Winning the Mind Wars

American  Thinker 

Fighter-writer Brandon Smith published a great piece last week entitled “Lefties, Illegals and Minorities Are Finally Experiencing ‘Consequence Culture.’”  In that essay, Smith reminds readers of the psychological war that raged four years ago.  

We weren’t allowed to question the 2020 election’s mail-in ballot fraud or the statistically improbable results that dragged Biden’s dementia-addled brain back into the White House.  Public health authorities were conspiring with social media platforms to censor anyone who doubted the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry’s magical elixirs conveniently redefined as “vaccines.”  The “woke” movement was aggressively shoveling its special brand of “trans” and child-grooming excrement down the throat of anyone who objected to the left’s open embrace of pedophilia.  The “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity” hucksters were busy institutionalizing discrimination against white, Christian, heterosexual males.  Through its mindless avatar “Joe Biden,” the Democrat party dismantled what was left of America’s border enforcement and encouraged unvetted foreigners, national security threats, and members of transnational gangs to settle across the United States and take full advantage of the country’s already-bankrupt welfare programs.  

Democrat party goon squads running the Department of (in)Justice and Fascist Bureau of Intimidation targeted patriotic veterans opposed to election fraud; concerned parents unhappy with the sexualization of their children’s public school education; Christian parishioners who resisted “woke” rewrites of the Bible; police departments that pushed back against the federal government’s mass relocation of illegal aliens into their communities; anyone who objected to forced pharmaceutical injections; and everybody who expressed the opinion that college admissions boards and job recruiters should prioritize merit, skill, intelligence, work ethic, and American citizenship over skin color, “woke” zealotry, identity delusions, private sexual fetishes, or “undocumented” status.  

Reichsführer Merrick Garland and Obergruppenführer Chris Wray were too busy harassing and prosecuting conservatives for wrongthink to worry about all the rapists, murderers, and terrorists that Department of Homeland (in)Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was flying into unsuspecting towns throughout the country.  The Biden administration’s plan was simple: Terrorize patriotic, law-abiding Americans while filling up “swing states” with enough foreigners from communist or Islamic parts of the world to “fundamentally transform” the United States. 

Because Democrats actively oppose election security measures and enable vote fraud wherever possible, there is ample evidence that illegal aliens already affect the outcomes of local and federal elections.  (At the very least, they unfairly provide so-called “sanctuary” states extra representation in Congress and the Electoral College.)  Because the courts have embraced a suicidal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants instant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who manage to sneak into the country before giving birth, foreign nationals influence future elections by breaking our laws today.

Smith surveys this “multi-pronged psychological offensive” occurring in tandem with the Deep State’s removal of President Trump and installation of Clueless Joe and concludes, “I don’t think there has ever been a psychological war on a population that was more pervasive and tyrannical.  Not since Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China has a citizenry been under such a siege by their own government.”  

I completely agree.  In their efforts to displace the growing political movement rallying behind Donald Trump — comprising various brigades of conservatives, libertarians, Christians, defenders of freedom, constitutionalists, MAGA Americans, and anyone averse to a New World Order dominated by an international corporate oligarchy steeped in cultural Marxism and intent on ruling the planet through central bank money manipulation and recurring cycles of baseless fear-mongering meant to exacerbate Westerners’ sense of obligation to fight shapeless specters, including the hobgoblin apparitions of systemic racism, “climate change,” and authoritarian threats to “democracy” — the Deep State globalists running D.C.’s Intelligence Community directed the federal government’s information warfare arsenal against citizens of the United States.  

We have been on the receiving end of the U.S. government’s formidable propaganda operations since the earliest days of the Union.  We have been manipulated in real time since the wide-scale adoption of radio and television.  We have witnessed how dangerous D.C.’s collusion with Silicon Valley is when those who control the flow of information are willing to censor public debate, dissent, and contemporaneous reporting at the government’s behest.  What started with the Obama administration’s takeover of social media to advance its own ideology at the expense of all others percolated behind the scenes of Trump’s first term — propagating regular waves of fake news to damage his presidency — and returned with a vengeance upon Puppet-President Biden’s recycling.  

When Obama’s people moved back into the White House in 2021 while barely disguising the strings attached to their “Joe Biden” marionette, the Democrat-led Deep State unleashed what Smith describes as an open “war on the minds of the masses designed to force Americans into submission.”

Yet here we are...still standing.  I know that we have been fighting this psychological war for so long that many of us refuse to take even a moment to celebrate, but we should!  As Smith writes, “The fact that we survived this event, defeated the onslaught and actually grew a grassroots anti-woke movement without the use of social media forums is truly mind-blowing.”  In the Deep State’s “mind war” against MAGA Americans, freethinking patriots “won by simple truth and word of mouth.”  

I can already hear some of you doing your best Han Solo impersonation: “Great, kid.  Don’t get cocky.”  You’re absolutely right.  We must never rest on our laurels.  As artificial intelligence gives the Intelligence Community even more tools to engage in information warfare against the American people, the fight for personal freedom and against totalitarianism will become only more important.  

