicit’ trade through secondary sanctions: 

For Tehran, in need of revenue and desperately short of willing buyers, the South China Sea gambit is a means of survival. For China, which isn’t bound by and doesn’t recognize US-imposed curbs on Iran, the gymnastics of this network of intermediaries and shell company-owned vessels offers a way for its small refineries to access cheap oil. It also conveniently shields key Chinese corporations from secondary sanctions. (The US can restrict or exclude entirely access to its financial system for any company or person found trading with Iran.)

The government of Malaysia appears to have been looking the other way as well:

The maritime hub is a direct threat to Western efforts to curb revenue going to Tehran, Moscow and Caracas and an illustration of why sanctions are so hard to enforce. US President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to increase pressure on Iran upon returning to office, but these extensive networks that move dark oil around the globe typically operate without the overt involvement of large entities. The situation was a source of frustration even for the current US administration, which called on Malaysia to do more to tackle gaps such as this one, with little success.

As for these failed “Western efforts” at enforcement, Washington, London, Brussels and Paris might just have to face up to the reality that they cannot control all trade which happens in the world. When they go ‘imperial’ against the Global South, these countries will push back harder, only finding better avenues and ways to navigate, to thwart and circumvent sanctions.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Freedom of expression in Germany is being increasingly constrained, with 74 percent of citizens believing people are holding back their opinions out of fear of repercussions, according to a new survey by Insa.

This growing trend is illustrated by recent high-profile cases, such as individuals facing criminal convictions for insulting politicians on social media and even pensioners receiving police visits over internet memes.

The data suggests draconian enforcement measures are having a devastating effect on freedom of expression, particularly among young people and those with socially conservative values.

Among respondents aged 18 to 39, 53 percent reported having experienced situations where they felt unable to speak openly. By contrast, this figure drops to 24 percent for those over 70, indicating that younger generations are significantly more inhibited.

Political affiliation plays a crucial role in perceptions of free speech with 74 percent of right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) voters admitting to self-censoring at least once, followed by 57 percent of voters for the new Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW). In contrast, supporters of left-leaning parties feel much less constrained; only 27 percent of those supporting the Greens reported any hesitancy in expressing their views, while 31 percent of the governing Social Democrats (SPD) felt similarly.

When asked more broadly whether they believed some people avoid speaking their minds due to fear of consequences, an overwhelming 74 percent of all respondents said yes. Among AfD and BSW voters, the numbers were even higher at 91 percent and 90 percent respectively, suggesting that concerns over freedom of expression are a systemic issue in Germany.

Shocking story out of Germany. A Bavarian pensioner had his house raided for retweeting a meme describing a Green minister as an “idiot.” He is now facing charges for a hate crime. https://t.co/TrCTB0A7at

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) November 14, 2024

The findings underscore the deepening divisions in Germany over the state of freedom of expression, with younger generations, right-leaning voters, and even moderates expressing fears of censorship or backlash.

While some parties and their supporters remain confident in their ability to voice opinions freely, the data paints a picture of a society increasingly wary of speaking out, particularly as legal actions and public rebukes continue to shape the discourse.

This month alone, Remix News has extensively covered several high-profile cases where ordinary citizens have received considerable fines for directing insults at politicians in the increasingly unpopular federal government.

A 64-year-old pensioner retweeted a meme of Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck, in which Habeck was described as an “idiot,” resulting in Bavarian police raiding the man’s house and arresting him. The crime was even recorded as a “politically motivated right-wing crime.”

Another incident in Bavaria saw a woman finally acquitted after a nearly two-year-long ordeal; she had been initially fined €6,000 for calling German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock a “hollow brat” in a post on X that was viewed just 216 times.

BREAKING: A German man, Paul S., was hit with a €5,000 fine for calling a judge “obviously mentally disturbed.”

