Tuesday, July 15, 2025

War Takes Everything


As Peter Schweizer noted in a short report for the Hoover Institution on Christmas Day 2000, twenty-five years ago the United States was “spending less on defense as a percentage of GNP than anytime since the Great Depression.”  That all changed nine months later when the so-called “peace dividend” from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was reinvested in a “Global War on Terrorism.”  

Eight trillion dollars later, and what do Americans have to show for their sacrifices in blood and treasure?  The Taliban is in control of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda is in control of Syria, an apologist for Islamic jihad is about to become mayor of New York City, and a pro-Hamas contingent of lawmakers wields too much power in Congress.  

In an article that resembles an obituary for U.S. foreign policy during the twenty-first century, writer Daniel McAdams dryly observes in the headline, “‘Global War on Terror’ Is Over.  Terror Won.”  That’s quite the gut punch for everyone who lived through 9/11 and its aftermath.  Yet it’s hardly inaccurate.  

A quarter-century after Islamic terrorists murdered three thousand Americans, politicians are more concerned about “Islamophobia” in the United States than providing adequate care for veterans who confronted Islamic barbarity head-on.  The hurt feelings of those who risked nothing to defend the homeland matter more than the damaged bodies and minds of those who risked everything.  

The significance of 9/11 has been so watered-down that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar remembers it only as a day when “some people did something.”  For the victims we lost, their families, members of the military who fought and died on the global battlefield, and the families of those servicemembers who never saw their loved ones again, that “something” was — by far — the most consequential event in their lives.  Now it’s just an opportunity for foreigners who become members of Congress to guilt-trip white people for their imaginary “privilege.” 

After 9/11, everybody insisted that we left our guard down and somehow brought the tragedy upon ourselves.  If we had only continued spending on defense at the same high levels that we had been spending since WWII, then we could have prevented the worst attack on American soil since the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.  That was the supposed lesson.  It didn’t matter that we were still spending more than every other country in the world; as soon as we cut back on Cold War military spending, we suffered another surprise attack.  We were vulnerable, everyone agreed, unless we rededicated tax dollars toward huge military budgets.  

Everybody in the defense sector got big buckets of money after that.  Weapons manufacturers, research and development firms, intelligence think tanks, and foreign policy consultants made out like bandits.  The FBI got new domestic surveillance powers.  The Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration came into existence.  The CIA positioned itself once again as the unofficial quarterback of the U.S. government.  Unelected bureaucrats, in other words, became much more powerful than they were before 9/11, and the defense industry started cashing much bigger checks.  All the institutions that experienced a diminishment of clout and prestige after the Cold War found their clout and prestige supercharged in the post-9/11 world.  That’s a pretty sobering reminder that some people always benefit from tragedy.

How did the American people make out?  Not so well.  In return for a foreign attack on U.S. soil, American citizens lost any claims to their privacy.  The Patriot Act (apparently already written and ready to be signed into law as soon as a sufficient emergency could justify its passage in Congress) birthed the modern national security surveillance State.  Americans lost control over their bank records, phone calls, text messages, and emails.  It became common to hear politicians justify this loss of personal privacy as a trifling matter for Americans with nothing to hide.  On 9/11, foreign terrorists murdered U.S. citizens; after 9/11, the U.S. government murdered the Fourth Amendment.

Americans also saw the accelerated migration of foreign nationals into their local communities.  Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama seemed to agree that American citizens were responsible not only for prosecuting a “Global War on Terrorism” but also for resettling “refugees” from newly occupied territories into the United States.  The end result has been a confusing and disruptive injection of multiculturalism this century.  Had Americans known that defending their way of life would involve importing millions of foreign nationals with a different way of life, many never would have supported post-9/11 wars in parts of Asia and Africa and across the Middle East.

Effectively, the U.S. government responded to the worst attack since WWII by going to war for two decades, tearing up parts of the Constitution, and undermining Americans’ shared culture.  Those politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. who have seen their powers expand this century believe the enormous costs in lives and dollars are justified.  Those industries that profit from endless war have had much to celebrate.  For many Americans, however, the butcher’s bill from this century’s military conflicts has not been pretty.

