Month: November 2024

In yet another development which sets up the Western allies and Russia for a future potential direct military clash, the United Kingdom and Moldova have inked a new defense pact to counter ‘Russian aggression’.

It was announced and confirmed by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy while he visited the Moldovan capital of Chisinau on Wednesday. The tiny Eastern European nation bordering Ukraine has experienced the same kind of internal political pro-EU vs. pro-Russia tug of war historically on display in other countries such as Ukraine or Georgia.

The UK foreign ministry described the new defense agreement as about “building on extensive cooperation between the two countries and strengthening Moldovan resilience against external threats.”

Lammy said, “Moldova is a vital security partner for the UK, which is why, to reinforce their resilience against Russian aggression and to keep British streets safe, I am deepening cooperation on irregular migration and launching a new defence and security partnership.”

The British top diplomat called out Russia directly in his comments, accusing it of interference in Moldova’s sovereign affairs. “With Ukraine next door, Moldovans are constantly reminded of Russia’s oppression, imperialism and aggression,” he said.

Lammy continued, “Despite unprecedented Kremlin interference, the people of Moldova have chosen freedom, democracy, and independence. A decision we must help them protect.”

A broader foreign ministry statement also described that “The Foreign Secretary has committed to working with President Sandu, who won re-election earlier this month, despite unprecedented Russian interference, to bolster Moldova’s resilience against the growing Russian hybrid threats they face. He will also offer UK support to tackle corruption in the region.”

An additional £5 million of UK humanitarian funding for Moldova was also announced. The Kremlin has long complained that Western NGOs in Eastern Europe play a dual purpose, using aid as well as their status to spread influence on behalf of foreign powers.

One thing which has long alarmed the West is the presence of Russian ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region. Pressure also heightened after last June the European Union formally launched accession talks with Moldova, putting yet more distance between it and Russia.

As for Transnistria, although it has diverse ethnic demographics almost equally apportioned between Russians, Moldovans, Romanians and Ukrainians, the Russian demographic slightly ekes out its counterparts with a plurality of 29% of Transnistrians belonging to the group.

The pro-Russian cultural sentiment of the region is exemplified by its flag, which has remained the same as it was when Transnistria was a part of the Soviet Union. That representative Russian demographic, coupled with broader dissatisfaction of the Moldovan government, has fostered support for assimilation into the Russian Federation for quite some time.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

A school in the UK announced to parents that it was removing all Christmas references from a panto in order to make children feel “safe”.

Yes, really.

The head teacher of Wherwell Primary School in Andover, Hampshire, banned any reference to the festive season from a Jack and The Beanstalk show so as not to offend any non-Christians who were attending.

Mandy Ovenden said the embargo was necessary in order to make children feel “safe” and “valued”.

“When we chose to invite the travelling pantomime to Wherwell, our request was a practical step to ensure all children at the school would be able to attend and enjoy the show,” said the school.

“Our aim, as always, is to foster inclusivity in our school community, and be a place where children and their families feel safe, welcomed and valued.”

Ovenden said the school had requested the company putting on the play “that the show contain no reference to Christmas.”

According to a report by the Telegraph, parents were outraged, asserting that the decision “shouldn’t be allowed” in order to merely ensure that “a few people will not be offended.”

In order to ensure a “fully inclusive event,” the head teacher asked that all Christmas references be eradicated because, “We have a number of families who either do not celebrate Christmas or do so in a different way.”

Chaplins, the company behind the Jack and The Beanstalk play, said it normally included references to Christmas at this time of year.

Because God forbid children in a supposedly Christian country be exposed to anything related in any way to Christmas during Christmastime.

EU elites and globalists with extensive political influence have been on the war-path the past several years as it has become increasingly evident that the European populace is shifting more conservative with each new election.  In Germany, leftist officials are attempting an outright ban of the conservative AFD Party, primarily because they stand against mass immigration (a position which progressives claim is “xenophobic”). 

The AFD is currently the second most popular political party in Germany and is expected to gain substantial influence in the 2025 federal elections, unless their candidates are blocked from participation.    

In Austria, the conservative Freedom Party won a parliamentary election victory in September, though left wing and centrist parties are seeking to cement a coalition to nullify the FP’s ability to govern.  The European media has consistently compared the success of the Freedom Party to the rise of the Third Reich – The only fallback of failing leftists is to claim their opponents are “literally Hitler.”

A similar coalition coup was exploited in France under Emmanuel Macron in order to stop Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party.  The coalition is a fragmented mess but it served its purpose of disrupting the will of French voters seeking smaller government and secure borders. 

Keep in mind, the same people that constantly howl about “threats to democracy” are now trying to silence some of the largest political parties in Europe because they won’t submit to progressive ideologies.  For example, if the AFD is banned, who is going to represent the will of millions of conservative German voters?  The leftist establishment does not care about those voters or their concerns, nor do they care about fair elections.  Their vision of democracy is a sham.

There is, in fact, a coordinated effort by the leftist regime in Europe to shut down any and all public dissent, starting with opposition movements and their access to the ballot box.  Recent news from France highlights this reality, as efforts are now underway under the French government to pursue legal actions against Marine Le Pen. 

Le Pen has been accused by Paris prosecutors of using money intended for EU parliamentary aides to instead pay staff who worked for the party between 2009 and 2016.  One problem is that the law Le Pen is being charged with was not created until 2016.  Furthermore, Le Pen argues that National Rally employees can also work within the EU parliament and that the two roles often overlap.  She assert that no laws were broken and no one received EU funds that were not already owed to them.

