Gpscruise

Update (1630ET): Details of Trump's Greenland deal are trickling in.

With little official information on what Trump earlier called "a framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland", which prompted the president to call off tariff threats that he had issued in an effort to secure American ownership of Greenland, and sparked a massive market rally (just as JPMorgan's trading desk said would happen), the NYT reports that the announcement followed a NATO meeting on Wednesday "where top military officers from the alliance’s member states discussed a compromise in which Denmark would give the United States sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where the United States could build military bases."

The NYT goes on to note that according to two of the officials, who attended the meeting, the deal compares "to the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus, which are regarded as British territory." 

What wasn't reported is that the US already has a military base in Greenland, namely Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), where about 150 United States service members are permanently stationed as of 2025, after the United States significantly reduced its presence from 6,000 personnel during the Cold War.

The US has had a military presence on Greenland since the second world war, when the island was left undefended during the Nazi occupation of its then colonial ruler, Denmark. The US moved in, setting up airfields, weather stations and defences and watched for German submarines in the North Atlantic. Ten years later, the arrangement was formalised via a defence treaty with Denmark, which is part of Nato, that allowed the US the right to operate military facilities there. During the cold war, Pituffik again became an important Arctic base for the US.

Under the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, the United States was allowed to operate the base under a NATO framework, as long as both Denmark and the United States remain NATO members. Under the agreement, the Danish national flag must be flown at the base to recognize that the base is on Danish territory, but the United States is allowed to fly its own flag alongside the Danish flag on the facilities it operates.

The 1951 agreement was modified in 2004, giving the USA unrestricted access to the Pituffik base. Sure enough, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has referred to this recently. If the Americans want to expand their military presence beyond that, they only must consult and inform the authorities in Nuuk and Copenhagen.

Back in March 2025, vice president JD Vance brought a US delegation to Pituffik space base, which is located 932 miles (1,500km) from Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, 750 miles (1,207km) north of the Arctic Circle, and across Baffin Bay from Nunavut in Canada, thus playing an essential role in US missile detection.

In other words, while the US will go from having a military base in Greenland on semi-autonomous territory to... having a base in Greenland on autonomous territory, all Trump needs to do is change the name of the island to Greentanamo and declare victory, and the entire episode will be forgotten.

And yes, there is a tweet for that.

I promise not to do this to Greenland! pic.twitter.com/03DdyVU6HA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019

* * *

Update (1430ET): Global markets are roiling once again following a post from President Trump on his social media feed that "based upon a very productive meeting" with the NATO SecGen Mark Rutte:

"we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.

This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations.

Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.

Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland.

Further information will be made available as discussions progress.

Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. "

Of course, there is nothing in this statement that mentions any discussions with Greenland itself... or EU nations.

🚨 Trump on Greenland: "The deal is going to be put out pretty soon... it gets us everything we needed to get."

pic.twitter.com/FR5quN5iHz

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 21, 2026

Additionally, President Trump spoke to CNBC's Joe Kernen and made the following key points:

• *TRUMP: GREENLAND FRAMEWORK IS A LONG TERM DEAL

• *TRUMP: GREENLAND FRAMEWORK PUTS EVERYONE IN A GOOD POSITION

• *TRUMP: FRAMEWORK IS A DEAL THAT'S 'FOREVER'

• *TRUMP SAYS `I ASSUME' DENMARK HAS WEIGHED IN POSSIBLE DEAL INVOLVING GREENLAND

• *TRUMP: GREENLAND THREAT WAS A TRADE WAR, DON'T SEE US FIGHTING

• *TRUMP SAYS US TO BE 'INVOLVED' IN GREENLAND MINERAL RIGHTS

Who could have seen this coming?

Why JPMorgan's Desk Thinks The Greenland Standoff Ends In A Bullish "Negotiated Arranagement" https://t.co/FkG1fsCoeP

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 20, 2026

As JPM noted:

• The most likely outcome is a NEGOTIATED ARRANGEMENT that expands US security/eco presence in the territory and addresses US stated objectives – stronger Arctic security posture, enhanced early warning for missile defense and access to Greenland’s natural resources – while Denmark preserves sovereignty.

• A SALE is less likely because the US does not need formal territorial control to achieve the stated objectives, and it would seem had to get approval from both Denmark and Greenland.

• An INVASION is really a tail outcome for more than one reason: polls horribly with voters and, needless to say, it would melt NATO faster than Arctic ice…

And there we go... will Denmark start buying USTs again now... with all the cash they are going to get from Trump?

Anyone else getting 'China Trade Truce' deja vu feelings all over again?

• Oct 26, 2025: US reaches "framework of a potential trade deal" with China

• Jan 21, 2026: US reaches "framework of a future deal" on Greenland

*  *  *

In a lengthy (90 minute) speech to the elites gathered at Davos, President Trump pulled no punches as he took shots at the various 'loser' globalist leaders in the audience.

What was supposed to be a discussion of Trump's domestic policies aimed at improving affordability for Americans turned into a geopolitical mish-mosh (after the ubiquitous grandstanding about how great America is doing).

Here are the headlines broken down by topic (not in order):

Domestic/Affordability
US is seeing "the fastest and most dramatic economic turnaround in our country's history," Trump claimed.

• *TRUMP: US INFLATION HAS BEEN DEFEATED
• *TRUMP: US ECONOMY ON PACE TO GROW AT DOUBLE IMF PROJECTED RATE
• *TRUMP: BELIEVE MY POLICIES CAN BRING GROWTH EVEN HIGHER
• *TRUMP: INTEND TO RAISE LIVING STANDARDS
• *TRUMP: STOCK MARKET DIP 'PEANUTS', STOCK MARKET WILL DOUBLE
• *TRUMP: MORTGAGE PRICES, RENTS, CAR PAYMENTS GOING DOWN
• *TRUMP: DRUG PRICES WILL GO DOWN BY A STAGGERING 90%
• *TRUMP ATTACKS CORPORATIONS BUYING HOUSES
• *TRUMP: SIGNED ORDER BANNING INSTITUTIONAL HOME BUYERS
• *TRUMP LAMENTS SURGING CREDIT CARD DEBT
• *TRUMP REITERATES SEEKING CREDIT CARD INTEREST CAP FOR 1 YEAR
• *TRUMP: DON'T WANT TO HURT VALUE HELD BY PEOPLE OWNING HOMES
• *INSTITUTIONAL HOMEBUYING 'JUST NOT FAIR TO THE PUBLIC': TRUMP
• *TRUMP SAYS 'HAVE TO THINK ABOUT' HOME DEPRECIATION RULES
• *TRUMP: US IS KEEPING THE WHOLE WORLD AFLOAT
• *TRUMP: REALIZED MANY PLACES MAKING FORTUNE FROM THE US

Crypto

• *TRUMP: CONGRESS WORKING ON CRYPTO MARKET STRUCTURE REGULATION
• *TRUMP: HOPE TO SIGN BILL ON CRYPTO SOON
• *TRUMP: CRYPTO POLITICALLY POPULAR, NEED TO BLOCK CHINA'S HOLD