Right now the drumbeat of war is growing louder.  U.S. and European interests see Ukraine as an expendable chess piece in a larger NATO-led war against Russia.  As the death toll in Europe rises, Western war-hawks continue to demand that every last Ukrainian man be press-ganged into service.  I have made no secret of my contempt for those who insist that Ukrainians die in this war when they are not permitted to vote for elected representatives or even to dissent publicly from the government currently hanging onto power through martial law.  There is nothing “democratic” about this Ukrainian dictatorship.

I dislike the Council on Foreign Relations types who lick their chops over the possibility of defeating Russia and dismantling its enormous territory into more digestible parts.  I dislike the BlackRock vultures that can’t wait to gobble up the region’s natural resources while making trillions of dollars from government-subsidized rebuilding projects across the war-torn terrain.  I dislike the bloodthirsty loudmouths, such as Lindsey Graham, who speak of war as if it’s a playground game.  I dislike the Machiavellian politicians (particularly in Europe) who see the War in Ukraine as a convenient distraction from the exorbitant energy costs of “climate change” communism presently destroying Western economies.  I dislike those who would risk miscalculations between nuclear powers over former Soviet lands whose peoples largely identify as Russian.  I dislike those who prefer that Russian and Ukrainian Christians kill each other rather than seek peace.

Before we ratchet up the slaughter in Europe and expand the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine into something even more devastating than it already is, consider how much we’ve sacrificed this century.  The “peace dividend” following the Cold War didn’t even last a decade.  When the United States committed itself to a post-9/11 “Global War on Terrorism” for the next twenty years, we watched our Bill of Rights and culture slip away.  Whether one thinks the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth their costs, those costs will look minuscule next to the butcher’s bill that will come due in a full-out war between Russia and U.S.-NATO.  Those European and American parents who believe that their children will never be drafted into service should remember that Ukrainian parents once believed the same thing.

There is an abyss before us.  If we fall into it, we will lose ourselves.  The madness will be bloody and awful, and we will be lucky to see it through.  War takes everything.  It robs everyone.  I pray that we can avoid it.



On the Fringe, Red Pill News, and more- July 15

 



The Rise of the Islamo-Nazi Left in America


Recently, Ken Martin, chair of the Democrat National Committee, said this about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada”: “We win by bringing people into [our] coalition.  And, at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead.  We are a big tent party.”  Astute observers will note that Mr. Martin himself — though admitting he does not “agree 100% of the time” with other Democrats — fails to denounce the intifada, which is “a violent act of opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.”

The notion of a global intifada is what antisemitic protesters have used to target their victims on college campuses — forcing Jews away from academic areas of the campus unless they agree to renounce Judaism; ripping mezuzahs, traditional Jewish religious symbols, from their doors and setting them ablaze; burning Jews themselves, by means of Molotov cocktails, as they marched peacefully for the release of Gaza hostages; and murdering Jews, who were minding their own business, in the name of globalizing the intifada.  It is Democrats only who welcome these promoters of murderous mayhem into their “big tent.”

There can be no denying that the Democrats have been morphing into Nazi-style fascists, right here on American soil.  Richard Larsen’s assessment is that “American statism is fascistic and distinctly characteristic of the political left.”  Consider the following commentary on Hitler’s National Socialism: “Those who refer to Nazism as ‘right-wing’ are politically ill-informed and have fallen for Stalin’s tactic of referring to them as such.  One scholar makes the point that Nazism is to Communism what Pepsi is to Coke: basically the same but with a little different flavor.”