If convicted Le Pen could receive up to 5 years in prison (3 suspended) and extensive fines of €300,000, but the real kicker is that she could also be banned from participating in elections for five years even if she files an appeal.  Government officials admit that Le Pen might not spend any time in jail (she might become a conservative martyr if that happened), but her inability to run for office would effectively end the chances of the National Rally in the 2027 elections.  It’s an election which many analysts suggest could catapult the NR to power in France.   

“It’s no surprise,” Le Pen told reporters after the prosecution’s closing arguments. “I note that the prosecutors’ claims are extremely outrageous.”

Le Pen said she felt prosecutors were “only interested” in preventing her from running for president in 2027. “I understood that well,” she said.  The case is set to conclude in early 2025.

Establishment media outlets accuse Le Pen of using “Trump-style rhetoric” to distract from her charges.  The Guardian claims:

“Yet just as January 6 did not stop Trump from being able to move back into the White House, Le Pen’s strategy may well work in her favour. The longer her claims of a political trial get airtime without proper contextualisation, the more likely the French public may think there is some truth to it – it chimes with the widespread anti-elite sentiment among French voters…”

This constitutes considerable gaslighting on the part of The Guardian.  The “contextualization” is that Le Pen is innocent until proven guilty, and there has been a clear and observable pattern of persecution of right-leaning political figures across the western world in order to stop their constituents from having a say in the governmental process.  Trump is just one example of lawfare being used to create accusations of criminality from the thinnest of threads.  The American public was savvy enough to see through the smoke and noise. 

It’s undeniable that Le Pen’s situation rings rather similar and The Guardian is pretending as if she’s being conniving for pointing it out.

The establishment acts as if it is the purveyor of law and order, but only when it serves their purposes and keeps them at the bureaucratic helm.  The will of the people is only acceptable when it aligns with the designs of the elites.  They are actively conjuring a narrative in which the political process is only democratic so long as conservative groups are rejected.  Their mere presence is painted as an abomination and their success is treated as an existential threat to civilization.

The fact that progressives are taking the mask off and going full authoritarian to stop right wing movements from winning fair and square suggests they are deeply afraid and clinging to the last vestiges of their unnatural reign.         

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he has chosen former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO.

In a statement released on social media, the president-elect said Whitaker was selected because he is a “strong warrior and loyal patriot, who will ensure the United States’ interests are advanced and defended.”

A former acting attorney general during his first term in office, Whitaker will also “strengthen relationships with our NATO allies, and stand firm in the face of threats to peace and stability,” Trump said.

Whitaker, he also suggested, will promote Trump’s “peace through strength” foreign policy agenda and has “full confidence” in his abilities.

Other than Whitaker, Trump also selected former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be his U.S. ambassador to Israel and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. All three roles require confirmation in the Senate unless Trump opts to use recess appointments.

Whitaker, a former University of Iowa football tight end, started his role as acting attorney general in November 2018 before leaving in February 2019, after Trump’s then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned at the then-president’s request.

Before that, he served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Iowa between 2004 and 2009. Later, he was Sessions’s chief of staff from October 2017 until November 2018.

So far, Whitaker has not publicly commented on Trump’s announcement.

Since leaving office, Whitaker has frequently appeared on Fox News, giving his opinions on the many of legal issues Trump had faced since he left the White House in early 2021.

About two weeks ago, he told Fox News that he believes Trump should be granted a “clean slate” from his legal cases, following Trump’s election win on Nov. 5.

In that segment, he also responded to questions on whether he would serve as Trump’s attorney general. However, Trump last week named former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) to be his attorney general, although some Republican senators have signaled in media interviews that Gaetz’s nomination may turn into a protracted, uphill battle for Trump to get him nominated.

Earlier this week, Whitaker wrote on X that “weaponization of the” Department of Justice will be “rooted out once and for all” under Trump.

As ambassador to NATO, also known as the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, Whitaker will be tasked with advancing the United States’ foreign policy interests within the 32-member military alliance.

“The permanent representative helps formulate and articulate the U.S. position on NATO security matters as well as U.S. policy toward NATO. At National Security Council (NSC) meetings, they outline U.S. policy toward NATO and potential opportunities for cooperation with NATO allies,” the Council on Foreign Relations states. “They further advise NSC participants on the positions and actions of other NATO member states.”

In the past two years, NATO allowed both Finland and Sweden to join its ranks in the midst of the Russia–Ukraine war, which started in February 2022. Members of NATO, including the United States, have been continually supplying Ukrainian troops with weapons in the conflict.

The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv closed down on Wednesday after it received “specific information of a potential significant air attack” and after Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed that Ukraine used U.S.-made long-range army tactical missile systems (ATACMSs) to strike its territory for the first time since the war began.

On the campaign trail, Trump has said that he wants to quickly end the war in Ukraine after taking office. A member of Trump’s transition team and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., claimed on social media that the current administration provided the ATACMSs to Ukraine to “get World War 3 going.”

Submitted by Alastair Crooke 

There Are No “Easy Wars” Left To Fight, But Do Not Mistake The Longing For One

Israelis, as a whole, are exhibiting a rosy assurance that they can harness Trump, if not to the full annexation of the Occupied Territories (Trump in his first term did not support such annexation), but rather, to ensnare him into a war on Iran. Many (even most) Israelis are raring for war on Iran and an aggrandisement of their territory (devoid of Arabs). They are believing the puffery that Iran ‘lies naked’, staggeringly vulnerable, before a US and Israeli military strike.  

Trump’s Team nominations, so far, reveal a foreign policy squad of fierce supporters of Israel and of passionate hostility to Iran. The Israeli media term it a ‘dream team’ for Netanyahu. It certainly looks that way.