The Fed

• *TRUMP: ANNOUNCING NEW FED CHAIR IN NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE
• *TRUMP: NEW FED CHAIR WILL BE SOMEONE VERY RESPECTED
• *TRUMP: PROBLEM IS FED CHAIRS CHANGE ONCE THEY GET THE ROLE
• *TRUMP: WE SHOULD BE PAYING A MUCH LOWER INTEREST RATE
• *TRUMP: POWELL RAISES INTEREST RATES, STOPS US FROM SUCCESS
• *TRUMP: GOOD NEWS USED TO SEND STOCKS UP, HOW IT SHOULD BE
• *TRUMP: GROWTH DOESN'T MEAN INFLATION, IT CAN FIGHT INFLATION
• *TRUMP: WILL MAKE STOCK MARKET RALLY ON GOOD ECONOMIC NEWS

Europe

• *TRUMP: EUROPE NOT HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
• *TRUMP: CERTAIN PLACES IN EUROPE ARE NOT RECOGNIZABLE ANYMORE
• *TRUMP: CRITICIZES EUROPE EMPHASIS ON GREEN ENERGY, IMMIGRATION
• *TRUMP: WHEN THE US GOES UP, 'YOU FOLLOW'
• *TRUMP CRITICIZES EUROPEAN ENERGY COSTS, BLAMES WINDMILLS
• *TRUMP: WE WANT STRONG ALLIES, NOT SERIOUSLY WEAKENED ONES
• *TRUMP MOCKS FRENCH PRESIDENT MACRON FOR WEARING SUNGLASSES
• *TRUMP: I WANT EUROPE, THE UK 'TO DO GREAT'

Energy

• *TRUMP: US NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION AT ALL-TIME HIGH
• *TRUMP: US IS HELPING VENEZUELA, WE'LL SPLIT OIL REVENUE W/ THEM
• *TRUMP: GASOLINE PRICES WILL SOON BE LESS THAN $2/GALLON
• *TRUMP: US IS 'GOING HEAVY' INTO NUCLEAR ENERGY
• *TRUMP REITERATES ATTACK ON WIND MILLS
• *TRUMP: CHINA SELLS WINDMILLS BUT DOESN'T USE THEM THEMSELVES

Greenland/NATO

• *TRUMP ON NATO: TIME TO STEP UP
• *TRUMP: TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR PEOPLE OF GREENLAND, DENMARK
• *TRUMP: DURING WWII, WE FOUGHT TO SAVE GREENLAND FOR DENMARK
• *TRUMP: AFTER WAR WE GAVE GREENLAND BACK, 'HOW STUPID WERE WE'
• *TRUMP: DENMARK 'UNGRATEFUL' ABOUT GREENLAND
• *TRUMP: US ALONE CAN PROTECT GREENLAND, DEVELOP, IMPROVE IT
• *TRUMP: US TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY BY NATO
• *TRUMP: GREENLAND WOULD NOT BE THREAT TO NATO, WOULD ENHANCE
• *US SEEKS IMMEDIATE TALKS ON ACQUIRING GREENLAND, TRUMP SAYS
• *TRUMP: WON'T USE FORCE TO GET GREENLAND
• *TRUMP: SEEKING RIGHT, TITLE AND OWNERSHIP OF GREENLAND
• *TRUMP: CAN'T DEFEND GREENLAND ON A LEASE
• *TRUMP: NATO, EUROPE DOESN'T APPRECIATE WORK THAT THE US DOES
• *TRUMP: BUILDING A GOLDEN DOME ATOP GREENLAND
• *TRUMP: NOT SURE NATO WILL BE THERE FOR US IF WE WERE ATTACKED
• *TRUMP: NOW I'M ASKING FOR A PIECE OF ICE, A VERY SMALL ASK
• *TRUMP: US WILL MAKE WEAPONS EVEN FASTER AFTER NEW DEFENSE RULES
• *TRUMP: GREENLAND COSTING DEMARK HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO RUN IT
• *TRUMP ON GREENLAND: IF YOU SAY NO, WE WILL REMEMBER

Canada

• *TRUMP: GOLDEN DOME WILL DEFEND CANADA, THEY SHOULD BE GRATEFUL
• *TRUMP: CANADA NOT GRATEFUL
• *TRUMP: CANADA LIVES BECAUSE OF THE US, REMEBER THAT, CARNEY

Ukraine/Russia

• *TRUMP: UKRAINE IS A 'BLOODBATH,' I WANT TO STOP IT
• *TRUMP: NATO WANTS HELP ON UKRAINE, WE'RE GOING TO
• *TRUMP: DEALING WITH PUTIN, HE WANTS TO MAKE A DEAL
• *TRUMP: BELIEVE ZELENSKIY WANTS TO MAKE A DEAL
• *TRUMP: ABNORMAL HATRED BETWEEN RUSSIA-UKRAINE, TRYING ON DEAL
• *TRUMP: 'STUPID' IF UKRAINE-RUSSIA CAN'T COME TOGETHER ON DEAL

Conclusion

• *TRUMP: WEST HAS TO BECOME STRONGER, DEFEND ITS CULTURE
• *TRUMP: WEST'S PROSPERITY AND PROGRESS CAME FROM OUR CULTURE

There's a lot there but the main focus of commentary has been on Trump ruling out taking Greenland by force but calling for "immediate negotiations".

“People thought I would use force. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said in a highly anticipated address to the World Economic Forum.

Between his sharp criticisms of NATO and Europe, Trump repeatedly signaled that fears of invasion were overblown:

"They have a choice: You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember."

Watch President Trump's address to Davos below:

* * *

President Trump's trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos was briefly delayed after Air Force One returned to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, shortly after departure due to a minor electrical issue identified on the 747. Flight crews did not declare an emergency or squawk 7700, indicating the situation was precautionary.

Real-time aircraft tracking platform AirNav Radar showed the flight path of AF1 as it departed Joint Base Andrews for Davos, Switzerland, in the overnight hours. While paralleling the coast of Long Island, pilots appeared to decide to return to Joint Base Andrews due to a "minor electrical issue."

AF1 landed safely at Andrews around 2300 ET, after about an hour and 20 minutes in the air, according to AirNav Radar.  

Air Force One Returns to Joint Base Andrews After Takeoff Due to Electrical Issue 📰

Air Force One departed Joint Base Andrews for Davos, Switzerland, but returned shortly after takeoff when the crew detected a minor electrical issue. The aircraft turned back off the U.S. East… pic.twitter.com/kNakTeJBul

— AirNav Radar (@AirNavRadar) January 21, 2026

Trump and the delegation traveling with him quickly boarded a Boeing 757, typically used by the Vice President or other cabinet members, and took off around midnight en route to Davos.

Despite the brief travel delay, Trump has arrived in Switzerland. He is expected to address the Davos elites at 0830 ET.

NOW - Trump arrives in Davos, after a "minor electrical issue" caused a delay and plane change en route. pic.twitter.com/0GRUBreMf1

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 21, 2026

The focus of Trump's speech is likely on the domestic agenda, particularly housing, according to Goldman's Delta One desk-head, Rich Privorotsky, who noted that overnight headlines floated executive action aimed at curbing institutional home purchases, though legal scope looks narrow.

Expectations are also building around incremental flexibility in 401k usage as part of a broader affordability push.