The judge issued no jail time to a 30-year-old Syrian migrant who raped a 15-year-old German girl while she was walking home in Osnabrück. The migrant, who was drunk… pic.twitter.com/82ADHKL4Ox

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) November 26, 2024

The criminal charges aren’t just reserved for politicians. Just this week, a German man who described a judge as “obviously mentally disturbed” — after the judge issued a light sentence to a Syrian who raped a 15-year-old girl — was slapped with a €5,000 fine for “insulting” the judge. This fine was almost double the fine given to the Syrian rapist for the sexual assault.

These instances have been ongoing for years, with Remix News reporting back in March 2022 how over 100 people had seen their homes raided across Germany for “insulting” politicians, as police had been instructed to conduct a nationwide crackdown on what they called “hate mail” targeting those in public office.

In an interview with Nius earlier this week, defense lawyer Udo Vetter criticized the current system, revealing that Germany faces over 140,000 open arrest warrants for insults against politicians.

“Crime is getting out of hand and everything is going down the drain, and we have to spend so many, countless hours of work with such things — wasting our time,” he added.

Read more here…

On Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump named retired General Keith Kellogg as his envoy to the Russia-Ukraine war. The 80-year old is a retired lieutenant general who served as chief of staff for the White House National Security Council during Trump’s first term. He was also the national security adviser to Trump’s Vice President Mike Pence.

A Vietnam War veteran, Kellog also spent some time in Iraq after 2003 as an official overseeing the post-Saddam transitional government. “I am very pleased to nominate General Keith Kellogg to serve as Assistant to the President and Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Keith has led a distinguished Military and Business career, including serving in highly sensitive National Security roles in my first Administration,” Trump posted on TruthSocial. The president-elect added: “Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!”

Many pundits have observed that Kellogg throughout his long career is a hawk, but in April of this year he co-authored a strategy paper laying out his plan to negotiate peace in Ukraine. He blamed President Biden for waging a proxy war on Russia while simultaneously failing on the diplomatic front.

Still, his clearly hawkish leanings came through. He had written with his co-author Fred Fleitz, “Trump also had a Russia policy that demonstrated American strength. For example, in 2018, after the Russian mercenary Wagner Group advanced on U.S. bases in Syria, they were met with immediate and decisive action when President Trump authorized punitive airstrikes against them.”

“Russia never retaliated against the United States over that attack—which reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries—likely because Putin did not know how Trump would respond,” the paper continued.

Al Jazeera has summarized Kellogg’s plan for Ukraine peace in the following:

• The US would continue to arm Ukraine to allow it to defend itself against Russia. However, future US military aid would be contingent on Ukraine participating in peace talks with Russia.
• In order to convince Putin to join peace talks, NATO leaders should offer to hold off on Ukraine’s NATO membership application.
• Additionally, Russia could be offered some sanctions relief, contingent on it signing a peace agreement with Ukraine.
• It also calls for charging levies on Russian energy sales to use for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Kellog’s plan is generally at odds with Zelensky’s ‘Victory plan’ – given at the heart of this is a clear path to NATO membership, which Kellog says should be put on hold for the sake of negotiating ceasefire.

Gen. Keith Kellogg, who Trump just named “Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia,” has said the “end game” for the war is “evicting the Russians from Ukraine,” including the Donbas and Crimea, resulting in the downfall of Putin. “I don’t think there’s going to be any negotiations” pic.twitter.com/vJwcCtoqah

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 27, 2024

Critics have nevertheless warned that Kellog is much more hawkish on Russia than Trump’s own positions laid out on the campaign trail, which blasted the Biden administration’s refusal to deescalate and push for peace.

As a prior regular national security pundit on Fox News, Kellog presented some very hawkish anti-Moscow stances:

Here Kellogg is calling for a no-fly zone, thus attacking Russian planes pic.twitter.com/DgiqaJ9zhN

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) November 28, 2024

Previously in the Ukraine war, Kellog has gone so far as to advocate for a Western-backed No Fly Zone over Ukraine, which would certainly bring NATO and Russia into direct conflict. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Belarusian media reported last week about the West’s alleged plot to destabilize and then invade their country. Existing information warfare campaigns are meant to facilitate the recruitment of more sleeper cell agents, who’ll later stage a terrorist insurgency using Ukrainian-procured arms. Mercenaries will then invade from the south, carry out drone strikes against strategic targets, and attempt to seize the capital. If they succeed, then the coup authorities will request a conventional NATO military intervention.