The Israel Lobby could not have asked for more. They have got it. And with the new CIA chief, they get a known ultra China hawk as a bonus.

But in the domestic sphere the tone is precisely the converse: The key nomination for ‘cleaning the stables’ is Matt Gaetz as Attorney General; he is a real “bomb thrower”. And for the Intelligence clean-up, Tulsi Gabbard is appointed as Director of National Intelligence. All intelligence agencies will report to her, and she will be responsible for the President’s Daily briefing. The intel assessments may thus begin to reflect something closer to reality. 

The deep Inter-Agency structure has reason to be very afraid; they are panicking — especially over Gaetz.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have the near impossible task of cutting out-of-control federal spending and currency printing. The System is deeply dependent on the bloat of government spending to keep the cogs and levers of the mammoth ‘security’ boondoggle whirring. It is not going to be yielded up without a bitter fight.

So, on the one hand, the Lobby gets a dream team (Israel), but on the other side (the domestic sphere), it gets a renegade team.  

This must be deliberate. Trump knows that Biden’s legacy of bloating GDP with government jobs and excessive public spending is the real ‘time bomb’ awaiting him. Again the withdrawal symptoms, as the drug of easy money is withdrawn, may prove incendiary. Moving to a structure of tariffs and low taxes will be disruptive.

Whether deliberate or not, Trump is keeping his cards close to his chest. We have only glimpses of intent — and the water is being seriously muddied by the infamous ‘Inter-Agency’ grandees. For example, in respect to the Pentagon sanctioning private-sector contractors to work in Ukraine, this was done in coordination with “inter-agency stakeholders”. 

The old nemesis that paralyzed his first term again faces Trump. Then, during the Ukraine impeachment process, one witness (Vindman), when asked why he would not defer to the President’s explicit instructions, replied that whilst Trump has his view on Ukraine policy, that stance did NOT align with that of the ‘Inter-Agency’ agreed position. In plain language, Vindman denied that a US president has agency in foreign policy formulation.

In short, the ‘Inter-Agency structure’ was signalling to Trump that military support for Ukraine must continue.

When the Washington Post published their detailed story of a Trump-Putin phone call — that the Kremlin emphatically states never happened — the deep structures of policy were simply telling Trump that it would be they who determine what the shape of the US ‘solution’ for Ukraine would be.

Similarly, when Netanyahu boasts to have spoken to Trump and that Trump “shares” his views regarding Iran, Trump was being indirectly instructed what his policy towards Iran needs to be. All the (false) rumours about appointments to his Team too, were but the interagency signalling their choices for his key posts. No wonder confusion reigns.

So, what can be deduced at this early stage?  If there is a common thread, it has been a constant refrain that Trump is against war. And that he demands from his picks personal loyalty and no ties of obligation to the Lobby or the Swamp.  

So, is the packing of his Administration with ‘Israel Firsters’ an indication that Trump is edging toward a ‘Realist’s Faustian pact’ to destroy Iran in order to cripple China’s energy supply source (90% from Iran), and thus weaken China? — Two birds with one stone, so to speak? 

The collapse of Iran would also weaken Russia and hobble the BRICS’ transport-corridor projects. Central Asia needs both Iranian energy and its key transport corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce. 

When the RAND Organisation, the Pentagon think-tank, recently published a landmark appraisal of the 2022 National Defence Strategy (NDS), its findings were stark: An unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the US war machine. In brief, the US is “not prepared”, the appraisal argued, in any meaningful way for serious ‘competition’ with its major adversaries — and is vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The US, the RAND appraisal continues, could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theatres with peer and near-peer adversaries — and it could lose. It warns that the US public has not internalized the costs of the US losing its position as the world superpower. The US must therefore engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to preserve influence worldwide.

Indeed, as one respected commentator has noted, the ‘Empire at all Costs’ cult (i.e. the RAND Organisation zeitgeist) is now “more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestige”.  

And China would be altogether a different proposition for a demonstrative act of destruction in order “to preserve US influence worldwide” — for the US is “not prepared” for serious conflict with its peer adversaries: Russia or China, RAND says. 

The straitened situation of the US after decades of fiscal excess and offshoring (the backdrop to its current weakened military industrial base) now makes kinetic war with China or Russia or “across multiple theatres” a prospect to be shunned.

The point that the commentator above makes is that there are no ‘easy wars’ left to fight. And that the reality (brutally outlined by RAND) is that the US can choose one — and only one war to fight.  Trump may not want any war, but the Lobby grandees — all supporters of Israel, if not active Zionists supporting the displacement of Palestinians — want war. And they believe they can get one. 

Put starkly and plainly: Has Trump thought this through? Have the others in the Trump Team reminded him that in today’s world, with US military strength slipping away, there no longer are any ‘easy wars’ to fight, although Zionists believe that with a decapitation strike on Iran’s religious and IRGC leadership (on the lines of the Israel’s strikes on Hizbullah leaders in Beirut), the Iranian people would rise up against their leaders, and side with Israel for a ‘New Middle East’.  

Netanyahu has just made his second broadcast to the Iranian people promising them early salvation. He and his government are not waiting to ask Trump to nod his consent to the annexation of all Occupied Palestinian Territories. That project is being implemented on the ground. It is unfolding now. Netanyahu and his cabinet have the ethnic cleansing ‘bit between their teeth’. Will Trump be able to roll it back? How so? Or will he succumb to becoming ‘genocide Don’?  