Late chatter about tariff rebate checks feels legally doubtful without Congressional backing.

Polling on affordability remains weak, and foreign adventurism…Greenland in particular…has not helped approval ratings.

This speech has been framed as both a reset toward domestic priorities and given the relative outperformance of domestic stocks could be an important catalyst

But, earlier, at the Davos podium, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a historic rebuke to the U.S. under President Trump, declaring the rules-based order led by America "a pleasant fiction" (reiterating his recent remarks on the shifting world order)

“I will talk today about the breaking of the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a brutal reality where the geopolitics of the great powers is not subject to any constraint,” said Mr. Carney.

“Every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great-power rivalry,” he said.

“That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”

He added, “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

"This bargain no longer works."

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a stark warning to the world’s middle powers, describing a rapidly developing world order in which powerful nations abandon diplomatic traditions in pursuit of their interests. https://t.co/RM3oz9dHo6 pic.twitter.com/WJyRZkilKW

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 21, 2026

In his speech Mr. Carney called on medium-size countries like Canada to band together to offset the power of the United States, China and Russia.

“The middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu,” he said. “Great powers can afford for now to go it alone.”

Carney, who received a standing ovation, spoke not long after Mr. Trump posted an A.I. image on social media that included a map of American flags superimposed over both Canada and the United States.

While the address has been front-run as being about domestic 'affordability', we suspect the President will diverge from the teleprompter a little and use this as an excuse to discuss his various recent escapades around the world (and take a shot at Carney and Macron).

JPMorgan may have summed it up best: “We thought the president was going to Davos to talk about housing and credit card affordability. Suddenly now it’s become about Greenland affordability."

The President is due to speak at 0830ET.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

For years we knew it was coming: Civil War 2.0. It’s not as if the establishment has been subtle about their intentions to erase conservatives and liberty minded people from the American epoch. I remember during the Obama years, the narrative was repeated daily that conservatives are a “backwards remnant” of the old America that needs to adapt to the times or fade into obscurity.

The reasoning was that, slowly but surely, the US was becoming “more diverse” and therefore the progressive left was going to be the dominant political force for generations to come (because they think they own all minorities).

In other words, multiculturalism was the new ideological standard.

In order for conservatives to survive, we would have to become more like leftists, embrace DEI, and abandon the principles of western civilization that originally made America great.

But then, something happened that leftists and the establishment elites apparently did not expect; a groundswell of patriotism, a renewed reverence for the ideals of meritocracy and reason, a rising movement of moral clarity. The progressives and globalists did not understand that the conservative populism they categorized as “fringe” 10 years earlier was becoming a mainstay of digital discourse.

They thought they had won. They thought they had us after Obama, so much so that they ran Hillary Clinton for president with the assumption that she could not lose. Then, they thought they had us during the pandemic, but they failed to secure a lasting medical tyranny. They thought they had us during the Biden regime by flooding the country will third world migrants.

Now, they think they have us with their NGO paid army of activists, agitators and provocateurs. They think they have use with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Everything they do is built on the assumption that we will do nothing.

They think this because it is exceedingly rare for conservatives to step outside the traditional bounds of law and order. We have a tendency to wait for people in authority to fix our problems. We have a tendency to rely on civil discourse to ease tensions and find common ground. And, we have a tendency to wait for elections in the hope that the other side will simply accept our victory and recognize that most of the country is against them.

This is clearly not going to happen.

First, because leftists always double down. They are ideological zealots who thirst for power and they will do anything to achieve it. Morals and logic hold no value for them. They will ignore the results of the elections and they will ignore the will of the people because they think THEY know better than everyone else.

Second, globalist NGOs continue to fund and train these activists in greater and greater numbers. I have heard it argued that we need to “stop calling the activists paid protesters” because this diminishes the fact that they are crazed ideologues and true believers. I disagree.

Yes, they are lunatics. Yes, they are true believers. But they would not be able to sustain their mob actions without the steady aid of NGOs feeding them cash, legal help and training. These people are taking their orders from someone; they are not an organic movement.

In past articles I have tried to plead with conservatives to recognize that these activists are NOT sincere fellow citizens engaging in legitimate protest. They are a mercenary army paid to go to war. I’ll say it once again: WE ARE AT WAR. We need to start acting like it.

The organization of conservative movements is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks on the planet. And to be clear, I’ve tried it on a small scale in the past and it’s not easy to get conservatives to commit. That said, I’m not a joiner either and if I do something I usually prefer to do it alone. I suspect most conservatives are the same and I understand the reasons why getting patriots to show up en masse is like herding cats.

Conservatives have lives, we have families (families we actually care about), we have real jobs and most of us don’t see civil protest as a “career”. We also have a tendency to distrust anyone trying too hard to organize. We are, for lack of a better word, paranoid.

Then there’s the people I would call “crabs in a bucket”. The fake conservatives, the fraud influencers, the big talkers who have found their niche grifting in the name of patriotism. But when the moment comes that action and risk are required, they try to pull everyone back down into the bucket of apathy.

They cry that “this is what the leftists want.” They spread rumors of “false flags” to convince people not to get off their couches and walk out the door. What if this is “just another J6”, they argue every time the idea of organization arises. They’ll say our job as civilians is to vote, and then wait for the authorities to handle it.

To be sure, there have been examples in the past of patriots being misled, and I’m certainly a believer in informed caution, but these guys can’t seem to find a conflict they won’t run away from. At this stage all I see are people trying to mislead us into doing nothing while liberty speakers are assassinated, counter protesters are physically attacked, and common sense policies are sabotaged by a handful of corrupt politicians, judges and militant activists.

When there are no consequences for bad behavior, bad behavior will escalate into violence and chaos. It’s important to understand that the political left is made up largely of people who are emotionally stunted. They are toddlers trapped in adult bodies. And, like spoiled children, they act the way they do because they have never been spanked.

Then there’s the people behind the curtain. The NGOs who use obscure and often anonymous online recruitment programs to find and train the useful idiots. Most of their offices are safely nestled in blue havens like New York City or Washington D.C. They are protected by corporate personhood laws and can essentially do whatever they please while enjoying limited liability and the same civil rights as individual citizens.

They WANT Trump to deploy troops to places like Minneapolis. They want their useful idiot activists to get their asses kicked by federal agents on camera. They want some of these people to die because then they can say: “See, we told you Trump is a fascist! Rise up against your oppressor!” They want a communist-style revolution motivated by the fantasy that leftists are “freedom fighters” against a government tyranny that does not represent the American public.

The Trump Administration is legally restricted in what it can do when it comes to investigating or dissolving NGOs. That’s why these institutions are so useful to leftists and globalists.

Our only recourse, in my opinion, is for patriots to organize and act to remove the threat these groups present. Trump has to adhere to the boundaries of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights…but we don’t. The constitution restricts government enforcement, it doesn’t restrict us. The political left ignores our rights, so why should we respect theirs?

The activist mobs in Minneapolis have reverted to pure terrorism. They are physically beating counter-protesters for simply showing up. It’s only a matter of time before they kill someone. Meanwhile, local law enforcement is doing nothing because they have been told by Democrats to do nothing.

