The Dog That Never Barked

posted by Alan Joseph Bauer at Townhall 

Many people wonder why the Iranian people did not take advantage of the pummeling of the regime to rise up. It’s complicated.

We are very fortunate to live in countries where citizens are not blindfolded and hustled into a van, never to be seen again. The worst we have for the moment can be found in England, where half of a local police force might descend on some pensioner for the sin of saying that he does not like anti-England Muslim protests. After three hours of checking which medications the old codger needs to take with him to the slammer, our dynamic police gently escort their villain off to the pokey.

I admit that I am not privy to the details of Israel’s bombing campaign over Iran. During the 12 days of war, there were many images and videos showing billowing black or white smoke in Tehran or elsewhere in the country. I have no idea if these images showed incredible destruction of government assets or the complete annihilation of a rice factory. I have no doubt that Israel did a lot of damage to Iran and its fever dream of killing every Jew in the world. Over time, more information will come out. Was the terrorocracy damaged enough to hasten its downfall? I don’t know but I doubt it.

Neither Israel nor the United States claimed that regime change was a primary goal of their fighting. Israel stated that it wished to end Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats. Israel had feared 5,000 dead from rocket attacks, and a friend of a son said that he had seen endless stacks of wooden coffins which, thank God, were never used. The number of missiles per salvo dropped quickly and usually had fewer than 10, as Israeli warplanes destroyed missiles, launchers, officers, and missile factories and infrastructure. Donald Trump put the slam dunk on the nuclear sites with the B-2 and Tomahawk attack. Each country feels that it has accomplished its goals—and a wee bit more. Both would have enjoyed seeing the mullahs fall, but neither put into play ground activities directed towards such a goal.

While the Americans and Israelis did not get a revolution started—though it may come later if the government teeters—the Iranian people woke up the day after the war to a terrified and terrorizing leadership. I have little doubt that many people will be rounded up, quickly tried, and very publicly executed. Communications and activities will be analyzed in order to pick out potential collaborators or wishers of bad luck to the mullahs and their henchmen. Everybody outside of Iran wanted the Islamic Republic to fall and mutate into something more pro-Western and less belligerent.

While I do not pretend to understand the internal dynamics of the Iranian people or their feelings towards what they want after the mullahs are in Moscow, I have a sense that the Iranian people are somewhat behind the 8 Ball. The late Shah’s son made no little effort to promote himself as being ready to take the reins of the soon-to-be post-mullah country. He said that he was in touch with police and military officials who wanted to change sides and that the Iranian people were ready for an uprising. While I am sure that Reza Pahlavi is a genuine lover of Iran and a good person to boot, insurrections need to be spontaneous more than planned. What if there are many Iranians who remember the brutality of Pahlavi’s father and are not interested in the son being the future ruler of Iran? Sure, they want to get rid of the ruthless modesty police, but they’re not willing to take a chance of losing life and limb for the return of someone they don’t want. Again, I don’t understand Iranian politics, so maybe 90 percent of the anti-mullah crowd love him. Maybe. But just maybe a lot of them want change but they don’t want him as their change. His larger-than-life presence online and in the press (“The Trump administration is in touch with him!”) may simply have turned off people who otherwise might have risked overthrowing the government. If some lefty Israeli politician who spent his whole life living it up in Europe asked me to overthrow Bibi’s government so that he can come home on his private jet and take over, I would take a hard pass.

When one looks at the dramatic downfall of Assad Jr. in Syria, it does not seem that al-Julani was preordained to become the new head of the country, even if he led the biggest faction of fighters. He led a group that fought and fought some more, and in joining forces with others, he found himself at the top of the heap. I don’t know if he would survive a democratic vote in Syria, but I know that his path to power did not involve sitting outside of the country, telling the locals what to do, and then parachuting in when the time was right. Leaders are often forged on the ground. Eisenhower catapulted over dozens of higher-ranking officers to become Allied Supreme Commander, which was a great audition for becoming president.

I truly wish the Iranian people only good. Bibi Netanyahu and the Israeli forces did everything possible to prevent the death of civilians: they avoided targets in civilian areas and/or gave notification to move prior to attacks. Bibi spoke warmly on the formerly close relations between Iran and Israel and stated repeatedly that Israel does not want to hurt Iranians, with whom Israelis have only positive opinions. No one can make a coup in Iran other than the Iranian people. And I know that the various branches of the Iranian government will be ruthless in preventing the people from rising up against their violent rule. The people have to decide if they want to continue with the Shah’s family as their leaders. If they don’t then they should make it clear that they want new leadership forged from the fight ahead.  