This putative ‘Iran War’ is following the same narrative cycle as with Russia: ‘Russia is weak; its military is poorly trained; its equipment mostly recycled from the Soviet era; its missiles and artillery in short supply’. Zbig Brzezinski earlier had taken the logic to its conclusion in The Grand Chessboard (1997): Russia would have no choice but to submit to the expansion of NATO and to the geopolitical dictates of the US. That was ‘then’ (a little more than a year ago). Russia took the western challenge — and today is in the driving seat in Ukraine, whilst the West looks on helplessly.

This last month, it was US retired General Jack Keane, the strategic analyst for Fox News, who argued that Israel’s air strike on Iran had left it “essentially naked”, with most air defences “taken down” and its missile production factories destroyed by Israel’s 26 October strikes. Iran’s vulnerability, Keane said, is “simply staggering”.

Kean channels the early Brzezinski: His message is clear — Iran will be an ‘easy war’. That forecast however, is likely to be revealed as dead wrong. And, if pursued, will lead to a complete military and economic disaster for Israel. But do not rule out the distinct possibility that Netanyahu — besieged on all fronts and teetering on the brink of internal crisis and even jail — is desperate enough to do it. His is, after all, a Biblical mandate that he pursues for Israel!

Iran likely will launch a painful response to Israel before the 20 January Presidential Inauguration. Its riposte will demonstrate Iran’s unexpected and unforeseen military innovation. What the US and Israel will then do may well open the door to wider regional war. Sentiment across the region seethes at the slaughter in the Occupied Territories and in Lebanon. 

Trump may not appreciate just how isolated the US and Israel are among Israel’s Arab and Sunni neighbors. The US is stretched so thin, and its forces across the region are so vulnerable to the hostility that the daily slaughter incubates, that a regional war might be enough to bring the entire house of cards tumbling down. The crisis would pitch Trump into a financial crisis that could sink his domestic economic aspirations too.

Authored by Susan Crabtree via ReaalClearPolitics,

It just might be the most personal hiring decision President-elect Trump will ever make, but if he’s already chosen, he’s keeping the contenders in suspense.

After surviving two assassination attempts in roughly two months, Donald Trump is in the awkward position of owing his life to the Secret Service agents and officers who intervened to protect him, even as he remains deeply critical of the failures that allowed the near-misses to occur.

And the threats against Trump, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, and the leaders of the incoming administration aren’t going away. In late September, then-Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s controversial choice for attorney general, said he was briefed by senior members of the Department of Homeland Security that there were five known assassination teams threatening Trump’s life, three of which he said were foreign. Just three days after the election, the Justice Department charged three people in connection to an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Trump.

Still, just days after the second attempt on this life, Trump heaped praise on the agent for quick action after spotting suspect Ryan Routh’s rifle sticking out of the bushes along the perimeter of his Florida golf course and then opening fire. Trump contrasted that swift intervention with the first attempt July 13 when a bullet grazed his ear.

“And, in this particular case, you had a very sharp agent, as good as you could find, and did a fantastic job,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News’s “Hannity.” 

“But somebody could have missed the barrel of that rifle,” he added. “Somebody of lesser talents or somebody that was distracted could have missed or could have been shot, I mean, frankly, could have also been shot.” 

Trump acknowledged the incident at his golf club in West Palm Beach ”worked out very well” but said the July 13 incident in Butler, Pennsylvania, when shooter Thomas Crooks killed rally goer Corey Comperatore and wounded two others before being shot by a Secret Service counter sniper, “was a very different story.”

“Somebody should have been on that building. And that’s a different story. But they also showed great … they were very brave, because, when those bullets were flying, they were … they were … trying to protect me.” 

The dual sentiments no doubt factor into Trump’s decision-making regarding his choice to lead the beleaguered Secret Service. Even before the two assassination attempts, the agency was facing criticism over its DEI hiring priorities, lack of thorough applicant vetting, and the lowering of its training and physical fitness standards. At the same time, Secret Service morale hovered among the lowest of all federal agencies.

The congressional reports and a review panel’s findings also cite the inexperience of two agents in charge of security for the Butler rally, as well as the failure of supervisors to re-check their work and make the necessary changes. They also chronicled a litany of mistakes, including failing to check whether a local law enforcement agent was posted on the building where the Crooks perched, not including that building in the official event perimeter, and maintaining siloed communications between the Secret Service and local law enforcement partners.

Even though Trump was thankful for the eagle-eyed agent who spotted Routh hiding in the bushes at his West Palm Beach golf course, critics faulted his Secret Service detail for failing to sweep the perimeter. The 58-year-old had been camping out on the perimeter of the course 12 hours ahead of time but went unnoticed until Trump was within several hundred feet of his loaded rifle. Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe explained the decision not to search the perimeter of the golf course because the golf game was considered off-the-record, or “OTR” in agency parlance, meaning it was not on Trump’s official schedule even though he regularly played the course on the weekends.

After the attempts on Trump’s life, the agency faced an avalanche of criticism from congressional committees, internal agency whistleblowers, and a scathing report from a bipartisan Independent Review Panel recommending a thorough overhaul of the Secret Service leadership.  

The two assassination attempts within two months were the lowest point for the Secret Service since President Ronald Reagan was shot in early 1981. But Trump’s big win has boosted confidence within the agency that major reforms will begin once he names and installs a new director.

Now that Trump has won, and Secret Service employees expect the incoming president to choose new leaders, agents and officers are deeply divided on who is the best candidate to thoroughly overhaul the agency. The top reform many seek is to allow the Secret Service leaders to jettison DEI priorities and return to making hiring decisions instead of delegating recruiting and vetting to administrative personnel unfamiliar with the rigors of the protective assignments.