Leftists are setting up checkpoints and harassing residents. They are invading peaceful churches with the intent to cause fear among local Christians. They attack ICE agents at every opportunity; men who are merely carrying out the policies WE voted for in 2024.

The political left is trying to subvert the mandate of American voters. They refuse to accept that they lost and they are executing a guerrilla war instead. It’s time for conservatives to step up and do something about it; not just wait for Trump to repair the damage. Maybe Trump deploys troops to Minneapolis, and maybe the activists disperse (maybe not), but they will inevitably pop up elsewhere and we need to be ready.

Conservative groups can set up their own funding structures. We can help to pay expenses for patriots traveling to stop these NGO activists from wreaking havoc. We can train people. We can field an army just as easily as the political left (if not more so).

I’m not much of an organizer, and I certainly don’t want to handle other people’s money. But I believe there are many conservatives out there with far bigger platforms than I have who could take on this role (just watch out for potential grifters, you don’t want a BLM situation where some guy buys three mansions with your donations). The bottom line is, we can do what leftists do and do it better. Anyone who wants to talk more about this can contact me at: brandon@alt-market.com

What I pledge is that I will be there, at the front of the line, to face off against the leftist mob. I will drive from Montana to Minnesota (or anywhere else) and will happily meet with caravans of patriots on the way. With my self defense background I can help train counter-protesters to fight back if needed. With my extensive radio experience I can help to set up secure communications. I will do whatever I’m able.  If we do this, let’s get prepared and let’s do it right.

I think there are millions of conservatives out there who feel the same way I do. We are fed up. Our capacity for diplomacy has been exhausted.

Very few people want to say it out loud and maybe they’re afraid to say it, but we’re all thinking it. Now is the time to act. Wherever the leftist mob shows up to create chaos, we should show up and drive them out of the city. This is the risk we must take if we ever want peace in our country again.

Or, we can continue sitting on our laptops and phones waiting for the problem to fix itself while the activist mob spreads across the entire country, fully emboldened by our lack of resolve.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

In the days since Renee Good tried to run over an ICE agent in Minneapolis and was shot and killed by an ICE officer, the liberal media has found yet another offensive word to whinge over. 

“The far-right has coined a new derogatory term for white women, which has gained traction following the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, in Minneapolis earlier this month,” reports The Independent. 

The objectionable term is the acronym AWFUL, which stands for Affluent White Female Urban Liberal. Another variant is AWFL.

For example:

Liberal white woman LOSES HER MIND over duck hunters..

These people are insane. lmao pic.twitter.com/2xRNSDE9fl

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) January 15, 2026

The New York Times was the first paper to report on this new “offensive” term.

“Beyond labels and name-calling, the death of Ms. Good and the protests and anger in its wake have sparked a response from many on the right that is particularly targeted at white women in the streets, even though men have been just as involved,” the paper wrote. “A majority of college-educated women, including white women, have long been skeptical of President Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, and that skepticism has been growing, according to exit polls after the 2024 election. And for months now, such women are attracting the ire of the president’s supporters.”

The term AWFUL is not the first derisive name targeting white women. People across the political spectrum once gleefully targeted so-called Karens, a term meant to denigrate women — usually white and middle-aged — caught using their privilege to bend the world in their direction.

And the use of AWFUL emerged well before Ms. Good was killed. Conservative critics began attaching it to female protesters at least as far back as last summer.

The acronym so scandalized the New York Times that it even tattled to the Department of Homeland Security about it and its growing popularity. “I’m more concerned with facts on the ground than I am about acronyms,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told the paper in a text message.

The Times leaned heavily on academic experts to medicalize and psychologize conservative criticism of affluent white liberal women, transforming political disagreement into pathology. 

But for the broader core of Mr. Trump’s followers, the description of white, urban women as violent radicals obstructing mass deportations seems to reflect older anxieties around race, gender and immigration among the white, non-college educated men who make up the core of Mr. Trump’s movement and perceive their place in society slipping, said Dr. Shauna Shames, a political scientist at Rutgers and co-editor of the book “The Right Women: Republican Party Activists, Candidates, and Legislators.”

[…]

Liberal academics have been diagnosing what they see as the problem. Laura K. Field, author of the book “Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right,” said social, demographic and economic changes had left men with a sense that they have lost status.

“Women are, for many of them, the place holder for their ‘stolen’ status,” she asserted.

 While the Times objects to calling affluent white female urban liberals what they are, it recently published opinion pieces comparing ICE to a “secret police” and portraying Trump as a fascist. In the past week, the paper has published columns demeaning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “a Virtual Secret Police” and accusing the agency of “Waging War on Blue Cities,”framing routine enforcement as an attack on liberal opposition. Columnist Michelle Goldberg also described Trump’s actions as textbook fascism.

After years of using terms like “Nazi” and “fascist” against Trump and Republicans, the paper’s outrage over AWFUL rings hollow. The acronym simply states observable demographic and ideological facts. Affluent, white, female, urban, and liberal are not slurs. Yes, the acronym is clever, but its implied criticism is far milder than the relentless, extreme rhetoric the New York Times has long published against the right, particularly President Trump. 

The invasion of Chinese electric vehicles into North America is set to accelerate after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to roll back the triple-digit tariffs previously imposed on Chinese EVs. The move sharply diverges from President Trump's America First policy, which aims to revitalize the North American auto industry. While Chinese EVs remain effectively blocked from US import, there has been a noticeable increase in BYD Motor vehicles on highways in Mexico.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who appears to have deep ties with Beijing, was the first prime minister to visit China since 2017 and is seeking a major thaw in relations after years of tense diplomatic and trade ties.

Carney's move abandons the 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs imposed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2024, replacing them with a 6.1% rate capped at 49,000 Chinese EVs. In 2023, China exported 41,678 EVs to Canada. The shift in trade policy will certainly capture the Trump administration's attention.

"In order for Canada to build our own competitive EV sector, we need to learn from innovative partners, access their supply chains and increase local demand," Carney told reporters after talks with President Xi Jinping.

Carney may have given the wrong answer. Logically, if Canada wanted to build out an EV sector, it would turn to American expertise, such as Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, or even legacy Detroit automakers. Instead, that does not appear to be the case, raising questions about where Carney's allegiance truly lies, whether with the East or the West.

A recent report via The Bureau's Sam Cooper only suggests Carney's allegiance points towards Beijing...

• Brookfield's Deep Ties To Chinese Land, Loans & Green Deals

And there it is...

“The world has changed much since that last visit, I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order,” declared the Prime Minister of Canada.

His face really says it all!

Watch as Scott Moe reacts to Mark Carney’s New World Order remark. pic.twitter.com/DyKZB62Rnh

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) January 15, 2026

Also during his Beijing trip, Carney told Zhao Leji, the third-highest ranking member of the CCP, “We’re heartened by the leadership of President Xi Jinping and the speed with which our relationship has progressed,” Reuters reported.

He added that recent trade friction forced Beijing to slap 100% duties on Canadian canola oil - also known as rapeseed oil - as well as other ag products, with 25% on pork and seafood.

"China used to be the largest market for Canadian canola seed," Carney said. "We want to not just return to those levels, but to surpass them."

It appears Carney has not learned the lesson from Europe, where flooding the market with Chinese EVs helped decimate automakers across the continent.