While Nazi leader Adolf Hitler never used the word “intifada” upon calling for the annihilation of the Jews — as Islamo-Nazi leader Zohran Mamdani did when he predicted a looming third Intifada as early as 2015 — the German Führer did lament the Muslims’ loss of the Battle of Tours in October 732:

Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone.  Then the German races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

The Palestinian grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meeting with Hitler in Berlin, on November 28, 1941, declared that Germans and Arabs shared the same enemies: “the English, the Jews, and the Communists.”  According to Time Magazine, al-Husseini “also asked Hitler to declare publicly, as the German government had privately, that it favored ‘the elimination of the Jewish national home’ in Palestine.”  In other words, he wanted Hitler to state that “from the River to the Sea,” Palestine should be free of Jews — Judenrein.

The Jewish Virtual Library reports this history:

In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders.  He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.  The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East.  One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine.  Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”

Hitler’s friend, Albert Speer, made the following remarks concerning Islam:

You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion.  Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?  The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us [Germans] than Christianity.  Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

Also, according to Speer, “Had the Arabs won ... [at Tours], the world would be Mohammedan today. ... The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion ... so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.”

In January 1944, Heinrich Himmler made the following remarks to a group of Bosnian Muslim military commanders in Silesia:

What is there to separate the Muslims in Europe and around the world from us Germans?  We have common aims.  There is no more solid basis for cooperation than common aims and common ideals.  For 200 years, Germany has not had the slightest conflict with Islam. 

The head of the SS then addressed the fact that Germany and Islam had common enemies: “the Bolsheviks, England, America, all constantly driven by the Jew.”

The Nazis of yesteryear loved Islam, as do the European and American leftists of today who promote the same antisemitic, anti-Christian, Islamo-Nazi philosophy of Hitler and al-Husseini.  For example, modern-day Democrats turn a blind eye to the Muslim death penalty for gays and transexuals, as well as the Muslim groomers and rape gangs that terrorize girls and women.

In England, the permanent and ongoing worsening of all matters Islam-related was heralded by the rise of Sadiq Khan to the mayoralty of London.  The fate of New York in its upcoming mayoral election may also prove to be a harbinger on the American left.  Mamdani has already proven his terrorist-sympathizing Islamo-Nazi credentials to the satisfaction of most Republicans and some Democrats as well.  The Hill reports that Democrat representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is Jewish, has said, “To not be willing to condemn the term ‘globalize the intifada,’ it just demonstrates his callous disregard for antisemitism, terrorist activity. ... It’s really terribly disturbing and potentially dangerous.”

Will New Yorkers embrace Islamo-Nazism?  Only time will tell.



So, You Want to Be a Leftist, Huh


I’m convinced that the “average” Democratic voter has no clue about the true ideology of Leftism and the Democratic Party. Historically, they are (excuse me) as dumb as rocks, and they probably don’t even know what the word “ideology” means. Now, the Obamas, Pelosis, Schumer, etc., know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are godless, globalist, Marxist-Leninists who are deliberately trying to destroy the traditional values and beliefs of the United States of America. But the average Democratic Party voter isn’t nearly that educated.

So, I want to help them out a little here. If you want to be a leftist, here is what you have to believe, and here is some history of your ideology.

1. The first thing you have to do to be a Leftist is to be full of hate. Vladimir Lenin, of Marxism/Leninism fame, the man who ramrodded the Russian Revolution of 1917 and foisted communism upon the world, wrote, “We must hate—hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” And, "hatred is truly the ‘beginning of all wisdom.’” This is a fairly obvious characteristic of Leftists; just look at their feelings towards Donald Trump. To be a Leftist, you have to hate as your primary human characteristic. Vladimir Lenin, one of their founders, said so. Wisdom begins with hatred.

2. If you want to be a Leftist, you also have to be a liar. Lenin again: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Just keep repeating the lie until enough people believe it. All politicians lie, of course, but it is inherent in Leftist ideology. If you want to be a Leftist, you have to be a liar. They go hand in hand.