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 29

 

Why US Strikes on Iran Sent a Strong Message to Beijing

 Expert says dictators can’t predict Trump’s moves, making them ‘genuinely afraid of him.’

Chinese Foreign Minister Wag Yi (C) sits at the head of a meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov (Top R) and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazeem Gharibabadi (Top L) during a meeting regarding the Iranian nuclear issue at Diaoyutai State Guest House in Beijing on March 14, 2025. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) condemned the recent Israeli and American attacks on Iran’s nuclear and military installations as a violation of Iranian sovereignty. (Stringer/Getty Images)

The short-lived war between Israel and Iran has highlighted Iran’s partnerships with other U.S. adversaries, mainly Russia and communist China.

 

Though no formal alliance exists between Iran, China, Russia, and other aligned states, their political and economic relationships are often seen as a de facto coalition opposed to the U.S.-led West.

 

In line with this, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) publicly condemned the Israeli and American attacks on Iran’s nuclear and military installations as a violation of Iranian sovereignty.

 

Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Stu Cvrk, in an op-ed for The Epoch Times, said the CCP’s “long-term interests” were damaged by the conflict. He noted the Chinese regime’s extensive investments in Iran, including its early aid to Tehran’s nuclear program and its massive consumption of Iranian crude oil.

 

Cai Shenkun, an overseas Chinese independent commentator, told The Epoch Times that the decision by President Donald Trump to launch a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was not intended just to set back its nuclear program, but also to send a message to other governments with anti-U.S. leanings.

 

In previous months, Trump had earned a reputation as a businessman unwilling to involve the United States in military conflict, Cai said.

 

“But now it’s clear that these dictators can’t predict his moves, so they’re genuinely afraid of him,” he said. “Trump acts decisively—if he says he’ll strike, he won’t hesitate.”

 

He added that Trump’s willingness to aid Israel raises the possibility that his administration might not stand idle if the Chinese regime attempts to take Taiwan by force.

 

If Beijing were to “start a war in the Taiwan Strait, the United States could provide Taiwan with decapitation-strike weapons,“ he said, noting that ”CCP officials fear decapitation strikes the most.”

 

The United States joined the Israel–Iran conflict on June 21 and June 22, about a week after Israel’s first strikes. Trump ordered a long-range airstrike that involved stealth bombers dropping bunker-busting munitions on three major Iranian nuclear sites buried hundreds of feet underground.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that Iran’s technicians had enriched hundreds of pounds of uranium to 60 percent purity. With that amount enriched to 90 percent, the Iranians would have enough material to build around 10 atomic bombs, according to U.S. officials’ estimates.

 

While Iran’s partially enriched uranium stockpile remains unaccounted for, the scale of the Israeli and U.S. airstrikes, as well as the shock of Israel’s decapitation operations, has drawn attention to the weaknesses of the Iranian regime.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi (R) and Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharib Abadi (L), pose for a picture with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Chief Rafael Grossi (2nd L), in front of the gate of the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant in Isfahan, Iran, on Nov. 15, 2024. Grossi toured two Iranian uranium enrichment plants that have been the focus of Western concern, after Tehran said it was ready to address “doubts” about its ambitions. (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran/AFP via Getty Images)

Wu Jialong, an overseas Chinese commentator who focuses on analysis of economics and current events, told The Epoch Times that Israel’s strikes, plus the unprecedented American use of its heavy bunker-busting bombs to target the Iranian nuclear facilities, located 80 meters underground, has indirectly put the CCP leadership on notice.   The Communist Party rules China out of Zhongnanhai, a side building in Beijing’s Forbidden City imperial palace complex. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which is directly under the command of the CCP and its leader, Xi Jinping, has an underground command bunker at a depth of 60 meters under the Western Hills, a mountainous region at the edge of the Beijing municipal area.   “Trump decided to go ahead and strike Iran, showing the CCP that hiding in a bunker dozens of meters underground won’t protect you from the U.S. military,” Wu noted.   Cai Shenkun said that seeing Iran’s humbling experience at the hands of the much smaller Israel offers a sobering lesson for those in the CCP leadership who advocate an invasion of Taiwan, the democratically governed de facto island nation that the Chinese regime claims as its own.   “Israel pierced through Iran’s so-called defense lines, shattering the web of protections the CCP had built for it,” he said, something that does not bode well for the PLA’s own technical abilities in the event of war.