By Michael Kern of OilPrice.com

The United States will officially begin negotiations to dismantle the Western world's operating system in just about 30 minutes or so...and oil prices are up just over 1% in anticipation. 

The meeting, which will take place at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, will include Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland. 

The official agenda serves up standard diplomatic fare: "Arctic security," "strategic partnership," and "resource development."

But the reality in the room is far more brittle...

President Trump has made his position clear, stating on Air Force One that anything shy of U.S. control of Greenland is "unacceptable." 

He has suggested that NATO "should be leading the way for us to get it," framing the acquisition not as a request, but as an obligation of the alliance.

Whatever the diplomats call it, the pricing model of the partnership has fundamentally changed.

For decades, the Atlantic alliance operated on a fixed-cost basis. Member states provided political alignment and base access in exchange for a predictable security guarantee. That fixed rate has now effectively floated. The new cost of doing business with Washington includes a premium to hedge against the unpredictability of the executive branch. 

It's a volatility tax, effectively. 

A Variable Rate on Article 5

To understand the urgency in Brussels, you have to look at the mechanics of the security guarantee.

NATO was designed as a binary instrument: you are either protected, or you are not. Article 5 is the bedrock. But recent signals from Washington, specifically the refusal to rule out unilateral action regarding Greenland, have introduced a variable into that equation.

The "strategic patience" that characterized European responses for the last few years has evaporated. Following the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro by the U.S. military on Jan. 3, the theoretical risk of American kinetic action has been repriced as a tangible one.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been unequivocal, warning that a military move on Greenland would mean "everything stops," signaling the effective end of the alliance. 

Her concerns were echoed by EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who warned that such an event is "unprecedented in the history of NATO."

"The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore," a former Danish MP noted regarding the discussions.

This has forced European capitals into a defensive crouch. When a German Defense Minister is compelled to discuss "options at Europe’s disposal" regarding a close ally, the alliance is no longer operating on a foundation of implicit trust. It is operating on a transactional basis.

Mining the Ice: The Myth of "Turnkey" Riches

The deal likely to emerge today relies on two pillars: security spending and resources.

The resource component, specifically the promise of critical minerals, is being framed as the "win" that could de-escalate tensions. The narrative suggests that by cutting the U.S. in on Greenland’s mineral wealth, the strategic hunger for rare earth elements can be sated.

However, from an industrial standpoint, this narrative hits a literal wall of ice.

Greenland possesses vast potential reserves. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the island holds the world's second-largest deposit of rare-earth oxides, including significant amounts of neodymium and dysprosium, which are critical for EV motors and F-35 fighter jets.

But potential is not production. To date, there are zero active rare earth mines in Greenland.

The barrier isn't just bureaucratic; it is thermodynamic. Greenland spans 2.17 million square kilometers, 80% of which is covered by ice. The "unit economics" of mining here are atrocious compared to competitors in Australia or Brazil.

• The Infrastructure Gap: There are no roads connecting Greenland’s towns. Every piece of heavy machinery must be shipped in by sea or flown in by helicopter. Industry analysis suggests that developing a mine in the Arctic incurs capital costs (CapEx) 150% to 300% higher than in temperate regions.
• The Power Problem: There is no grid to plug into. A mine requires a dedicated power plant, likely importing diesel in a zone where fuel freezes, or building renewables in a place with three months of darkness.

Ian Lange, an economist at the Colorado School of Mines, put it bluntly: "Everybody's just been running to get to this endpoint [of production]. And if you go to Greenland, it's like you're going back to the beginning."

If the EU plans to double its investment in these projects to satisfy U.S. demands, it represents a massive subsidy. It is a transfer of public funds to make a project commercially viable, not because the market demands it, but because the politics require it. We are essentially watching Europe offer to build a money-losing mine to buy geopolitical stability.

Access vs. Ownership: The Strategic Paradox

The second pillar of the proposed deal is a ramp-up in Arctic security infrastructure.

Secretary General Mark Rutte has laid the groundwork, stating that the alliance is discussing ways to "bolster Arctic security." This aligns with the long-standing U.S. demand for Europe to shoulder a greater share of the defense burden.

But a closer look reveals a paradox in the U.S. position.

If the goal is purely strategic access, denying space to Russia and China, the United States already has it.

The U.S. military operates the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), a cornerstone of North American missile defense. The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement grants the U.S. substantial rights to operate on the island. The U.S. can already project power, monitor the GIUK gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), and deter adversaries.

The demand for "title" or "ownership," rather than "access," suggests that the driver here is not purely strategic utility. It is about formalizing a sphere of influence on a map.

Inheriting a Frozen Liability

Beyond the bad math of the mines, there is a practical question of stewardship largely absent from American political discourse.

Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory with a distinct culture and a complex social safety net underpinned by Danish subsidies. If the island's status were to change, the financial burden of that stewardship would shift to Washington.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen backed this view, stating firmly that "Greenland belongs to its people," and insisting that any decision rests with them, not foreign capitals.

Historically, the U.S. has a poor track record of managing its territories. 

Places like Puerto Rico or Guam have struggled with chronic underinvestment in infrastructure and poverty rates far higher than the mainland average.

For the U.S. taxpayer, the acquisition would mean inheriting a massive, frozen liability. We would acquire a territory that requires significant annual subsidies to maintain basic services, with a return on investment that might be decades away. 

Ripping Up the 1945 Contract

But the most dangerous line item on this ledger isn't financial. It is structural.

If the United States were to coerce a NATO ally into ceding territory, whether through economic arm-twisting or the implicit threat of force, it would trigger a default on the post-war security order.

We often talk about the "Rules-Based International Order" as an abstract concept. In practice, it is a contract. The United States drafted the contract in 1945, and the core clause was simple: borders are not to be changed by force, and the sovereignty of allies is inviolable.

By threatening to seize Greenland, Washington is effectively ripping up that contract.

French President Emmanuel Macron has been one of the few leaders to speak plainly on the stakes, warning that "the law of the strongest cannot rule the world" and noting the "unprecedented consequences" if an ally's sovereignty is violated.

Even the UK, often the bridge between Europe and Washington, has drawn a line. Prime Minister Keir Starmer reportedly told Trump to keep his "hands off Greenland," aligning London firmly with Copenhagen.

The immediate casualty would be moral leverage. 

For years, the United States has rallied the world to condemn Russian expansionism in Ukraine and Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. If the U.S. annexes Greenland, that moral argument evaporates.

The Solvency of the West

As the foreign ministers sit down in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building today, they are attempting to price a transaction that was never meant to be sold.

The U.S. will likely push for guaranteed mineral rights and a "security premium" funded by Europe. Denmark and the EU will offer these concessions in a desperate bid to buy another year of sovereignty.

But as the ink dries on whatever joint statement emerges, the real story is what happens next. The fixed-rate mortgage of the Atlantic Alliance is gone. We are now in a variable-rate world, and the market is volatile.

President Trump's Friday's remarks to reporters Friday made clear he is willing to take control of Greenland - even if it's the "hard way" - and this sent the Europeans scrambling over the weekend to come up with plans or strategies for quickly de-escalating inter-NATO tensions.