3. If you want to be a Leftist, you have to be an atheist. Lenin: “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” Karl Marx: “Communism begins where atheism begins.” Keep in mind that these two men are among the great philosophers and thinkers of modern Leftism, specifically Marxism-Leninism and communism. This is Leftism. Leftism is not just a bunch of political beliefs that Democrats hold in opposition to Trump and Republicans. It is an entire system of thought. Atheism is a way of life, a denial of God and everything He stands for. That’s Leftism. If you want to be a Leftist, be consistent.

4. If you want to be a Lefty, you have to be violent. Lenin: “You cannot make a revolution in white gloves.” The Democratic Party Leftists are trying to “revolutionize” America, change it from its traditional limited government, capitalistic, personal responsibility, Judeo-Christian roots, to a government-dominated, socialist, morally “live and let live,” “everybody does that which is right in his own eyes” country. Revolutions, Lenin said, can’t be done without violence. Remember George Floyd.

5. If you want to be a Leftist, you have to be willing to destroy the middle class. Lenin: "The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” Joe Biden, anyone?

6. Let’s look at some of the history of Leftist philosophy as it was played out by Vladimir Lenin in his revolution:

--He gave Cheka, his secret police, the right to torture or kill without trial or any judicial supervision.

--Within 2 years, Cheka had 20,000 men and women with the power to kill and torture.

--The number of innocent people imprisoned is unknown, but it was in the millions. One of the Cheka’s favorite methods was to soak people’s hands in gloves in boiling water and then yank off the gloves, pulling off the skin. 

--The Cheka made belts for themselves from the skin off people’s backs.

--People’s arms and legs were broken, and they were tossed into the river.

 --Hundreds of people were put on a barge with a large leak in it in the middle of the Volga River. The people had to continually bail out the water. Eventually, too weary to do so, they all sank and drowned. This actually was a favorite tactic of the communists. Some people were tied up with barbed wire and eventually washed up on beaches.

--They stole whatever they wanted, even from each other, and there were no legal repercussions. California looting in advance.

--“Who should feel sorry for killing a counter-revolutionary?” one murderer said. That sounds like some Leftists in America today speaking about Donald Trump.

--“Indescribable horrors” were reportedly taking place in Moscow. “Soldiers and workers are walking up to their knees in blood.” 

--An old colonel was roasted alive in the furnace of a locomotive. One officer was thrown headfirst into a ship’s furnace.  Nice people, these atheistic communists.

--People were mutilated while still alive. Actually, Democrats are doing that, too, to children. Is that the kind of people you want to associate with? Well, be a Leftist if you do.

Folks, there are literally thousands—thousands—of such stories in history books about what atheistic, communist Leftists did in the 20th century, and on into our own. You’ve heard about the forced organ harvesting and persecution of Christian believers in China. The CCP turned a virus loose on humanity that killed countless millions. Have you ever heard them apologize for it? But, the Democratic Party doesn’t WANT you to hear these stories, the examples I’ve given above. They only want you to think they are “compassionate” and “care” about humanity. No, they don’t. Remember point one—“hate is the beginning of wisdom.”

As long as they get their way, as long as you do what they tell you to, as long as you let them control you, they’ll only torture and kill their opponents. Their ideology teaches them to hate, lie, and be violent. And they do.

Is that what you want to be? Be a Leftist if you do.



🎭 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. 


Is the United States Still Preparing to Fight the Last War?



The history of mankind has been the history of warfare. Whether we like it or not, warfare has always punctuated human societies. That's the unpleasant reality of human existence, and has been since the first primitive man chucked a rock at his neighbor. It's not something most of us hope for or want. The people who will have to go fight such a war are the ones most fervent in hopes for peace, but they also know that only preparation, readiness, and strength will guarantee that peace.


With that said, there's an old saying in military circles that we're always training to fight the last war. My own experience, however modest it was, can serve as an example; for years, my compatriots and I were trained for one primary mission, to fight the Soviet Union in Western Europe. That would have been a massive, near-peer conflict, a combined-arms slugfest between superpowers. Instead, when my turn came, it was to the desert of the Middle East, there to participate in the most one-sided military victory since Britain stomped into

Abyssinia in 1868.