Here are over a dozen background briefings about this scenario over the past year and a half:

* 25 May 2023: “NATO Might Consider Belarus To Be ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ During Kiev’s Upcoming Counteroffensive”

* 1 June 2023: “The Union State Expects That The NATO-Russian Proxy War Will Expand”

* 14 June 2023: “Lukashenko Strongly Hinted That He Expects Belgorod-Like Proxy Incursions Against Belarus”

* 14 December 2023: “Belarus Is Bracing For Belgorod-Like Terrorist Incursions From Poland”

* 19 February 2024: “The Western-Backed Foreign-Based Belarusian Opposition Is Plotting Territorial Revisions”

* 21 February 2024: “Is The West Plotting A False Flag Provocation In Poland To Blame On Russia & Belarus?”

* 26 April 2024: “Analyzing Belarus’ Claim Of Recently Thwarting Drone Attacks From Lithuania”

* 30 June 2024: “Keep An Eye On Ukraine’s Military Buildup Along The Belarusian Border”

* 12 August 2024: “What’s Behind Belarus’ Military Buildup Along The Ukrainian Border?”

* 13 August 2024: “Security Threats To Belarus”

* 19 August 2024: “Ukraine Reportedly Has A Whopping 120,000 Troops Deployed Along Its Border With Belarus”

* 26 August 2024: “Ukraine Might Be Gearing Up To Attack Or Cut Off Belarus’ Southeastern City Of Gomel”

* 28 September 2024: “Belarus’ Warning About Using Nukes Probably Isn’t A Bluff (But There Might Be A Catch)”

This summer’s Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk Region might also have emboldened the plotters.

No nuclear retaliation from Russia followed despite the threat that this NATO-backed attack posed to its territorial integrity. Likewise, they might calculate that neither Russia nor Belarus (which hosts the former’s tactical nukes) would resort to these means if they replicated that scenario in the latter, especially if the invasion also came from Ukraine instead of NATO countries like Poland. This could give the West more leverage in upcoming peace talks with Russia if it succeeds.

That might sound reasonable on paper, but in practice, it ignores the fact that Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine just entered into force and that Putin responded to Ukraine’s use of Western long-range missiles by employing the state-of-the-art hypersonic medium-range Oreshnik missile in combat. The first allows the use of nuclear weapons in response to the sort of threats that this scenario poses while the second was meant as a signal to the West that Putin is finally climbing the escalation ladder.

Taken together, the latest developments indicate that Russia’s response to an unconventional mercenary invasion of Belarus and/or a conventional Ukrainian one might be different than its response to Kursk, and this could serve as the tripwire for the Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis that’s been brewing. Russia cannot afford to have its adversaries capture and hold Belarusian territory because of the national security threat that this presents and also because it would greatly undermine its negotiating position.

It might very well be that the West is aware of this and thus hopes to provoke precisely such a response from Russia with the expectation that “escalating to de-escalate” can end the conflict on better terms for their side. That would be a huge gamble since the stakes are much higher for Russia than for the West, thus reducing the chances that the former would agree to the concessions that the latter might demand, such as freezing the conflict along the existing Line of Contact without anything else in exchange.

There’s also the possibility that the West’s attempt to destabilize and invade Belarus, whether through mercenaries and/or conventional Ukrainian troops (a conventional NATO military intervention isn’t likely at this stage), is thwarted and nothing else comes of this plot. Much less likely but still impossible to rule out is that Russia asks Belarus to let one of the aforementioned invasions make enough progress to justify using tactical nukes against Ukraine to “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for Russia.

That would also be a huge gamble though since crossing the nuclear threshold might tremendously raise the stakes for the West as its leaders sincerely see it even if the primary intent is only to punish Ukraine. Nevertheless, seeing as how Putin is now finally climbing the escalation ladder and throwing some of his previous caution to the wind after feeling like his prior patience was mistaken by the West as weakness, he might be influenced by hawkish advisors into seeing that as an opportunity to flex Russia’s muscles.