The top two names circulating among current and retired Secret Service agents and officers are Sean Curran, the leader of Trump’s personal detail, and Dan Bongino, a conservative commentator and host of a popular podcast who previously served for 12 years in the Secret Service.

Both were with Trump Saturday night for the Ultimate Fighting Championship match between Jon Jones and Stipe Mocic at Madison Square Garden. Curran was a part of Trump’s security team that night, and Bongino was part of Trump’s entourage of Cabinet picks, politicians, and celebrities, including Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., Dana White, Joe Rogan, Speaker Mike Johnson, Kid Rock, and Jelly Roll.

During the event, according to a Secret Service source, Bongino told other special agents protecting Trump that “Help is on the way.”

During Bongino’s Monday podcast, however, he was far more coy about Trump’s, and his, intentions.

“So, I know a lot of you are interested in a lot of the behind the scenes about who’s what … I’m just here again to repeat, none of this stuff is my decision, okay – about anything,” he told his listeners.

“You guys know what I’m talking about. And there’s a lot to think about if that decision were to happen, and you guys will be the first to know,” he added. “Because I love you, and you guys matter. And so just hang with me, you know?”

Curran was caught that night at the Madison Square Garden fight in an elevator pic with Trump and Musk. Curran usually tries to operate behind the scenes, though his image is immortalized in the iconic photo of Trump in the immediate aftermath of the first assassination attempt. Curran appears to Trump’s left as the then-GOP nominee pumps his fist in the air, blood trickling down his cheek and an American flag fluttering in the background.

The choice between Curran and Bongino is highly competitive, and each have constituencies pulling for them. Trump is very close to Curran, who served as the assistant special agent in charge of Trump’s security detail while he was president and then moved to lead the detail in 2021, when Biden won and Trump was out of office. That top leadership role continued while Trump was running for reelection. Curran’s supporters for the director job credit him for pushing back against the outmoded protocol that because Trump is technically a former president, he shouldn’t therefore be allotted more security assets.

Instead, Curran continually tried to persuade Secret Service top brass to allocate higher security resources because Trump obviously faced far more threats as one of the most well-known and controversial political figures in the world and could not be treated like other former presidents. Until the assassination attempts, however, Secret Service leaders rejected those requests, and sources say Curran has the receipts – a long-running written record of those leadership denials.

Curran was successful in obtaining more security resources for Mar-a-Lago even before the assassination attempts, although the agency was so slow in installing them that a juvenile managed to enter the property and jump into a pool late last year.

Secret Service sources say that just a few days after Trump’s decisive election win, Curran told fellow agents that he believed Trump would tap him for the top role. Many veteran agents have reached out to RCP to back Curran’s candidacy, arguing that he’s an even-keeled leader and exceptional agent regarding his training, drilling, and performance levels.

But others have faulted him for allowing an inexperienced female agent to serve as one of two agents in charge of security plans for the Butler rally, without supervisors modifying the plan after required walk-throughs and extra scrutiny. Others, including Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL who runs the security firm Blackwater, have criticized the Secret Service leadership for a “lack of seriousness” in securing Trump throughout this campaign. He also said the perimeter should have been extended to 1,000 meters from the stage because that’s how far an expert sniper can accurately shoot.

Trump has repeatedly praised the agents who put themselves in the line of fire to protect him in the moments after he was shot in Butler, but Prince wasn’t as impressed.

“The Secret Service detail did an awful job getting Trump off the X and let him stand up again,” Prince told a panel of Republican House members at the Heritage Foundation in August.

“[It showed] great instincts of the president to come back defiant, having just been shot in the head to come back and say, ‘Fight, fight, fight,’” Prince acknowledged. “But he never should have had the opportunity to do that because his detail should have put him horizontal and moved him off there immediately.”

If Trump taps Curran to lead the Secret Service, he will reject the recommendations of two bipartisan blue-ribbon commissions who recommended in 2015 and again this year that the next president choose someone outside the agency to fill the director role.

Dan Bongino for many years has been highly critical of the Secret Service, and he was especially so after the July 13 attempt on Trump’s life. Bongino also sat on the Heritage panel to Prince’s left and took a broader view. The conservative commentator argued that the problems in the Secret Service were systemic and directly related to DEI initiatives and the lowering of meritocracy and training standards.

Rep. Cori Mills, a Florida Republican who had served as a member of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division before becoming a security specialist in the private defense sector, appeared on the same panel.  

Responding to Bongino’s testimony, Mills said, “I think you’re saying DEI plays a major role, not meritocracy, with regards to the current culture that has been fostered [at the Secret Service.]

Bongino provided a terse response: “Not a [role] – but the major role,” he stressed.

The former Fox News host has a solid following on social media and among active and retired Secret Service agents and officers who argue that he would go to the mat to overhaul the agency and end DEI and other non-meritocracy hiring priorities. But some fear Bongino has been away from the Secret Service too long to know how to sort out the bad apples in leadership. Others argue that it depends on who Bongino would tap as his deputy to run the day-to-day agency operations while he’s dealing with the bigger picture and broad reforms.

Because Trump will continue to face threats from Iran throughout his time in the Oval Office, the Secret Service director will no doubt have an elevated role in the Trump administration and will likely be constantly interacting with the intelligence community to assess the threat levels. If confirmed, that elite group of national security Cabinet members would likely include Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence, or DNI, and John Ratcliffe, who previously served as DNI and whom Trump nominated to become his CIA director, as well as whomever Trump names as FBI director.