Now, though, the face of war is changing, and many of those changes are being fueled by the underdogs in their various campaigns, in places like Ukraine and Yemen. It's technology now that's making the difference, and there are a couple of arms companies that are trying to keep the United States on the leading edge of that wave - and producing some interesting stuff in the process.


When the Russian Army rolled into Ukraine, it was equipped for a conflict from an earlier era: an old-fashioned land war prosecuted by tanks and heavy artillery. In response, Ukraine devised a futuristic take on hit-and-run guerrilla operations. Now when a Russian column tries to advance it is met by a swarm of buzzing bombs. Russia has suffered about a million casualties in its attempt to invade. Since early 2024, according to an estimate by Mykhailo Samus, a researcher in Kyiv, about eighty per cent of its losses in men and matériel have been inflicted by drones.


The most dramatic application of this asymmetric approach came in June, when a fleet of more than a hundred Ukrainian drones struck targets as far away as Siberia, destroying or damaging some twenty Russian warplanes. It was the most militarily significant attack on Russia since the Second World War. The Ukrainians released a taunting video, in which first-person views of the drones careering into the planes were set to a pulsing techno soundtrack. The videos were stamped “Failsafe,” a military term that suggests immunity to harm.


The use of drones isn't new. Unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, have been used for reconnaissance and for delivering payloads for some years now; more than one Islamic terrorist has been rendered into spare parts by a high-tech American Ginsu missile delivered by a Predator or Reaper drone. But the drone swarm, that's a more recent thing, and it's one that's already made Russia's Tsar Vladimir I grit his teeth a few times.


Here in the United States, we're beginning to get ahead of this new technological curve ourselves.


America’s best approximation of (Ukrainian businessman and drone-maker) Oleksandr Yakovenko is Palmer Luckey, who helped found the defense startup Anduril in 2017. Not long ago, he met me at the company’s headquarters, in Costa Mesa, California, amid an array of high-tech weapons: drones, missiles, pilotless planes. Anduril is housed in a cavernous building that once contained the Orange County offices of the Los Angeles Times, whose faded logo is still visible on the exterior walls. At thirty-two, Luckey embodies the stereotype of a cocky, gnomic tech mogul: shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, flip-flops, a mullet and a soul patch. As we talked, he snacked from a bag of chocolate-chip cookies.


He wanted to show off his creations, autonomous weapons that he believes will upend many of the American military’s most cherished notions of strategy and defense. He walked over to a model of the Dive-XL, an unmanned submarine that can go a thousand miles without surfacing and is designed to be produced as quickly as an IKEA couch. “I can make one of these in a matter of days,” he said.


That could be an unmanned, autonomous weapon with enormous potential. And while the United States is right to be pushing the edge of high-tech warfare - our adversaries sure will be - where does it all end up? Drone swarms, unmanned aircraft, hypersonic missiles - what else? And Anduril is an interesting outfit. Their projects include a range of automated, autonomous systems for force protection, for air and undersea operations; this is the face of future warfare.


One trend through history is that war has become, over the centuries, fought more and more at range. From clubs and slings, we saw advances in melee like the Greek Phalanx and the tight, disciplined ranks of the Roman legions. Then the first artillery: ballistae, onagers, and so on. The advent of gunpowder took artillery to the next level, and then even placed it in the hands of the individual soldiers in the form of arquebuses, muskets, and now, (actual) assault rifles. Armor,

aircraft, and missiles have extended that trend towards warfare being fought at a distance.


When does the distance become so great that it starts to blind us to the cost?


Even so, the trend goes on, war will continue to become more and more high-tech, and the United States has to be on top of this. We can no longer afford to train for the last war, and count on the two great oceans to shelter us from our enemies while we learn how to adapt. The enemy, for one thing, may very well be here already, in amongst us. China, Russia, and Iran are doubtless making plans of their own, and not only agents-in-place (doubtless many of whom entered the United

States during the Biden administration's non-enforcement of the borders) but also high-tech weapons like drone swarms are going to be part of those plans. The best hope for the United States is to make sure that China, Russia, and Iran know we are ahead of that curve. They must also know we are prepared to pay the price, if we must, to win.