In any case, regardless of whatever might happen, the fact is that it’s the West’s prerogative whether or not Belarus is destabilized and possibly also invaded. Ukraine could also “go rogue” out of desperation if it feels that the West might “sell it out” under Trump and thus wants to make a last-ditch attempt to improve its negotiating position or “escalate to de-escalate” on better terms for itself, but this could greatly backfire if it fails. They both therefore bear full responsibility for what could follow.

Authored by Ed Goeas & Celinda Lake via RealClearPolitics,

Discussing politics on Thanksgiving is a tradition that many of us could live without, but can’t seem to get away from. It’s especially poignant every four years after the tidal shifts accompanying presidential elections. This year, we saw remarkable outcomes, most notably that voters prioritized bringing down the cost of their Thanksgiving meal over bringing the family together for a civil conversation. 

Ok, that is an oversimplification, but let’s take a look at the numbers. 

The two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, have been conducting polling together around civility in our political discourse for decades. For the last five years, we’ve partnered with the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service to dive into just what this means for the state of our politics. We conducted our most recent poll of 800 likely voters right after the outcomes of the 2024 elections. We asked voters which candidate they believed ran a more divisive campaign, who messaged their ability to get things done more effectively, which candidate they thought represented their shared values the best, and much more. 

We learned that many voters found Vice President Harris to be someone who is a unifier and ran a less negative campaign as opposed to President Trump, but President Trump had advantages in key areas that propelled him over the top. He was able to effectively message himself as the candidate who addressed the kitchen table issues that most stood out to voters. We’ve seen in exit poll after exit poll that the economy was the issue most on people’s minds on Election Day, and when you look at our findings, you see a pattern that reflects President Trump’s win. 

When asked, “Which candidate is talking to you about this issue,” we see some of the dynamics in the race represented. Vice President Harris outperformed President Trump in addressing abortion, protecting Democracy, sharing my values, and caring about people like me. Fifty-two percent found that Vice President Harris was the candidate who better messaged bringing the country together. Conversely, voters found that President Trump more effectively talked about the economy, inflation, and immigration, and a majority thought he would be better at getting things done, but most do not expect him to be a unifier in the White House.

Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The overall outcome has surprisingly resulted in a drop in political tensions based on the measure we have used for the last five years – largely driven by Republicans who are feeling relief after Election Day. We measure tension by asking folks where they feel the country is on a scale of one to 100, with one being no division at all and 100 being civil war. We saw a four-point drop since our last poll in March from 70 to 66, the lowest mark in the last five years that we have done this poll. Division scores are highest among Democrats at 70, while independents are at about the total sample’s mean (66), and Republicans see the least division (61). These scores reflect a significant 14-point drop for Republicans, specifically from March, with independents remaining largely the same and Democrats seeing a small, two-point uptick.

Of particular note is the hope respondents share about a brighter future and the possibilities of collaboration between the parties. Despite President Trump’s “trifecta’ control, 95% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I want President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Democrats in Congress to work together to solve the major problems facing this country.” Also, 82% of respondents agreed, “It will be good for the country if President Trump and Congress compromise to find solutions even if this means I will not always get everything I want.” In what could be a reflection of these hopes, when asked how much division they expect in the country a year from now, respondents predicted a 61 out of 100, a more than 12-point decrease led largely by Republicans in projected division from September 2023.

So, how does this impact your Thanksgiving meal this year? Prices are projected to drop this year, pretty significantly, dropping nearly $10 compared to this time last year when the average cost for a Thanksgiving meal was $67.84, all the way to $58.08. Your Republican relative might take a minute to brag that this is the market reacting to President Trump’s win, but your Democrat relative might say that it’s a sign that Bidenomics is working and the country went down the wrong path on Election Day. 

Either way, we know that politics will be debated this Thanksgiving in many homes across the country. We only hope that it’s a little more civil this time around.

Ed Goeas is president and CEO of The Tarrance Group, a Republican political survey research and strategy team.