Kash Patel, a former National Security Council official in the last Trump administration, and former Rep. Mike Rogers, who had served as an FBI agent for several years, are contenders for the FBI director job. Bongino’s brash style may be better equipped to square off with those outsized egos and cut through the agency’s bureaucracy and woke policies. Some in the Secret Service community are hoping Trump appoints a leader who is listening to the rank-and-file to distinguish the bad actors from the hard-working agents and push out the ineffective and manipulative leaders.

Besides Bongino and Curran, there are several other top contenders to lead the Secret Service and the necessary reforms, including Tom Armas, a U.S. Marine general who also previously served several years as a Secret Service agent but spent the majority of his career in the military. Armas worked with Bongino in the Secret Service’s New York Field Office and has received high praise for his 9/11 bravery. Armas ran into the collapsing World Trade Center buildings and carried many people to safety amidst the chaos, dust, and debris.

If selected, Armas would follow in the footsteps of Randolph “Tex” Alles, a formerU.S. Marine Corps general and the first Secret Service director selected from outside the agency in its 159-year history. Trump chose Alles to lead the agency from 2017 to 2019. During that time, Alles built a good rapport among rank-and-file agents, but many believed several agency leaders successfully sabotaged him. Alles was swept out of the agency when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson left her post in April 2019.

Secret Service sources are also touting Michael D’Ambrosio, a respected senior career agent and former platoon commander in the U.S. Marines, for a leadership post. D’Ambrosio aggressively helped rush Trump off stage during a Nevada campaign rally eight years ago when a protester rushed the stage.

Other names in the mix include Jim Lewis, a former Secret Service agent who now serves as a senior Department of Homeland Security official, and Billy Davis, a high-performing agent who retired in 2015 after 29 years with the Secret Service (Davis is also known as a former Clemson University football player).

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent.

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

It really happened. Donald Trump won convincingly, just as I predicted. So I don’t need to publish a retraction or correction today like we are due from so many liberals for their substitution of wishful thinking for reasoned analysis in the leadup to the election.

But, on the other hand, I don’t want to waste your time and mine rehashing all the reasons why Trump won, or more significantly, why Kamala Harris lost. In retrospect, the possibility of a Harris victory seems as remote as Trump winning the Hispanic male vote. Oh wait!

So instead, let’s look forward. In particular, the example of Rodney King seems appropriate. King was famously the victim of a televised police beating in Los Angeles in 1991. When four officers were found not guilty the following year, the city erupted in violence, leading King to make his appeal for calm: “People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?”

King was a victim who became a leader, a man who put aside his own pain and embraced the possibility of a better world – a world where we can all get along.

That world seems as distant as ever today, but maybe that’s because we haven’t fully understood what it means to get along. For Rodney King, it meant simply, can we stop killing each other? Can we stop spiraling out of control, looking for revenge and expecting perfection from others while we ourselves are less than perfect?

Those were big questions. But for us American citizens, in the wake of the 2024 election, it also means confronting just how far apart we are – in philosophy, in goals, in tactics – and then deciding if we want to stay together or get a divorce. The possibility of a shooting civil war is remote at best, but if we continue to move in opposite directions, it will be hard to achieve the unity that many of our leaders espouse.

And if this is a national crisis, it is also a personal one. I doubt I’m the only one who has been confronted with friends and family members who are so disheartened by the nation’s rejection of the Democratic presidential candidate – and particularly the elevation of Donald Trump – that they hold me personally responsible. This, despite the fact that I rarely talk politics except in my own home, or in my columns.

I believe those personal relationships can be healed by time because politics is only a small part of how we get along on an individual level. But when it comes to bringing together two political parties that are diametrically opposed on border policy, taxes, military readiness, spending, crime, abortion, lawfare and government expansionism, it is much harder to put aside our daggers.

So the question becomes, how do we restore normalcy to our civic discourse? How do we avoid recriminations and self-congratulation? And most importantly, how can President-elect Trump, with his MAGA mandate, govern in order to bring about the unity that he says he wants?

What exactly would that unity even look like? Is it possible to unify abortion-rights advocates with anti-abortion stalwarts? Proponents of globalism with America-first nationalism? Those who protect illegal immigrants with those who mourn the needless murders and rapes that an open border has caused?

The common idea of unity is bipartisanship or compromise. The winning side will generously surrender a portion of its power in order to let the losing side claim some victories as well. The idea is that the losers will repay the favor by giving the winners respect and honor. This is the fantasy version of unity. No party in power will surrender its ability to promote its agenda if it has true principles rather than duplicitous pragmatism. Nor should it.

A more realistic view of unity is the Civil War model. Two sides are diametrically opposed. One side will prevail. You fight like hell to make sure it is yours. President Lincoln’s goal wasn’t to crush the South, but that result was necessary in order to ensure that his vision of “one nation indivisible” would quash the secessionist movement and stop the spread of slavery. Unity was his goal, but compromise was not – at least until the war was decisively won and Reconstruction would begin.

So it must be for Donald Trump in the wake of his historic victory. The public has given him his marching orders, and he intends to follow them relentlessly – bringing real change to the way government works. His first term provided mostly ephemeral results, with the exception of three Supreme Court justices. The wall was built – and then unbuilt. American energy was unleashed – and then leashed again. Peace was on its way to the Middle East with the Abraham Accords – and then dashed into a million pieces by Hamas.

This time around, Trump knows he only has four years to fulfill his plans. So he’s moving with lightning speed to do exactly what Abraham Lincoln accomplished in his four years in the White House: unite the country by demonstrating strength, wisdom and patriotism.

This ambitious goal perhaps explains Trump’s seemingly antagonistic selection of Cabinet secretaries. Matt Gaetz for attorney general? Robert Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services? Pete Hegseth for Defense? Tulsi Gabbard to oversee the intelligence agencies, including the CIA? There were other qualified candidates for all those positions, but would they have fought as fiercely as these picks to revolutionize the agencies they would helm?