Security personnel stand guard at Zhongnanhai near Tiananmen Square ahead of China's 20th Communist Party Congress in Beijing on Oct. 13, 2022. (Noel Celis/AFP via Getty Images)

Cooperation and Dependence   Iran has been under the control of the Islamic theocracy since 1979, when it seized power in a revolution that toppled the pro-Western Shah, driving him and his family, the House of Pahlavi, into exile. Iran has henceforth maintained a hostile relationship with the United States, Israel, and other countries, with its leaders perennially calling for America’s destruction as the “Great Satan.”   While Iranian ties with Russia only improved after the fall of the Soviet Union—the Islamic authorities termed the Soviet communists the “Lesser Satan”—Tehran has long enjoyed friendly relations and strong economic links with the CCP.   Since the 1979 revolution, China has invested tens of billions in Iran, particularly for its petroleum infrastructure, and has been Iran’s largest trading partner since 2009. In 2021, China and Iran signed the Iran–China 25-year Cooperation Program, a partnership that some analysts say deepens Iran’s economic dependence on Beijing.   China imports 90 percent of Iran’s oil, according to analysis company Kpler. Oil is a critical resource for Beijing, given that China’s own oilfields are insufficient for meeting the prodigious demands of its vast industrial base and population...  Sino–Iran Cooperation Under Strain Israeli forces managed to neutralize the entire Iranian air defense network through a combination of conventional airpower and operations conducted by secret agents on the ground. Israel’s intelligence prowess was reportedly instrumental in locating the Iranian military leaders marked for assassination, one of whom was Hossein Salami, commander of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The CCP, which developed nuclear technology and tested China’s first nuclear bomb in the 1960s, provided critical aid to Iran’s nascent nuclear energy project starting in the 1980s, and signed a secret agreement with Tehran in 1990 to help it with nuclear research. Iran also sources much of its military equipment from China, which proved critical during Iran’s 1980–1988 war with Iraq. But the latest conflict with Israel has led to doubts about the effectiveness of Chinese equipment in Iranian hands, as well as how far China and Russia, which are Iran’s main backers, are able or willing to defend Tehran against the United States. “Iran is the proxy of both communist China and Russia in the Middle East,” Kuo Yu-jen, deputy director-general for Taiwan’s Institute for National Policy Research, said at a June 18 forum. He noted that the disastrous performance of Iran’s air defense forces represents an embarrassment for both Beijing and Moscow. According to a 2017 report by Jane’s Defence Weekly, cited by a Chinese media outlet, Iran’s Negah air defense command and control system, which was active at the time of the Israeli strikes, is based on the Chinese JY-10 system. The Epoch Times cannot independently verify this claim. In addition, Iran deployed what appeared to be Chinese-made Shennong 3000/5000 air defense laser systems in late 2024, but these, along with the Negah radar complexes, were easily evaded or defeated by the Israeli forces. Other air defense systems used by Iran are of Russian design. Separately, Iran has been a major supplier of military drones for Russian use in its invasion of Ukraine. An Iranian Army drone fleet is on display in a parade marking National Army Day in Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. Majid Saeedi/Getty Images https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/why-us-strikes-on-iran-sent-a-strong-message-to-beijing-5877886?utm_source=PR_article_paid&utm_medium=email&est=fBe%2FF3ykuQ2JU%2BX6ST7upt2X957fALze6alB0mJC7iTMEp73GezF%2B41o1D99hZ69QBFm&utm_campaign=pr-2025-06-29-ca

The No Kings Farce Rolls On

posted by Scott Hogenson at Townhall 

The nascent No Kings effort is laden with absurdities and has been since its inception. It has a catchy name but like most leftist agitprop, it’s entirely vapid and seemingly merged with a gaggle of like minded progressive brands. The irony began during its June 14 debut, when No Kings misled millions of people into taking to the streets, none of whom were arrested for peacefully protesting because there was no king to order their arrest.

Aging militants denouncing kings, the oligarchy, or whatever else they’re told to denounce, seemed oblivious to the fact that foreign billionaires and domestic billionaires bankrolled the protest, or that the heir to a foreign oligarch’s billions married a long-time Hillary Clinton confidant in a tony Hamptons wedding attended by America’s wealthy elite - on the same day. 