Four years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we had “Victory in Europe” and “Victory over Japan.”  Our present war against the corporate-government nexus that uses mass communication and technocratic control over information to “manufacture” public opinion is a war without end.  

Still, Smith is correct.  We have proved during these last fifteen years (at least since the rise of the Tea Party Movement in the United States) that “simple truth” and “word of mouth” are effective countermeasures against the globalist Deep State’s information wars.

In a world where government agents organize mass psychological operations that push subtle messages meant to coerce populations into doing whatever those with power wish them to do, those who are capable of seeing the invisible cages being built around us are invaluable truth-tellers.  Authenticity is exceptionally important now.  Freethinking is perhaps more important today than at any time in history.  And those who are willing to think critically and spread the truth honestly have become an indispensable part of society.

The Globalist Machine recognizes that the public revolution is real.  Disregarding their primary role in producing propaganda on a worldwide scale, international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and United Nations regularly list so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation” among the most critical risks to the planet.  They certainly are not worried about all the lies they spew every day.  They are worried that the 99.99% of the global population without economic or political power might reject those lies and think for themselves.  To the powers that be, freethinkers are far more dangerous than nuclear wars or asteroid impacts.

It is why globalists are apoplectic about the Trump administration’s rejection of the World Health Organization’s intrusion on national sovereignty.  It is why Democrats are furious that Congress has defunded leftist propaganda networks such as PBS and NPR.  It is why Google continues to silence conservative voices.  It is why the U.K. government embraces censorship and criminalizes free speech.   

Globalist governments cannot maintain power in a world with honest public debate and protections for free speech.  Their authority rests on spinning — if not hiding — the truth.  What we know, however, is much more powerful: The truth will set you free.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- August 1st

 

The United States Is Experiencing A Perfect Storm Of Non-Self-Perpetuation

American  Thinker 

Like most red-blooded American boys, from the beginning of middle school on, I was very interested in girls. Indeed, I spent pretty much the entirety of my teenage years trying to figure out how to get girls. I never did find a formula, but I was forever looking. For the most part, my days were filled with sports of every type, from scuba diving to motocross to baseball, football, golf, karate, the gym, etc. But the entire time, all of that, and school, was set against a mental backdrop of how to get girls, how to get a date…and, umm…more. That pretty much was it, and from what I could tell from my friends, that was pretty much normal. Some guys were more successful, some were less successful, but we were all basically in the same game.

But here’s the thing: For virtually all of us growing up (except those lucky few Casanovas), getting girls was always a challenge. I don’t mean a challenge that someone put you up to—although sometimes it was that—but rather that the entire process of getting girls was challenging. You might admire a girl from afar and practice what you’d say when you approached her, but then you’d chicken out. Or when you bumped into her around a corner, you somehow forgot how to speak English correctly. There’d be the nervousness, the dozen times you’d pick up the phone to call but hang up before you dial that last digit, and more.

Being a young man was often hard when it came to girls, but that was life. (It no doubt was hard to be a girl too, likely for different reasons, but I can’t really speak about that…).

You’ll notice I said was and not is. It might still be, but it’s different.

If you’ve ever seen the Joaquin Phoenix movie Her, you’ll have an idea where I’m going. In it, a lonely Theodor (Phoenix) strikes up a friendship with an Artificial Intelligence, Samantha, voiced by Scarlett Johansson. The friendship evolves into a relationship that seems to be everything Theodor wants, except that Samantha is an operating system.

Given the physical limitations of being a program, Samantha arranges for Theodor to be with a real woman surrogate. It’s a disaster and soon thereafter the relationship begins to crumble when Theodor discovers Samantha is simultaneously having similar relationships with thousands of other men.

That movie was made in 2013. A decade later, we have actual, personalized AI that can carry on conversations like humans and offer compassion and companionship. What’s more, companies are putting AI into anatomically correct robots. They may be less than perfect now and expensive to boot, but technology and efficiency are moving forward at light speed.

Of course, these developments would be nothing but a sideshow if it weren’t for the fact that they’re occurring at the exact time young people are losing interest in sex and relationships, and those who might have an interest are increasingly confused about who they are.

All of this matters because fewer Americans are getting married, and those who are marrying are doing so later and, therefore, having fewer children. The United States’ fertility rate is already below replacement and going in the wrong direction. Indeed, it was just reported that 2024 recorded the lowest birth rate in American history! (And we’re not alone.)

The United States is experiencing something of a perfect storm of non-self-perpetuation. The only growth the country is experiencing is coming from immigration, much of it illegal. That’s a problem because many of the immigrants who are coming to the United States don’t share the cultural values the nation was built upon, things like freedom of speech and religion, capitalism, private property, and the rule of law. With enough people who don’t share its values, a society collapses into conflict, chaos, and eventually civil war or worse.

To all of this, we add the woke notion of “toxic masculinity,” microaggressions, and men losing jobs for addressing women as “ladies.” What is one to make of male and female relationships in a 21st-century America?