Turning back to our Civil War model, after first selecting traditional generals who were consensus choices, Lincoln decided to go with his gut and promoted Ulysses S. “Unconditional Surrender” Grant and “scorched earth” William Sherman to bring the enemy to their heels. Trump seems to be after the same kind of unsparing determination. Go big or go home.

To his enemies, that translates as Trump’s “authoritarian tendencies,” but leveraging one’s political capital to push the nation inexorably in one direction is not necessarily the act of a dictator. That kind of insistent progress is the very definition of unity as exemplified by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used the force of his personality and his political vision to reshape politics for three decades and beyond.

Trump has certainly dominated the political conversation for the last decade. By not compromising with his enemies, I think it is safe to say he believes he can eventually persuade them to accept his unifying MAGA vision for America just as FDR convinced the nation to celebrate his transformative New Deal.

And any Republican senator who stands in Trump’s way had better be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA and on X/Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

In his third major address since becoming Hezbollah’s Secretary General in the wake of Hassan Nasrallah’s death, Naim Qassem threatened to target Tel Aviv in response to recent Beirut strikes.

“We will not leave the capital under Israeli enemy attacks. When Beirut is under attack by the enemy, the response must be in Tel Aviv,” he said. The Hezbollah chief added that “The enemy must understand that things will not remain as such when Beirut is attacked.”

He laid out that Israel must pay a “heavy price” for the assassination of Hezbollah media relations chief Mohammed Afif this week, which happened in Beirut.

Drones and rockets fired from Lebanon into Tel Aviv have already begun ramping up in the past days, even though such targeting that deep into Israel remains rare.

Monday saw a Hezbollah missile strike Tel Aviv, near a shopping mall and busy area, which wounded five people and caused extensive damage.

Tehran Times reports, “An Israeli media outlet reported among the missiles that landed in Tel Aviv was a Fateh 110 missile, which is a surface-to-surface missile recognized for its significant destructive power. It is engineered to strike critical targets with pinpoint accuracy within a margin of up to ten meters.”

Currently, Biden’s Middle East envoy Amos Hochstein is going between warring capitals, seeking to finalize a US-proposed peace plan.

Hezbollah and the Lebanese government are said to be backing the ceasefire, and are awaiting Israel’s response. However, the prospect that a ceasefire will be reached soon doesn’t look promising. Below is what Secretary-General Qassem said in his speech regarding the plan:

“We got the negotiation document, we examined the document and we transferred our notes about it,” he said. This comes as Hochstein delayed his arrival in Israel as he attempts to smooth over more details of the deal.

In Qassem’s opinion, “Israel expects to get through the agreement what it did not get on the ground,” referring to the Israeli ground operations in southern Lebanon. Several attempts to reach an end to hostilities have failed, including those proposed by US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“In the past, we agreed to the Biden-Macron proposal on the basis of ending the war, but they killed Nasrallah,” Qassem said. “We went through a real crisis after his assassination, but after 10 days we managed to recover and heal our wounds.”

Hezbollah has been revealing an ever-more sophisticated drone arsenal…

⚡️Hezb-Allah publishes first footage from onboard a Kamikaze drone pic.twitter.com/4FdGE6D8Jd

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) November 18, 2024

Many details of the plan remain secret. At this moment, the skies over Lebanon are as dangerous as ever, with Israeli warplanes pounding Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, Tyre and the south, and especially the capital suburb of Dahieh.

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary.”

– Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

This is how it begins.

This is how it always begins, justified in the name of national security.

Mass roundups. Raids. Indefinite detentions in concentration camps. Martial law. The erosion of habeas corpus protections. The suspension of the Constitution, at least for select segments of the population. A hierarchy of rights, contingent on whether you belong to a favored political class.

This is what you can expect in the not-so-distant future.

Once you allow the government to overreach the restraints imposed  by the Constitution, no matter what that threat might be, it will be that much harder to restrain it again, no matter which party is at the helm.

We’ve seen this played out time and again.

Some years ago, for instance, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board suggested that government officials should mandate mass vaccinations and deploy the National Guard “to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”

In other words, they wanted the government to use the military to round up and lock up the unvaccinated in concentration camps.

That didn’t happen, but it so easily could have.

Now the script has been flipped, and it’s the soon-to-be Trump Administration promising to use the military to round up and lock up undesirables in concentration camps.

At this moment in time, those so-called “undesirables” are illegal immigrants, but given what we know about the government and its expansive definition of what constitutes a threat to its power, any one of us could be next up in the police state’s crosshairs.

Once you give the government a taste of that kind of power—to disregard the Constitution, even for a day; to use the military for domestic policing; to rely on mass deportations and concentration camps in order to sidestep due process procedures—it won’t be so easy to rein it in when it runs amok.   

And it will run amok.

You don’t have to be an illegal immigrant or a conspiracy theorist or even anti-government to be worried about what lies ahead. You just have to recognize the truth in the warning: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is why significant numbers of people are worried: because this is the slippery slope that starts with supposedly well-meaning intentions for the greater good and ends with tyrannical abuses no one should tolerate.

We’ve already allowed the government to significantly undermine our constitutional republic.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be seduced by the false siren song of politicians promising safety in exchange for relinquished freedom. We placed our trust in political saviors and failed to ask questions to hold our representatives accountable to abiding by the Constitution. We looked the other way and made excuses while the government amassed an amazing amount of power over us, and backed up that power-grab with a terrifying amount of military might and weaponry, and got the courts to sanction their actions every step of the way. We chose to let partisan politics divide us and turn us into easy targets for the government’s oppression.