But No Kings isn’t finished. It’s planning another mobilization next month. After urging protesters to wave American flags during the June protests to show how much they love America, they're protesting for independence from kings on July 4. Makes sense. But like everything else about No Kings, the follow-up protests, including another one planned for mid-July, are senseless too. 

An email from No Kings invites people to “Be a part of the next mass mobilization on July 17 with Good Trouble Lives On.” This mid-week event, which shares its name with a cancelled Disney TV series whose finale attracted some 70,000 viewers, promises more absurdities. To be fair, Good Trouble was an award winning show. It was among 107 programs to earn a prestigious ReFrame Stamp Award in its final season. 

The July 17 protest urges people “to respond to the attacks posed on our civil and human rights by the Trump administration,” yet fails to note which of our rights are under attack. Whatever these threats are, they’re apparently serious. No Kings tells its congregants, “We are facing the most brazen rollback of civil rights in generations.” Which civil rights are being brazenly rolled back? Nobody knows. 

The date was chosen to commemorate the death of former congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis. Lewis achieved notoriety for his dogged protests against bigoted Democrat politicians in the south who sought to deprive black Americans of their civil and human rights. Lewis also demonstrated against Democrats trying to protect the Ku Klux Klan and maintain the party’s racist Jim Crow policies. Think of it: No Kings Democrats want other Democrats to march in  the streets to acknowledge a man who fought against their racist fellow Democrat Klansmen. 

Everything No Kings says and does is preposterous, so it’s tempting to write them off as just another example of leftist agitation. But that would be a mistake. For all the bumper sticker slogans embraced by No Kings, it’s a force to be reckoned with. It is well funded, well organized nationally and locally, and has a firm grasp of the messaging and technology necessary to incite people to gather in large numbers. It will likely eclipse the Move On campaign that sprouted in the wake of Bill Clinton’s impeachment nearly 30 years ago, and remains active today. Move On was spawned in defense of a president’s sexual appetites and it continues to champion various sexual proclivities. 

It’s too early to tell whether the No Kings event next month will get the same traction as its curtain raiser. Given the aging demographics of many attendees at the June 14 protests, it might attract some people in their dotage with nothing better to do on a Thursday aside from trying to relive the glory days of the American campus protest movement 60 years ago. For all we know, it may be that some of these elderly people inadvertently took the brown acid at Woodstock. 

July 17 isn’t a make-or-break moment for the No Kings movement but it will be telling. Promoting an event using false and vaguely worded threats, built around the legacy of an actual civil rights leader who battled Democrat-imposed racism, seems a risky bet. The slender thread on which the group’s follow-up protest hangs could yield a giant flop. If it does flop, the establishment media can be counted on to provide the cover smoke organizers need to conceal their failure. But it could show how easily it can manipulate those in its target audience, and we may again see millions of belligerents disrupting the lives of ordinary Americans by clogging our streets and sidewalks.

Regardless of the results next month, it’s unwise to dismiss the No Kings campaign and the monied interests behind it. The group may be farcical but it has clout and following Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s New York City mayoral primary win this week, it’ll grow faster still. The goal is to agitate and divide people, just as their Bolshevik and Marxist predecessors did more than a century ago. We ignore them at our peril.

How Could Anyone Support These People?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

That the Democratic Party is a clown car stuffed with perverts, weirdos, and mutants who are not ready to deal with the fact that their parents never really loved them is a bit of a harsh assessment, but the truth sometimes is. Why their parents didn’t like them is understandable, honestly, but why others do is a mystery. So I thought I’d take a look at just a few of the “leaders on the left” whose existence makes me question how anyone, at least anyone not currently drunk or on serious drugs, could support these people.

Nancy Pelosi. The fish rots from the head, no matter how much work that head has had done, and Nancy Pelosi’s head has had a team with serious power tools hammering away at it for decades. In addition to her speaking like she has a mouth full of under-cooked eggs, her forehead could move on a dare, and it’s likely her ears are close enough to touch in the back of her head. What I’m saying is she’s an ugly person, inside and out, and one of the nastiest creatures you would ever find outside of your fridge. 

She’s corrupt, too, did I mention that? Her net worth has increased at a higher percentage than yours, unless you won the lottery, every year she’s been doing “public service.” On a government salary, she and her husband, Paul, have amassed a net worth of $400 million. They’ve managed to do this without founding a single company or manufacturing anything. That’s a testament to capitalism: someone can take money and, through access to information the general public does not have, turn it into significantly more money every single year.