Celinda Lake, president of Lake Strategies, is a political strategist serving as tactician and senior adviser.

Authroed by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When President-elect Donald Trump announced a hike in his tariff plans for China, as well as U.S. trade partners Canada and Mexico, he drew attention to China’s involvement in the illicit fentanyl crisis in the United States.

The day one plan would add 10 percent duty on top of the tariffs Trump already has planned for Chinese products, and a 25 percent tariff on all products coming in through Canada and Mexico.

Trump said on Nov. 25 that the three countries have not done enough to help the United States stem illegal immigration and the entry of illicit drugs.

Over the past two administrations, including Trump’s first term, Beijing has made a number of promises to help curb the movement of illicit fentanyl but kept few of them.

Fentanyl is an FDA-approved synthetic opioid used to treat severe pain, such as in open-heart surgery, or epidurals for mothers in labor.

Illicit fentanyl, however, is often mixed with other drugs, and illicit drug makers are increasingly producing analogs, or drugs similar to fentanyl, with small molecular changes that can make the drug up to 100 times more deadly.

Fentanyl is already a potent drug—2 milligrams is enough to be a lethal dose depending on a person’s size.

Illicit fentanyl and its various analogs have been linked to nearly 400,000 deaths in the United States since 2016. The United States has identified China as the primary source of illicit fentanyl coming in across the border since at least 2017 and the source of other drugs years before that.

In 2023, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized more than 80 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, representing 390 million lethal doses, more than the population of the United States.

Steve Yates, a China expert and former national security official in the George W. Bush administration, has made recommendations to Trump advisers on fentanyl policy. He and others say sanctions on Chinese banks for backing money launderers and chemical sellers will accomplish what diplomacy to date has not.

“When you don’t do those things, then you’re a doormat,” Yates told Reuters.

David Asher, a top former U.S. anti-money laundering official who helped target the finances of the Islamic State terrorist group, said this mechanism has been used against designated foreign adversaries like Iran but never Mexican or Canadian banks.

“You need to hit all the bankers. It’s sort of basic,” said Asher, who has recommended criminal indictments against Chinese and Mexican financial institutions, bounties on traffickers, and other measures.

China Agreements

Fentanyl-linked deaths sharply increased in 2016. Near the end of President Barack Obama’s term, China agreed to block exports of precursor chemicals, or ingredients, used to make methamphetamine, fentanyl, and its analogs to the United States.

Trump, who had campaigned on stopping the opioid crisis, formed a commission to combat the issue in March 2017 and declared a public health emergency in October that year.

The DEA increased its presence in China and engaged Chinese regime drug authorities to try to block shipments to the United States. The DEA has met with Chinese officials about blocking fentanyl since 2014 and held expert-level bilateral meetings in 2017 and 2018 to satisfy Chinese demands for more information about how these drugs were being used. This resulted in Beijing putting several key fentanyl precursors on a control list.

By 2019, Trump had secured another promise from Chinese communist regime leader Xi Jinping that China would curb exports of all fentanyl variants to the United States, putting them on an export control list.

But while the DEA and the U.S. Postal Service found that imports from China indeed decreased by 2020, the DEA noted that illicit fentanyl and analogs were increasingly coming in from Mexico.

Experts and officials have determined that precursor chemicals—which can be hard to ban if they have benign, legal applications—are shipped from China to Mexico, where local labs finish the process to create illicit fentanyl and analogs.

DEA officials note that the drugs are cheap to manufacture, as Mexican labs can buy $3,000 worth of Chinese fentanyl and sell it for $1.5 million on American streets.

Former DEA official Derek Maltz told The Epoch Times that tariffs only address one aspect of a vast and complex problem, but they certainly help and, more importantly, signal that the incoming administration will show strong leadership on the issue.