"I'm not talking about money for Greenland yet. I might talk about that. But right now we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not," the President had said, adding: "I would like to make a deal. You know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way."

In the wake of this, NATO member Denmark responded firmly in the face of the US threat to its colony. Such a scenario as a US military move on Greenland would be the collapse of NATO, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has made clear. Among the remarks from last week, Frederiksen said, "If the United States were to choose to attack another NATO country, then everything would come to an end."

"The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance – all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," the Danish PM added. But he missed the irony in the fact that country after country that refused to play by the so-called "democratic rules of the game" got bombed or overthrown by NATO and the West - with Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran and others lying in ruins and societal fragmentation.

Warner: "We've had American intervention in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, Venezuela, maybe Greenland where he would blow up NATO. Did you see the Brits and Germans are putting troops in Greenland because they want to send a message. How is this leading to price stability,… pic.twitter.com/kLF5eWENJL

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 12, 2026

 But now, as Bloomberg reports, European countries are seeking to seize on Trump's talking points about Greenland being strategically crucial for Arctic security, as rival powers like Russia and China allegedly seek to move in.

"A group of European countries, led by the U.K. and Germany, is discussing plans for a military presence in Greenland to show U.S. President Donald Trump that the continent is serious about Arctic security and to try to tamp down American threats to take over the self-ruling Danish territory," reports Bloomberg.

So this seems all about creating a fresh NATO joint mission to appease Trump, soften the rhetoric, and take away one of his main geostrategic justifications for a Greenland takeover.

Bloomberg continues, "Germany will propose setting up a joint NATO mission to protect the Arctic region, according to people familiar with the plans."

This includes backing from Britain, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer having separately called on allied nations to strengthen their security footprint in the far north. Pre-planning discussions have been held with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The topic is likely to be broached when German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul meets with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week.

"Because security in the Arctic is becoming increasingly important, I also want to discuss on my trip how we can best bear this responsibility in NATO — in view of old and new rivalries in the region by Russia and China — together," Wadephul said in a statement Sunday. "We want to discuss this together in NATO."

It will be interesting to see whether the White House pursues this as an off-ramp, dropping the Greenland project, or whether Trump will read this as a ploy to co-opt forward momentum.

Selling a counter-plan based on running with the exaggerated threat and lie...

The US will defend Greenland from the US?
- Trump said that Russian and Chinese ships are around Greenland as an excuse for annexation. The Europeans know this is not true, but hope that Trump will believe his own lie to elevate the relevance of NATO? pic.twitter.com/XHr7pqSro6

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 12, 2026

Trump has said on outright seizing it, "If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor." But there have also been other creative solutions offered - such as paying each Greenlander something like $1 million in exchange for US sovereignty over the mass which could be the size of a continent. 

Currently, each citizen of Greenland is a full citizen of Denmark and of the European Union, and so many locals might not want to swap this out for being an American. However, many would likely be very attracted to some kind of huge single sum payout.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For years, some of us have argued that President Donald Trump’s January 6th speech was protected under the First Amendment and that any prosecution would collapse under governing precedent, including Brandenburg v. Ohio.  I was regularly attacked as an apologist for my criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “war on free speech.” I wrote about his history of ignoring such constitutional protections in his efforts to prosecute targets at any cost.

I also wrote how Smith’s second indictment (which the Post supported) was a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Now, years later, the Washington Post has acknowledged that Trump’s speech was protected and that Smith “would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.”

In this appearance before Congress, Smith’s contempt for the First Amendment was on full display. During his testimony, he was asked by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) whether Trump was entitled to First Amendment protections for his speech.

Smith replied:

“Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment.”

The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong.

Smith shows a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

First, the Supreme Court has held that knowingly false statements are protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims. Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the Court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

Second, calling such claims “fraud” does not convert protected speech into criminal speech. Trump was speaking at a rally about his belief that the election was stolen and should not be certified. Many citizens supported that view. It was clearly protected political speech.

As I discuss in The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” Smith’s prosecution was on a collision course with controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Smith would have lost, but he has a history of ignoring such constitutional protections. That was the case when his conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell was unanimously reversed as overextending another law.

Trump was never charged with inciting the riot despite pledges of Democratic D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine to investigate Trump for that crime.

The reason is simple. It was not criminal incitement and Trump’s speech was protected under the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, the Post and other papers ran the same experts, who assured the public that no such protections existed. For example, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe has made a litany of such claims, including his declaration that President Donald Trump could be charged (“without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt”)  with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence.

The Post has now recognized that Trump does indeed enjoy First Amendment protections and that Smith was a constitutional menace. The change reflects a commendable shift in the Post’s editorial staff under owner Jeff Bezos and his new team at the paper.

The Post wrote:

Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. It’s not unusual for politicians to take factual liberties. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.

Of course fraud is a crime. But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage. Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets ‘a lawful government function’ doesn’t work. Most political speech is aimed at influencing government functions.

Smith might think his First Amendment exception applies only to brazen and destructive falsehoods like the ones Trump told after losing the 2020 election. But once an exception is created to the First Amendment, it will inevitably be exploited by prosecutors with different priorities. Imagine what kind of oppositional speech the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.

Smith also said he makes ‘no apologies’ for the gag order he tried to impose on Trump during the prosecution. The decision to criminally charge a leading presidential candidate meant the charges would feature in the 2024 campaign. Yet Smith fought to broadly limit Trump’s ability to criticize him or the prosecution in general, claiming such statements would interfere with the legal process.

Bravo.

This is precisely the argument that some of us have been making for years, while being relentlessly pursued by the media.

This is not meant as a criticism of the Post. At least the Post is now making a serious attempt to restore objectivity and accuracy to its coverage and editorials. As for Smith, his testimony confirms the worst assessments of his view of free speech. The only thing more chilling than his lack of knowledge of constitutional doctrine is his contempt for constitutional values.

Authored by Sean Tseng via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

U.S. forces stormed into Venezuela before dawn on Jan. 3 and captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a lightning operation that punched in and out of Caracas before its air defenses could mount an effective response.

The operation resulted in no U.S. fatalities and no loss of U.S. military equipment, U.S. officials said.

The U.S. mission—code-named Operation Absolute Resolve—has quickly become more than a political shockwave. Analysts have said it was also a real-world test of U.S. military power against a country that has spent years buying Chinese- and Russian-made air-defense systems and showcasing them as proof that it could deter Washington.

The raid raised uncomfortable questions for Beijing about the limits of the Chinese-supplied systems that Venezuela has leaned on—especially “anti-stealth” radar that China advertised as capable of spotting and stopping U.S. stealth aircraft, a military analyst said.

The analyst told The Epoch Times that the most damaging takeaway for China isn’t the failure of a single piece of equipment—it’s what the operation suggested about deeper weaknesses: corruption in China’s defense industry and lack of reliability of the technology and command structure meant to tie those systems together.

“A system built to look modern on paper and intimidating in propaganda falls apart under the demands of real combat,” said Yu Tsung-chi, a retired major general from Taiwan and former president of the Political Warfare College at Taiwan’s National Defense University.

He said Beijing’s performance claims often lean more on messaging than combat validation.

China condemned the capture of Maduro and accused Washington of acting as a “world judge,” in a blunt response that underscored how closely Beijing saw the fallout tied to its influence and credibility in Latin America.