The Pelosi’s accomplish this while decrying “wealth inequality” and the “unfairness” of capitalism. Well, they would know. That anyone would look to Nancy as a leader in anything except what stocks to sell and when is a mystery.

Democrats hate the wealthy, at least those who made their money honestly and through creating things, like Elon Musk. But if you were born on 3rd base and act like you hit a triple, the left will praise you. George Soros didn’t build anything; he manipulated the value of currencies and used illegal insider information to build his fortune. He’s exactly who Democrats, on paper anyway, would decry as a corrupt fraud, but he’s their corrupt fraud. 

There isn’t a single anti-American organization or movement that doesn’t have George’s greasy fingerprints on it. As he gets ready to die (I’m not being mean, he’s 94), he’s passed the torch with which he hopes to burn your freedoms to his son, Alex. He’s now the “leader” of the left-wing – the new Daddy Sorosbucks – who recently married into the Democratic Party establishment when he wed Hillary Clinton’s right hand and Anthony Weiner’s cast off, Huma Abedin. He’s going to be around for a while…unless he crosses Hillary or Bill, just ask their buddy Jeffrey.

Chuck Schumer. I don’t know how this guy lives with himself. He wrote a book decrying anti-Semitism, then had to cancel most of his book tour and hire extra security for the appearances he was able to do, because the anti-Semitic base of his own party wanted to kill him for voting to avoid a government shutdown. And still, he’s leading the charge against President Trump bombing the Iranian nuclear program back into the Stone Age. That is an astonishing level of hypocrisy, even for a Democrat.

Out of fear of being challenged in a primary from the left, Chuck has praised the anti-American, anti-Semite his party nominated to be their candidate for Mayor of New York City. Did Chuck not read his own book? Honestly, there were always people willing to work with evil for their own survival, but Chuckie is 74. How many more years is he planning on staying in office? Did nothing he’s ever said or voted for before now matter? Are principles so foreign to him that he’d whore his own soul out to the radicals of his own party for another term and a promise to be killed last?

Of course, his net worth has gone from a reported $1.1 million in 2018 to $7 million now, so prostitution pays, I guess.

These are just three of the “old school” Democrats committed to ruining America until their last breath, next week I’ll look at the next generation of fraudsters looking to rape your wallet and rip away your liberties. If you thought hypocrisy would die with these phonies, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. 

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

France Undermining U.S Strategy in the Middle East

posted by Kamran Bokhari at Townhall 

U.S. President Donald Trump established a ceasefire between Israel and Iran on June 24th. The cessation of hostilities comes after Washington’s precision strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – a highly limited operation involving U.S. strategic bombers and submarines. At a time like this, Trump expects U.S. allies to step up and help. However, France has been so busy trying to set its own course that Paris often works at cross purposes with Washington.

Relations between the United States and France had been deteriorating,but are now on a clear downward spiral. While Trump appreciates the pomp and circumstance in Paris, there is significant divergence in interests between the two long standing allies. This is playing itself out in Europe, where a new security architecture is in the making. Trump wants America to reduce commitments and have the Europeans pick up the burden in Ukraine and for European security in general.

The clash is even more pronounced in the much more fragile Middle East. The domestic political imperatives of French President Emmanuel Macron have repeatedly complicated Trump’s efforts to force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

In a June 17 social media post, President Trump had harsh words for his French counterpart. Trump referred to Macron as a “publicity-seeking” leader who gave an inaccurate reason for the American leader’s early departure from the G7 summit held in Alberta, Canada. Denying that he had to return to Washington to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, Trump went on to say that Macron “has no idea why” he was returning home and that it was for a much bigger purpose, not a ceasefire. Trump went on to conclude: “Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong.”

These remarks underscore a much bigger rift between the two countries rather than a momentary clash between two key Western leaders. France and America are not on the same page when it comes to the shift in the U.S. strategy for  managing global affairs. France harbored Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic who overthrew the Shah. The French enabled the Islamist regime’s takeover because they knew how anti-American it was. The US leadership under President Jimmy Carter failed to support the ailing Shah and allowed the strategic disaster to happen.