“We have to be more aggressive to get [Beijing] to cooperate more than they have in the past,” he told The Epoch Times.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The terrorist-designated Hayat Tahrir-al-Sham (HTS), which is the rebranded form of the Al Qaeda-backed Al-Nusra, launched a surprise offensive in Aleppo this week. It’s already made a lot of progress due to the terrorists’ use of drones and other modern warfare tactics. These were reportedly taught to them by Ukraine according to reports in the run-up to the latest hostilities. Other reports included Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warning about a false-flag chemical weapons attack.

Syrian, Iranian, and Russian forces (including its aerospace ones) are currently trying to push back HTS’ advance. This intense fighting comes immediately after the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire deal, which that Iranian-backed Resistance group agreed to in spite of the late Nasrallah’s pledge not to do so without a ceasefire in Gaza first. It can therefore be interpreted as an Israeli victory despite Iran hailing this agreement and its ideologically aligned influencers spinning it as a Resistance victory.

With the Resistance objectively on the backfoot in the region, it makes sense why their HTS foes decided to go on the offensive at this specific moment, something that they’d clearly planned to do for a while. If the hostilities continue, then another large-scale humanitarian crisis might follow, which could see more internally displaced people in this war-torn country and some of them even fleeing to Europe. Terrorist sleeper cells elsewhere in the country might also awaken and reverse the progress of the past few years.

None of this would be possible without Turkiye’s support since all of HTS’ food, clothes, and arms come from that neighboring country in spite of Ankara formally designating it as a terrorist group. Erdogan’s prioritization of what he believes to be his country’s national interests, whether rightly or wrongly and regardless of morality, explains why he’s exploiting recent events to this end. He sees an opportunity to deliver a coup de grace to Syria for ending its long-running conflict on better terms for Turkiye.

Assad is unlikely to be toppled, but Erdogan wants him to grant broad Bosnian-like autonomy to the Islamist-controlled northwest of the country in which Turkiye continues to exert influence, but the Syrian leader refuses to do so since he remains adamant that his Arab Republic must remain a unitary one. Likewise, he also won’t grant such autonomy to the Kurds in the US-occupied northeast, which is also the country’s most agriculturally and energy-rich region. Readers can learn more about this proposal here.

On that topic, RFK Jr. revealed shortly after the US elections that Trump is considering withdrawing these American troops, which could lead to another Turkish offensive just like the several prior ones that were all carried out under the pretext of stopping Kurdish separatism. Unless pro-Turkish Kurds replace the political influence of Ankara-designated Kurdish terrorists there like they earlier did in Iraq, then Ankara will consider any autonomous project to be a stepping stone to more separatism inside of Turkiye itself.

With this in mind, one of Turkiye’s strategic objectives in HTS’ offensive is to coerce Damascus into granting autonomy to the Islamists under its influence in the northwest while agreeing to do the same in the northeast but only after replacing the current ruling Kurdish clique with pro-Turkish ones. Turkiye could carry out joint operations with Syria in the northeast to defeat the separatists if American troops are withdrawn and Damascus first agrees to grant autonomy to the aforesaid Islamists.

The other strategic objective that Turkiye is pursuing right now is to get on Trump’s good side by doing the US the strategic favor of delivering a coup de grace to Syria that finally ends this long-running conflict and thus frees him up to fully refocus on his planned “Pivot (back) to Asia”. In exchange, Trump might agree not to expand the sanctions regime that he’s inheriting to include Turkiye’s trade with Russia, which involves energy, agriculture, and also the transshipment of Western-sanctioned tech.

Building upon this imperative, Turkiye also knows that the unexpected exacerbation of the hitherto largely frozen Syrian Conflict at precisely the moment when the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine is also intensifying following the latest ATACMS-Oreshnik escalations works against Russia’s interests. Accordingly, by opening up a “second front”, Turkiye might hope to pressure Russia into either coercing Syria into the previously described concessions and/or also enacting its own concessions in Ukraine.

Either outcome, and especially both, would by default work in advance of the US’ interests and thus possibly ingratiate Erdogan much more with Trump. The Turkish leader might be concerned that the returning American one could take a harder line towards Turkiye if he doesn’t give him some impressive geopolitical gifts before the inauguration due to Director of National Intelligence (DNI) nominee Tulsi Gabbard’s documented dislike of his country. He therefore has an urgent impetus to deliver on this.