Consider for yourself.

We are in the grip of martial law. We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil. This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized domestic police forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.

We are in the government’s crosshairs. The U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence. Consequently, we are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by the government’s standing army of militarized police who shoot first and ask questions later.

We are no longer safe in our homes. This present menace comes from the government’s army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized SWAT teams who are waging war on the last stronghold left to us as a free people: the sanctity of our homes.

We have no real freedom of speech. We are moving fast down a slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts. In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American who criticizes the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

We have no real privacy. We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. This government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

We are losing our right to bodily privacy and integrity. The debate over bodily integrity covers broad territory, ranging from forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws and forced breath-alcohol tests to forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, and forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no real privacy, no real presumption of innocence, and no real control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. The groundwork being laid is a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings (genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional) of the human race.

We no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Hard-working Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have allegedly been associated with some criminal scheme.

We have no due process. The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

We are no longer presumed innocent. The burden of proof has been reversed. Now we’re presumed guilty unless we can prove our innocence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Rarely, are we even given the opportunity to do so. The government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database. Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government coupled with artificial intelligence will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

We have lost the right to be anonymous and move about freely.  At every turn, we’re hemmed in by laws, fines and penalties that regulate and restrict our autonomy, and surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. Likewise, digital currency provides the government and its corporate partners with a mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

We have no guardians of justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the courts have become the guardians of the American police state in which we now live. As a result, sound judgment and justice have largely taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism, while preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

We have been saddled with a dictator for life. Secret, unchecked presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—now enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

We are one crisis or state of emergency away from having the Constitution terminated.

Mind you, the powers-that-be want the Constitution terminated.

They want us to be censored, silenced, muzzled, gagged, zoned out, caged in and shut down.

They want our speech and activities monitored for any sign of “extremist” activity.

They want us to be estranged from each other and kept at a distance from those who are supposed to represent us. They want taxation without representation. They want a government without the consent of the governed.

Connect the dots.

This was never about politics, populist movements, or making America great again.

This is what happens when good, generally decent people—distracted by manufactured crises, polarizing politics, and fighting that divides the populace into warring “us vs. them” camps—fail to take note of the looming danger that threatens to wipe freedom from the map and place us all in chains.

It’s what happens when any government is empowered to adopt a comply-or-suffer-the-consequences mindset that is enforced through mandates, lockdowns, penalties, detention centers, martial law, and a disregard for the rights of the individual.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the slippery slope begins in just this way, with propaganda campaigns about the public good being more important than individual liberty, and it ends with lockdowns and concentration camps.

The danger signs are everywhere.

With steadily increasing home prices and stagnating wages among lower-wage workers, home ownership for many Americans has become increasingly unaffordable.

The home price-to-income ratio measures the relationship between the median home price and the median household income. This metric is often used to gauge housing affordability, accounting for variations in the cost of living.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows home price-to-income ratio of each U.S. state, using data from a Construction Coverage analysis of Zillow and U.S. Census Bureau data as of June 2024.

Hawaii and West Coast Have the Most Unaffordable Homes

The table below shows the home price-to-income ratio for each U.S. state, where Hawaii (9.1) and California (8.4) at the top—both well over the national average of 4.7.

Rank	State	Ratio
1	Hawaii	9.1
2	California	8.4
3	Montana	6.6
4	Oregon	6.4
5	Massachusetts	6.3
6	Washington	6.3
7	Idaho	6.1
8	Washington	6
9	Colorado	6
10	Nevada	5.9
11	Utah	5.7
12	New York	5.7
13	Arizona	5.7
14	Florida	5.7
15	Maine	5.5
16	Rhode Island	5.4
17	New Jersey	5.2
18	New Hampshire	5.1
19	Vermont	5
20	New Mexico	4.9
21	Wyoming	4.8
22	North Carolina	4.8
23	Tennessee	4.8
24	Delaware	4.6
25	South Carolina	4.5
26	Virginia	4.4
27	Georgia	4.4
28	Maryland	4.3
29	Connecticut	4.3
30	South Dakota	4.2
31	Texas	4.1
32	Alaska	4
33	Wisconsin	4
34	Minnesota	3.9
35	Missouri	3.7
36	Alabama	3.7
37	Pennsylvania	3.6
38	Nebraska	3.6
39	Arkansas	3.6
40	Michigan	3.5
41	Indiana	3.5
42	Louisiana	3.5
43	North Dakota	3.4
44	Illinois	3.3
45	Ohio	3.3
46	Oklahoma	3.3
47	Kentucky	3.3
48	Mississippi	3.3
49	Kansas	3.2
50	Iowa	3
51	West Virginia	2.9

Despite Hawaii and California ranking in the top five for median income (adjusted for cost of living), both states also consistently rank first and second respectively when it comes to median home prices.

Hawaii and California also rank second and third, respectively, when ranking states by the highest salary needed to live comfortably for a single working adult.

According to ATTOM, Hawaii has the highest median house prices in the U.S., at around $852,000.

The Aloha State’s limited land availability, strict housing regulations, and high demand for housing in a desirable climate, are some contributing factors to its high home prices.

Californian cities Los Angeles, San Jose, Long Beach, and San Diego are the top four large U.S. cities with the highest home price-to-income ratios.

Home prices in California have reached unprecedented highs due to a persistent imbalance between high demand and limited supply, which is exacerbated by strict zoning laws, geographic constraints, and a robust economy attracting high-income residents.

To learn more about housing affordability, check out this graphic that shows the top 10 global markets by median price-to-income ratio.