In Europe, Macron has been calling for strategic autonomy since 2017, which Trump sees as a way to continue to rely on the United States for security while sidelining American leadership. Traveling to the June 2025 G7 summit, Macron made a stopover in Greenland, not so subtly telegraphing that he opposes the American leader's efforts to acquire the semi-autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty. Addressing reporters alongside Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the French leader warned that the island nation was under the threat of "predatory ambition," adding that the situation should serve as a wake-up call for all Europeans.

There is no rush for the United States to settle matters related to European security, which means France’s moves do not pose an immediate challenge to the American strategy vis-a-vis the Continent. However, the situation in the Middle East since Hamas’ Oct 7, 2023 attack has been increasingly volatile. Especially now, with the U.S. bombing Iranian nuclear targets in support of Israel’s military offensive aimed at preventing Iran from crossing the nuclear Rubicon. In this context, Macron’s positioning is terribly unhelpful.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the G7 summit, the French President openly opposed  military action against Iran, warning that it could lead to regime collapse and chaos. Macron said: "....the biggest error would be to use military strikes to change the regime because it would then be chaos.” Such a stance is not only based on the false assumption that the U.S. is pursuing a strategy of regime change, but it also undermines U.S. efforts to force the Iranian regime to alter its behavior.

Macron then went on to criticize past U.S. actions in the Middle East saying: "Does anyone think that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was a good idea? Does anyone think that what was done in Libya the next decade was a good idea? No!" This is ironic coming from the leader of the country that, together with Italy, spearheaded the intervention to remove former Libyan dictator Col Muammar Qaddafi. While the U.S. move to effect regime change in Iraq and the intervention in Libya both proved disastrous, the Trump Administration is not seeking regime change in Iran.

Macron’s statements thus work against U.S. efforts to deal with a very complex and difficult situation. They also have had the effect of weakening the global consensus that Iran cannot be permitted to attain nuclear weapons, which provides space for the Iranian regime to exploit to its advantage.

Macron’s weakened political position at home is driving his aggressive stance towards the U.S. and his moves against Israel. Left-wing and centrist French voters have become more vocal in condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and demanding that France take a tougher stance against the Jewish state. The situation feeds into the agenda of political Islamist elements in the country.

According to a new state-commissioned report, local affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood in France are engaged in a long-term campaign to subvert the nation’s secular fabric and institutions. The report recommended that the government take steps to counter a gradual proliferation of "political Islam", which threatens national cohesion. This prompted Macron to hold a meeting of senior members of his Cabinet in late May to find ways to address the problems. So the lame duck French president finds himself caught between the Right and Left on this issue while also trying to ensure that seeking to put domestic Islamist extremism in check will not alienate France’s Muslims, who comprise roughly 10% of the population.

Unfortunately, Macron’s solution to the challenges he faces across the political spectrum is to appear defiant of the United States and critical of Israel, a traditionally winning position in French politics. In this volatile era, this means France cannot be relied upon as a dependable ally in U.S. efforts to stabilize the Middle East. On the contrary, Paris is actively undermining both American interests and its two and a half centuries-old friendship with the U.S.

Far-Left Comedian Blames Trump for Her Overeating, Alcohol Abuse, and Depression

Sarah Arnold reporting for Townhall 

So-called comedian and one-time actress Rosie O’Donnell is blaming President Donald Trump for her being depressed after he returned to the White House. In a recent interview, O’Donnell shared that the stress of Trump’s presidency drove her to unhealthy habits, blaming him for her problem of overeating and over-consumption of alcohol.

During an interview with former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on"The Chris Cuomo Project" podcast, O’Donnell said that Trump’s presidency drove her to a dark place that resulted in her forming a poor diet and abusing alcohol. She even found herself living in Ireland out of a sense of “self-preservation.” 

“During his first go-around, it was very difficult, and I got myself into some bad places,” she said. “You know, I was very, very depressed. I was overeating. I was overdrinking… I was so depressed.”

Trump and O’Donnell’s longtime feud began in 2006, when the far-left comedian, O’Donnell, a co-host on The View at the time, criticized Trump for his handling of the Miss USA scandal involving Tara Conner. O’Donnell accused the president of being a “snake-oil salesman” and mocked his personal life and finances. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe Organization at the time, immediately fired back with a series of personal attacks, calling her a "loser," "fat little Rosie," and "a woman out of control.”

Their feud escalated during one of the 2015 Republican primary debates when Trump was asked about his history of calling women names. He infamously responded, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” Since then, O’Donnell has used her platform to criticize the president and participate in anti-Trump rallies, claiming he is dangerous, mentally unfit, and a threat to democracy.