Deterrence is good, and we should hope for it. But we must also

remember George Santayana's caution: Only the dead have seen the end of war.




America Can’t Afford To Be The Arsenal Of The World Anymore


A foreign policy rooted in realism begins by recognizing limits: of production, of attention, and perhaps most of all, of obligation.



President Donald Trump was reportedly caught “flat-footed” when the Pentagon abruptly announced it was freezing shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot missile interceptors, precision-guided GMLRS, and artillery rounds.

The rationale for halting shipments of defensive weapons to Ukraine stems from a review that found that the U.S. only has about 25 percent of the Patriot interceptors needed for all Defense Department military plans.

Yet just days later, Trump reversed course. “They’re getting hit very hard now,” he said. “We’re going to send some more weapons — defensive weapons primarily.”

The rapid pivot back to arms transfers to Ukraine illustrates just how deeply embedded interventionist reflexes remain not just in Congress and the Pentagon, but even within Trump’s own orbit.

US Running Low

At the center of this internal tug-of-war is Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, a leading voice for a more restrained, realist approach to America’s military posture, which is a position that has reportedly frustrated some hawkish members within the Trump administration.

Colby has warned that U.S. weapons stockpiles are running low, defense manufacturing is lagging behind adversaries, and that it is time for Europe to take primary responsibility for Ukraine, while America focuses on shoring up its limited resources by preparing for a far more dangerous geopolitical challenge: China.

A recent analysis by Foreign Affairs aligns with Colby’s assessment, stating that the United States “has low stockpiles of munitions, its ships and planes are older than China’s, and its industrial base lacks the capacity to regenerate these assets. In war games that simulate a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, Washington runs out of key munitions within weeks.”

The U.S. Air Force’s fleet is showing its age, with planes averaging 32 years old, and some exceeding 50 years. Developing new major weapons platforms like these can take more than eight years, however if the F-22 Raptor is any indication, the process could take more than 15 years.

The U.S. Navy is in an equally perilous situation. Though the average U.S. naval vessel is 19 years old, some vessels like cruisers are pushing almost 30 years old. To meet future demand, the Navy may require extending the lives of some non-nuclear surface ships to over 50 years old.

In stark contrast, 70 percent of China’s naval ships have been launched since 2010. China’s annual shipbuilding capacity is an astounding 26 million tons, which is 370 times greater than the United States’ capacity of 70,000 tons. The U.S. industrial capacity is so limited that it cannot even produce a single 100,000-ton Ford-class aircraft carrier annually.

Still, Washington clings to a WWII-era fantasy, believing that it can arm the world while neglecting its own arsenal.

Two Systems in Low Supply

Two systems that are in high demand and low supply are the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAM) that Ukraine can’t get enough of, and the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators that were recently used in coordination with Israel against Iranian nuclear sites.

It takes around two years to manufacture and deploy a NASAM battery, which is capable of launching 72 missiles into the sky at once and is jointly produced by Norwegian Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace and U.S. RTX Corporation.

Why so long? While Kongsberg, like most Western defense firms, designs and assembles its weapons systems, it doesn’t manufacture most of the components in house. Unlike the mass production lines that made the weapons used to fight World War II, more than 1,500 suppliers across two continents contribute to the weapons produced at just one Kongsberg factory, with the U.S. defense contractor RTX supplying the radar and the actual missiles.

In terms of the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOP), the situation is even worse.

Before Trump’s airstrikes on Iran, the United States possessed only 20 MOP bombs, however 14 of these were expended on two targets in Iran, leaving only six. According to National Interest, it took more than a decade to produce the initial 20 GBU-57s, and their production line has been closed while the Pentagon currently awaits bids from American defense contractors for a Next Generation Penetrator (NGP) contract. 