Operation Measured in Hours

President Donald Trump ordered the operation at 10:46 p.m. ET on Jan. 2, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said.

Aircraft launched from about 20 land and sea bases across the Western Hemisphere, and the helicopter force approached Venezuela at roughly 100 feet above the water to maintain the element of surprise.

Within five hours, by 3:29 a.m. ET, U.S. forces had Maduro and Flores aboard the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship. They were then flown to the United States.

U.S. officials said the operation involved more than 150 aircraft along with integrated electronic attack and nonkinetic effects from U.S. Cyber Command, Space Command, and other assets to suppress Venezuelan defenses and clear a path for the helicopters.

Briefings described a layered effects approach: bombers, fighters, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare jets, and drones overhead; space and cyber support to disrupt Venezuelan systems; and strikes intended to dismantle and disable air defenses as helicopters closed on Caracas.

According to officials, aircraft used in the operation included B-1B bombers, F-22 Raptors, F-35 Lightning II fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets, E-2 Hawkeye early warning aircraft, and numerous drones alongside transport and helicopter assets.

China’s Systems

For years, Venezuela has spent heavily on Chinese and Russian equipment while claiming that it was building one of the region’s most modern defense systems.

In recent months, reports have highlighted Venezuela’s installation of Chinese-made JY-27A radar units, marketed as able to detect “low-observable” aircraft—exactly the kind of system meant to complicate U.S. operations involving stealth platforms.

That promise did not hold on Jan. 3.

Yu said neither Chinese nor Russian air-defense systems “made the slightest bit of difference” once the United States brought real-time intelligence, electronic warfare, and precision weapons to bear.

The real contest, he said, wasn’t just radar range or missile specs, but a fast chain of detection, communications, decision-making, and joint execution—exactly where weaker militaries tend to break.

Beyond radar, Venezuela has also displayed and fielded Chinese-made ground systems that Beijing has marketed abroad—from VN-16 amphibious assault vehicles and VN-18 infantry fighting vehicles to Chinese rocket artillery systems.

Venezuelan parades in recent years have showcased those platforms as symbols of a growing partnership and a tougher military posture.

But Yu said glossy displays don’t matter much if the wider network—sensors, communications, command, training, and logistics—can’t hold up under pressure.

Parades Versus Combat Reality

Yu said the U.S. raid on Caracas exposed the limits of China’s propaganda-first military culture—one that rewards polished demonstrations more than hard, repeated combat validation.

He said the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has not fought a major war since 1979, and it studies foreign conflicts in part because it lacks large-scale, recent battlefield feedback of its own.

“You can look perfectly aligned and advanced on a parade ground,” Yu said, “but without real combat to back it up, it’s all just stage effects.”

Read the rest here...

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

What is the next worst thing to being arrested for DUI just before Christmas with a viral video of you berating an officer? Being confused with that person by irate citizens because you share the same name, Maria Bucci. It is particularly unwelcome when you are a substance abuse counselor.

On December 18, Maria Bucci, a 51-year-old Rhode Island political figure, was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving by an officer in East Greenwich. The Chairwoman of the Democratic Committee in Cranston is shown on the police bodycam video invoking her special or influential status: “You know who I am right?”

The Cranston Herald reported Bucci is a former Cranston mayoral candidate who previously served on the City Council and made an unsuccessful bid for the Rhode Island House of Representatives last year.

The officer responds by saying, “I don’t know who you are, miss. You can start throwing out names and start doing out what you need to do, it’s not going to work with me, I’m telling you right now, I’m not the guy for that.”

That only seemed to set Bucci off, who then abused the officer. The most ironic statement was the following:

“Call my husband right now, and call the attorney general and everybody else in town, cause this is disgusting, God forbid I was a Black person, I’d be arrested.”

So, after invoking a special privilege or status, Bucci attacked the officer as presumptively racist for not arresting white people for crimes that Black people are arrested for.

He then arrested her for a misdemeanor as she declared, “You’re a d**k … Like I am not drinking, you’re a loser.”

If she were drunk, it would seem a case of in vino veritas, or “in wine there is truth.” The immediate response of this politician is to reveal a deep dislike of police officers and her view of officers as inherently racist.

Bucci will have to deal with the consequences, but it should be the right Bucci. While the real Bucci asked “You know who I am, right?” some appear to have done little to answer in the affirmative before going on the attack.

The problem is that East Greenwich has a second Maria Bucci, who is also a substance abuse counselor. She was apparently deluged by trolling and angry citizens.

The “other” Maria Bucci is also from Cranston but works in East Greenwich. She is 61 years old and was surprised to find herself taking the heat for someone else over the holiday.

It was bad enough that East Greenwich News ran a story to ask people to stop harassing the poor woman, noting that the newspaper:

“typically doesn’t use names when people who get arrested unless there is a public service aspect. We did not consider Bucci’s arrest rose to that level but we are writing about it now to clarify that the Maria Bucci who works for the Town of East Greenwich is not the same Maria Bucci arrested by EGPD Dec. 18 (here is that arrest report: 25-251-AR).”

Legally, the “other” Maria Bucci could sue for a publication that falsely claims she was responsible for this viral encounter. (So far, no news organizations have committed that error). However, such litigation is expensive and trolls are notoriously difficult to track down. That leaves Maria Bucci in the unfortunate class of others who share names with notorious figures, as Dr. Jeffrey Epstein recently learned after a bizarre shoutout from ep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). Indeed, even spelling “Madoff” with one “f” does not help when you are scooped up in the sensation of a crime.

Bucci is clearly not on the same level as an Epstein or a Madoff. This is, after all, a still unproven misdemeanor. However, in the community of Cranston, Rhode Island (pop. 84,934), it is hard to shake a viral story with your name. The greatest penalty likely to befall the real Maria Bucci is the reputational damage, which should not be shared with that “other” Maria Bucci.

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) has been sounding the alarm of the profound risk in the financial system.  

At the beginning of December, Mr. Gold warned about the record setting silver prices and said, “It’s pretty clear and pretty obvious that something behind the scenes is breaking.”

What is “breaking” is the extremely leveraged futures markets with not enough physical silver to deliver.  

Fast forward to the end of the month, and new record highs in gold and silver are happening every day.  Mr. Gold says,

“They are gobbling up all the supply available because they understand this is the end of the fiat currency experiment that started August 15 of 1971.  Fiats are collapsing. 

This is the Hunt brothers on steroids because you have the entire world buying physical.  The Hunt brothers got into trouble because they were buying paper contracts, and COMEX changed the rules.  COMEX can change any rules they want . . . it won’t matter because the rest of the world is buying cash and carry . . . they will not accept paper contracts.  They want real physical metal.”

Here is where it gets both interesting and dangerous.  What happens if the short sellers cannot deliver the silver promised?  Mr. Gold says,

“People say if they can’t deliver, and I am going to tell you at some point they will not be able to deliver, when that moment happens, it’s game over for the entire financial system.  Silver, and I believe it will be silver that fails to deliver, silver is the blasting cap to the gold nuclear bomb.  When silver fails to deliver, then immediately there will be a pile into COMEX gold, and they will not be able to deliver the gold.  Once that happens, you have failures of contracts that are proven fraudulent.  They are zeroed out and cannot perform.  Then it spreads to cattle, pork bellies, grains and you name it.  This is not to mention the financials of stocks and bonds.  Once you prove fraud in silver, that’s going to spread to all the derivatives, and we will have a derivative meltdown. . .. The world wants gold and silver because those are the only two monies that cannot default.”