In March, during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump stated that the Irish people would be “less happy” if they continued to allow O’Donnell to live in their country.

“Ireland is known for very happy, fun-loving people, great attitude, many in this room right now that I’ve met… Why in the world would you let Rosie O’Donnell move to Ireland? I think she’s going to lower your happiness level,” he said. 

The Democrats Are Disintegrating. Could a New Party Step in?

posted by Ward Clark at RedState 

To those of us who pay attention to politics, it's becoming abundantly clear that the American Democratic Party stands at a crossroads. They have been largely taken over by the far left; the AOC wing now seems to overshadow the Fetterman wing of the party, and some recent elections are showing how well that's working for them. Not least among those is last November's presidential election, in which President Trump and Vice President Vance defenestrated the Democrat candidates, Kamala "Queen of Word Salads" Harris and Tim "Great Walz of China."

Nationally, the Democratic Party's polling approval numbers are on a par with pond scum. What's more, the recent New York mayoral primary seems to be showing that the party is more than willing to double down on stupid. That may work in deep blue New York City, but it's not a good plan for playing the political game on a national scale. If they keep this up, the Democrats will devolve into a niche party for coastal elites, far-left academics, and the dependency class. 

That would seem to be a gift to Republicans, but nature abhors a vacuum, and with the Democrats exiting stage left (hah), might a new centrist or center-left party arise to fill that gap?

Two years ago, I wrote about the New Whig Party, which was at the time selling itself as a centrist party. 

At that time, I wrote (Note, links from the original story are no longer valid and have been removed):

While the modern Whigs are not really a political party, as they neither present nor campaign for political candidates, they do put forth a slate of interesting, if somewhat unclear, policy positions.

Here is how the Modern Whig Institute describes itself:

The Modern Whig Institute is a 501(c)(3) civic research and education foundation dedicated to promoting the fundamental American principles of representative government, ordered liberty, capitalism, due process and the rule of law.

A think tank, in plain English. And their history:

Throughout our history, American Whigs have unflinchingly stood for representative government, robust civic associations, individual rights, ordered liberty, social and economic progress, modernization, public education, a vibrant legislative branch, and ongoing cooperation between the public and private sectors.

There is now a Modern Whig Institute, a think tank, in essence. The policy page, though, makes them look not really center-left, but more moderate right with some libertarian ideas tossed in. Could that appeal? Well, they aren't (yet) a political party as such. They have put forth no candidates. They have offered the electorate nothing but talk. The nation needs more than talk. 

Still, there may be an opportunity here, given the Democrats' increasingly loony candidates.

Where in the spectrum would a new party, to be successful, fit?

I'm inclined to point out that there's a big gap at the moment in the center-left. The mainstream of the Democratic Party in 1980 was nothing like it is today; there was far less obvious nuttiness (although there was some). But a party like that, trying to encroach on the Democrats' historic turf, would have little more effect than to split left-of-center voters and ensure the Republican Party comfortable majorities for some time to come. 

I know, it's hard to see a downside in that. But that kind of situation won't last.

Take a look at the demise of the original Whig Party. Their last president, Millard Fillmore, left office in 1853. The White House was held by Democrats Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan until 1860, when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the presidency. During that time, eight years, more or less, the Whigs disintegrated, and the Republicans arose, in large part, as the party of abolition. It happened quickly, in other words. 

The Democrats are disintegrating now, but there doesn't seem to be any new party coming up to replace them, quickly or slowly.

Are there any candidates? Who would it be? 

The Libertarian Party? While I have strong small-l libertarian leanings myself on a range of issues, the Libertarian Party seems to be good at only one thing, and that is falling on their swords in the name of principle; also, a party that favors the Second Amendment won't appeal to the left. 

The Green Party? Boy, howdy, if you think the Democrats are going nuts, trust me, the Greens are already there and have been for some time. 

No Labels? No candidates. No coherent policy positions. No nothing. No kidding. 

The Constitution Party? They are as far-right as the Greens are far-left; that's not a recipe for winning a national majority, not to mention the presidency.

There are other parties, but these are the only ones that are on the ballots in more than two or three states.

Speaking of the presidency, well, that's the big prize, isn't it? Any new party would have to be placed on the ballot in most, if not all, 50 states and the District of Columbia in one election cycle to have a shot at winning; it's a near-impossibility to win the electoral vote count without that.