Embracing Realism

The truth is simple: the United States is under no obligation to indefinitely bankroll Ukraine’s war effort or come to Israel’s defense, especially not at the expense of our own military readiness.

These weapon systems are not only costly, but limited in their ability to be mass produced, and should be reserved first and foremost for the defense of American troops in any future conflict. It’s long overdue for the United States to reevaluate its foreign policy and embrace a path of prudent foreign policy realism, while focusing on rearmament through reindustrialization.

This is not isolationism, it’s prioritization. A foreign policy rooted in realism begins by recognizing limits: of production, of attention, and perhaps most of all, of obligation.

Rebuilding American strength starts at home, not in Kyiv, not in Tel Aviv, and not in another foreign aid or weapons package.

America will not compete in the 21st century if it’s stuck in a 20th-century mindset.



Actor John Leguizamo Tries to Come for Trump Over Deportations, Maher Schools Him


Katie Jerkovich reporting for RedState 

Actor John Leguizamo tried to come for President Donald Trump and his administration's deportation of illegal immigrants, suggesting there's plenty of room for all, and comedian Bill Maher schooled him that it's about resources.

During the 64-year-old leftist actor's appearance on Maher's "Club Random" podcast, the two were discussing former President Joe Biden's disastrous handling of the border and illegal immigration, allowing tens of millions of illegals into our country.

"But I mean, part of this is a backlash to how badly Biden handled the immigration situation. It can't just be like come one come all, which…," Maher said.

"There's plenty of room here … there's plenty of room in America," Leguizamo interjected. "Come on. There's, there's no lack of room in America."

"Room?" Maher replied. "But it's never about room. It's about resources and about like having ... countries have to have a border. You can't. It just can't be."

"I mean, they've done surveys and something like 200 million people around the world, when asked, 'Would you come to America if you could? Yes, I would.' Why wouldn't they?" he added. "Lots of countries, excuse me, are [ __ ] holes, and they would love to be here."

The actor then tried to claim the importance of illegal immigrants in the country, and Maher hit back.

"Yes, of course, we are an immigrant-welcoming country, but there has to be some order to it," the podcast host said. "It just can't be come one, come all."

Maher then praised the move by border states' sending trains of illegals to sanctuary cities like New York City, calling their bluff, where even Democrat Mayor Eric Adams had to admit the city's resources couldn't handle all the people being bused into the area.

"Even the governor of New York was like, 'We can't take all these people.' Mayor Adams was like, and he's right," he added. "It's like, you know, these people live here, and now this is their burden to this degree."

Leguizamo then sounded similar to Democrat leaders who have cried, "But who will pick the crops," sounding like something said to support slavery, as RedState reported.

The host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" has been an outspoken critic of the left and Democrats. Maher's recent message to Dems who were upset about Trump's crackdown on the border, and it's basically, look "in the mirror," RedState reported.

During Maher's podcast, he spoke to comedian Tony Hinchcliffe about Trump's success on the border, who pointed out that what the president has done is deter people from illegally coming to the country.

Maher then said the quiet part out loud and admitted that what Trump is doing to prevent illegal immigrants from coming here is working:

What he's doing is working as far as stopping people from coming in," Maher said. "If the message is 'you know what, you always had a free ride.' If you thought you could come here, the worst that was going to happen is, 'Oh, all bets are off, go back.' No, you didn't make it. That's the worst that could happen; probably, you're just going to stay here."

[Trump's] message is 'well, no, if you come here and we catch you, it might be worse for you,'" he added. "And you know that is a deterrent, and it is working, the number of people. Every action has a reaction."

Maher continued, pointing out that Biden went so "stupidly far toward a pretty much come-one-come-all, just-walk-right-in policy, and they [the left] have to own that to a degree. Again, I do not support what Trump is doing, but I get where it comes from ... if you go that far left, what do you expect? You are going to get people who come in and go that far right. Democrats have a lot of looking in the mirror to do."