Lost amidst the discussion about Syrian, Russian, and Turkish interests in this newly thawed conflict is Israel’s interests. The Alt-Media Community largely believes that Israel wants to overthrow Assad due to its prior backing of terrorist-designated Islamist militants, but its interests nowadays are arguably to have Assad expel Iran and Hezbollah. Its hundreds of bombings against those two there over the years, none of which Russia interfered with despite occasionally condemning them, hasn’t yet led to that.

It’s admittedly a far-fetched scenario, but if Syria, Iran, and Russia struggle to fend off Turkish-backed HTS’ latest advance, then it can’t be ruled out that Israel might lend a helping hand to Damascus on the condition that Iran and Hezbollah are immediately expelled. The Russian Aerospace Forces are naturally prioritizing the Ukrainian front over the Syrian one so their limited capabilities in the latter theater might lead to a situation where Damascus becomes desperate enough to seriously consider this possibility.

Even though Erdogan never took any meaningful action in support of Hamas or Hezbollah, limiting himself purely to the realm of demagogic rhetoric, Israel still didn’t appreciate this and thus has an axe to grind with him if the right opportunities and incentives present themselves. Turkish-backed HTS’ offensive represents such an opportunity while the incentive to bomb them could emerge if it advances in Aleppo, Syria and its allies struggle to stop them, and Damascus agrees to the abovementioned deal.

To be absolutely clear, there are no signs that Assad is seriously considering kicking his Iranian and Hezbollah allies out of the country as a quid pro quo for the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) support against HTS, which would amount to a total betrayal of the Resistance that Syria itself helped found. Nevertheless, his calculations could change if Iran’s ground forces and Russia’s Aerospace ones aren’t able to save Aleppo, in which case he might consider this option out of desperation to stop the terrorists’ advance.

Unlike Russia, which is focused on the special operation, Israel just agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon and is pretty much done with its Gaza campaign so the IAF could focus on destroying HTS if Assad agrees. Turkiye won’t go to war with Israel in response no matter what Erdogan might then threaten so it’s possible that Turkiye ends up being the one that’s dealt a coup de grace instead of Syria if Israel helps Syria destroy Turkiye’s proxies there and thus foils Erdogan’s grand plans that were explained.

The odds of Syria agreeing to this would increase if Israel leveraged its influence inside the US and especially within Trump 2.0 to ensure sanctions relief in exchange for kicking Iran and Hezbollah out of the country, which could be paired with Emirati-led Arab reconstruction assistance. Once again, the likelihood of this admittedly far-fetched scenario materializing is very low, but it would represent a regional game-changer that would also greatly advance America’s strategic interests too.

Russia’s military presence in Syria might also be unaffected since neither Israel nor the US minds it. In fact, Putin might even appreciate Netanyahu teaching Erdogan a lesson since the Turkish leader’s proxy offensive in Syria risks reversing Russia’s anti-terrorist progress there and thus harming its reputation. Moreover, Trump might also appreciate Netanyahu doing the same to Erdogan, which Tulsi would applaud as well if she’s confirmed as DNI. Erdogan might thus ultimately regret approving this offensive.

It’s premature to predict that such a scenario sequence will unfold since it’s still very unlikely that Assad would fulfill the prerequisite of betraying the Resistance like Israel would demand, especially since it’s still possible that Syria and its allies will beat back HTS’ Turkish-backed offensive on Aleppo. Even if there’s another full-fledged Battle of Aleppo, so long as that city doesn’t fall to the terrorists, Assad will probably still rule out such a “deal with the devil” as he sees it.

In the event that he loses Aleppo and his allies can’t help him liberate it again, such as if Russia’s Aerospace Forces are still focused on the special operation while Iran’s might have been irreparably weakened by the latest West Asian Wars, then he might finally consider it. Everything will therefore depend on whether HTS is stopped outside of Aleppo; the outcome of any possible battle for that city; and how desperate Assad becomes if he loses control over it and the terrorists advance on Damascus.