So, yes - the Democrats are disintegrating. Part of their disintegration is the fact that they just have no candidates who can appeal on the national stage. But therein lies the larger problem: There are, as yet, no viable parties that can appeal on the national stage to replace them. 

For the time being, things look like they will go on as they are.

Chinese Company GE Moves Washer/Dryer Manufacturing to USA

GE Appliances is a subsidiary of the Haier company, which is based in China.  Most people do not know that.  GE Appliances are Chinese appliances.

The recent headline about GE Appliances moving their production from China to the USA (Kentucky), is simply an outcome of the need for GE to avoid steel, aluminum and reciprocal trade tariffs.  This is not complicated.

FOX NEWS – GE Appliances on Thursday said it would spend $490 million to move the production of most of its washing machines from China to Kentucky.

The operation will move to the company’s massive industrial Appliance Park headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, where it already manufactures washers and dryers. At least 800 new full-time jobs are expected to be created, the company said in a news release.

“We are bringing laundry production to our global headquarters in Louisville because manufacturing in the U.S. is fundamental to our ‘zero-distance’ business strategy to make appliances as close as possible to our customers and consumers,” said GE Appliances president and CEO Kevin Nolan. “This decision is our most recent product reshoring and aligns with the current economic and policy environment.”

The investment will bring more than 15 washer models to Building 2 in Appliance Park at the company headquarters, bringing the total area of clothes care production to the equivalent of 33 football fields. (more)

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Digital Services Taxes

 The digital economy has grown two and a half times faster than the global GDP over the last 15 years, fundamentally changing how businesses operate in foreign markets. International tax codes haven’t kept pace with its rapid expansion until recently.

Many multinational corporations don’t have a physical presence in countries where they conduct business. Consequently, some companies have avoided paying taxes using base erosion and profit sharing (BEPS) strategies, which exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules among different countries. BEPS corporate tax planning strategies are harmful for countries, especially developing countries, that rely on corporate income tax.

The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has been working with governments, policymakers, and citizens around the globe to standardize international taxation via the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (OECD Inclusive Framework).

OECD and taxation of the digital economy

The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework seeks to address tax challenges that have arisen from the digitalization of the economy through its two-pillar solution.

Pillar One nexus rules

Pillar One establishes new nexus and profit allocation rules for large multinational enterprises (MNE) that meet certain revenue and profitability thresholds. The pillar broadens the ability of countries to tax commercial activities occurring within their borders regardless of a company’s physical presence or market jurisdiction. Pillar One also aims to improve tax certainty through effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms.

These new Pillar One nexus rules establish fixed returns for baseline marketing and distribution activities within a market jurisdiction. For an MNE to be subject to tax in a market jurisdiction, it must have a nexus within that jurisdiction. The OECD rejects any type of qualitative approach and instead establishes nexus based on a fixed market revenue threshold of €1 million in revenue within a market jurisdiction. For smaller jurisdictions with a GDP less than €40 billion, the nexus is €250,000.

Under the Draft Model Rules there is a 12-month nexus revenue threshold period, which can be adjusted proportionally for any period that is shorter or longer than 12 months.

Pillar Two global minimum corporate tax

Pillar Two establishes two mechanisms to ensure that large multinational companies pay a 15% minimum tax regardless of where they’re headquartered or the jurisdictions in which they operate.

Subject to Tax Rule

The Subject to Tax Rule (STTR) applies when an intragroup payment is subject to a nominal tax rate in a payee jurisdiction that is below the minimum rate.

Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Rules

The Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Rules apply a global minimum tax on certain MNEs that are subject to tax on their profits below a 15% minimum effective tax rate (ETR). MNEs will calculate their additional “top-up tax” liability using a specified formula to first determine their ETR and then the top-up tax:

1.    Identify MNE groups and constituent entities within scope

2.    Calculate GloBE income

3.    Calculate covered taxes

4.    Calculate the ETR and top-up tax

5.    Allocate the top-up tax

The OECD has been working to implement these changes since 2013 but has had difficulties. Not all member jurisdictions have agreed to the two-pillar solution yet, which has pushed its implementation date from 2023 to 2024. So far, 140 OECD members have joined the framework.

The United States is a signatory of the OECD. 

The United States was one of the 20 founding member countries that signed the Convention of the OECD in 1960.

https://pro.bloombergtax.com/insights/international-tax/understanding-digital-services-taxes-the-oecd/