What you are seeing in the gold and silver markets now is far from a top.  This is just getting started.  Mr. Gold says,

“These contracts are a zero-sum game.  There is a winner and a loser.  If the loser loses so big that they go belly up, then the winner becomes a loser because they can’t get paid.  That is the problem. . .. When this actually hits and there is a failure to deliver, gold and silver will be wiped off the shelves, and there will be none to be bought. . .. This will be a run for safety, and fear is the greatest emotion there is.  Fear is a far greater emotion than greed. . .. This is going to turn into a reverse bank run into gold and into silver because they cannot default in a world that is defaulting. . ..  What you are witnessing is the end of trust.  When you have the end of trust, the confidence breaks and credit is forthcoming only when there is trust.  Once confidence breaks, the credit markets will begin to seize up. . .. When credit stops, it’s game over.  You will see markets, institutions and stores shutter.”

Holter says you should be able to be self-sufficient for a while when the system shuts down.  Storing up food and water is a good place to start.

In closing, Holter says, “This is the finale of the great financial reset.  Make no mistake, what you are watching is the world resetting before your very eyes.”

There is much more in the 43-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter/Mr. Gold as the financial system begins its reset for 12.23.25.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Fighter jets intercepted a civilian aircraft that violated restricted airspace over President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, on Dec. 21, military officials said.

The aircraft entered restricted airspace at about 9:20 a.m., prompting an F-16 fighter jet to conduct what is called a “headbutt maneuver,” in which the jet flies directly in front of a civilian plane to get the pilot’s attention, the North American Aerospace Defense Command said in a news release.

NORAD, which oversees the airspace of the United States and Canada, did not specify the type of aircraft involved or its point of origin or destination.

Temporary flight restrictions went into effect at 11:30 p.m. on Dec. 19 ahead of Trump’s arrival in Palm Beach later that night for his annual Christmas and New Year’s visit to Mar-a-Lago. The restrictions, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are set to remain in place until 6:30 p.m. on Jan. 4, 2026.

Under the restrictions, most flights are prohibited within a 10-nautical-mile radius, or about 12 miles, around Mar-a-Lago. A larger outer ring extending to 30 nautical miles, or roughly 35 miles, allows more limited aircraft movement, according to the FAA.

When an aircraft violates the restricted airspace, air traffic controllers would try to contact the pilot and instruct them to exit the area. If the pilot does not respond, NORAD may dispatch fighter jets to intercept the aircraft. Intercepting pilots may fly alongside the plane, tip their wings, release flares, or perform other maneuvers to attract the pilot’s attention.

Pilots who violate temporary flight restrictions may face penalties ranging from warnings and fines to suspension or revocation of their pilot certificates, the FAA said.

Since Trump was elected to a second term, he has made multiple weekend visits to Palm Beach County, triggering flight restrictions each time he is in town.

In early March, less than two months into Trump’s second presidency, NORAD said it had already intercepted 20 civilian aircraft for violating temporary flight restrictions near his Palm Beach residence.

A more recent incident occurred on Nov. 30 during the Thanksgiving weekend, when NORAD dispatched F-16s after a civilian aircraft entered restricted airspace. In that case, fighter jets released flares before escorting the plane out of the restricted zone, officials said.

NORAD advised pilots to carefully review all Notices to Airmen and temporary flight restrictions before they take off.

“NORAD employs a layered defense network of radars, satellites, and fighter aircraft to identify aircraft and determine the appropriate response,” officials said in the Dec. 21 statement.

“The identification and monitoring of aircraft demonstrates how NORAD executes its aerospace warning and aerospace control missions for the United States and Canada.”

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has in recent interviews repeatedly foreshadowed new revelations about improprieties in the 2020 election. He has suggested the evidence to be both voluminous and clear.

“The election was rigged in 2020. We have all the ammunition, all the stuff, and you'll see it come out. It’s coming out in truckloads,” Trump said during remarks at the White House Christmas reception this week.

He took particular aim at California, suggesting the state’s system of mailing ballots to all active registered voters is not secure.

“They mail out 38 million ballots, and they come in. Where ... do they go and where do they come from?” he said.

He said that because in 2024 he was able to win a number of heavily Hispanic districts in Florida and along the southern portion of Texas, he would also have been able to win the votes of Hispanic communities in California to the point of carrying the state. The fact that he did not, he suggested, indicated improprieties in the election process.

“It’s a rigged election in California, because we would win California by a lot,” he said. “And again, they feel they have the advantage with Hispanic. They don’t, because I won [the] Hispanic vote.”

Trump also promised evidence of 2020 election rigging several days earlier during a Dec. 9 interview with Politico’s Dasha Burns.

“It was a rigged election. Now everyone knows it. It’s going to come out over the next couple of months too. Loud and clear. Because we have all the information there,” Trump said.

The 2020 election, conducted under the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, was marred by allegations of fraud and other illegalities. The Trump campaign attempted to litigate the claims, but was not able to overturn the results in any state as many of the lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds.

An FBI investigation brought during the Biden administration and taken over by special counsel Jack Smith resulted in charges against Trump in 2023 over his efforts to challenge the official results of the election, including the appointment of several slates of alternative electors.

The prosecutors in that case filed secret subpoenas directed at more than 400 conservative organizations and individuals, including lawmakers, according to documents provided through whistleblower disclosures to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), which he released in October.

Smith dropped the case after Trump won the 2024 election, citing the inability to prosecute a sitting president.

Before the 2020 election, the FBI suppressed the issuance of intelligence from an informant alleging that the Chinese communist regime shipped tens of thousands of fake drivers licenses to the United States to be used by ineligible voters to cast ballots for Trump’s then-opponent Joe Biden, according to internal FBI communications released in July by Grassley.

The intelligence was reported internally by the Albany field office in September 2020, but FBI headquarters then asked the field office to recall it and collect more information. A field agent did so, but the report was never reissued, with the explanation that it would “contradict” congressional testimony of then-FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to released emails.

In March, Trump issued an executive order tasking the administration with ensuring that states properly check voter eligibility, including citizenship. It also tasked the Department of Justice with collecting voter fraud information from states and focusing voter fraud investigations on those states that refuse to cooperate.

The department is to use “all necessary action” to enforce laws that bar counting ballots received after Election Day.

Since May, the DOJ has been sending letters to states asking for voter registration data with the stated purpose of inspecting voter rolls to make sure they are accurate and up to date.

The department is now suing at least 18 states that have refused to provide the data.

Besides election fraud, the Trump camp has pointed to other issues that affected the 2020 election, such as some states using the pandemic as a justification to change election rules, as well as a letter signed by more than 50 former intelligence officials suggesting inaccurately that revelations from the Hunter Biden laptop were “Russian disinformation.”

Some polling has indicated that a determinative minority of voters might have changed their vote if they had been aware of the laptop story.