The reality is that dating is one of the most consequential adventures humans ever embark on, particularly in a free society where individuals make their own match choices. Again, I can only speak about this from a male perspective, but trying to get up the courage to ask a girl out, getting shot down, and mustering the courage to try again has a tremendous impact on your psyche.

Trying out different approaches to see what works and what you’re comfortable with is a journey unto itself. There may be no more powerful passion in a young man’s life than infatuation, that moment when a young romance is just blossoming, and it basically becomes your raison d’être and makes you do things you probably wouldn’t do if you were rational.

Frequently, the lessons a young man learns and the character he builds during the challenges associated with romance and courtship help form his personality and guide him through much of the rest of his life. That rite of passage is a key element of what it means to become a well-rounded, mature man. Because of technology, fewer and fewer young men are running that oh so important gauntlet, and with the combination of AI and robotics, we’re likely to see even less.

When faced with the choice between, on the one hand, the awkwardness of talking to a girl or a woman along with the fear of getting rejected or having your heart broken by her, on the other hand, with a beautiful and lifelike AI robot that’s programmed to treat you like a king and never reject you, a significant number of boys/men will choose the latter.

That’s a problem. It’s a problem that must be addressed because, for civilization to continue, civilized people need to reproduce. The greatest advancements in human history have come from Western civilization, not the places where fertility rates are actually above replacement. If things continue this way, there are two possible outcomes.

The first is that Western civilization continues to import millions of people from nations and cultures that do not share its values. Eventually, freedom and the rule of law and prosperity disappear as the West regresses toward the mean of human civilization, one characterized by violence, scarcity, and tyranny, like much of what we see in the third world today.

The second outcome is a world where technology replaces most things men do, leaving an elite who control that technology and the superfluous masses controlled by it. Tyranny of the elites will settle in quickly, and while the façade of human civilization may continue for a while, eventually the technology will advance beyond the ability of humans to control it. We then become not only expendable, but very possibly will become slaves or seen as a virus to be eliminated, à la The Matrix.

This may sound like hyperbole, but make no mistake, a collapsing birthrate and an unchecked, exponentially advancing AI are both dangerous on their own. Together, they are a recipe for an extinction-level event.

Judicial Activism and the Separation of Powers

American  Thinker 

The separation of powers is the fundamental organizing principle of our Constitution. The express purpose of separating the functions of government into three distinct departments is to impair the natural tendencies of governments to degenerate into authoritarianism. This was explicitly acknowledged by James Madison in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary into the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The separation of powers was incorporated into the structure of the Constitution. An intra-branch check on the legislative authority is provided by dividing that authority between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Constitution provided for an intra-branch check within the judicial branch through appellate review. These were in addition to the inter-branch checks such as judicial review, the power of appointment and impeachment, and the constraints imposed by the spending power of Congress. The intent of all these was the same: to resist the tendency toward authoritarianism.

The people who drafted and ratified the Constitution knew that the separation of powers, by itself, was an imperfect and insufficient impediment to authoritarianism and tyranny. It required a system of checks and balances that could itself be abused to violate the spirit, and defeat the purpose, of separating powers.

Madison understood that a functional system of separation of powers required more than verbal aspirations recorded in the Constitution. He wrote "Mere demarcation of parchment... is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands."

The Founders knew that there was no passive means of protecting the values represented in the Constitution, nor was there any single mechanism that was sufficient to do so. While they recognized that government legitimacy derived from the people, they were skeptical of direct democracy. They knew that a significant portion of the people would often be uninterested in the details of constitutional fidelity, particularly during periods of peace and prosperity. They also knew that public sentiments were volatile, as Madison opined in Federalist 49: "The passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgment."

The Founders had hoped that the individual members of each branch would protect the institutional interests of their respective branch against the encroachments of the other two; “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” as Madison claimed in Federalist 51. The drafters of the Constitution knew that it was inevitable that some government officials would be incompetent, ideology-addled, corrupt, or craven, but trusted that a free and democratic republic would maintain institutions to keep these to a manageable minority. This last assumption is currently being tested by an activist judiciary.

The present habit of some of Federal District Court judges to enjoin executive action severely degrades what Madison referred to as “the constitutional equilibrium of the government.” This phenomenon has several causes. Two of the most important are partisan politics, and overreaching attempts by some jurists to decide cases according to what they think society’s priorities should be, rather than what they actually are. This is a fundamentally corrupt practice.

The primary purpose of the judicial branch is to provide the structure and mechanisms necessary to the peaceful resolution of disputes. Courts provide the mechanisms of due process, which are the procedures for determining whether ascertainable facts support the application of established law. Due process allows litigants to challenge assertions of fact, but is not intended to provide a mechanism for courts to modify legislation or interfere with the legitimate enforcement of the law.

A legal system requires a few specific qualities to provide for effective dispute resolution. These include: finality, consistency, impartiality, and fairness. These are qualities of processes, not outcomes, and trying to manipulate individual cases so that any of them might appear to apply to a given outcome degrades the legitimacy of courts and judges.

Judicial activism has goals beyond simple obstruction.

When the Constitution was ratified, the judiciary was understood, as Hamilton declared in Federalist 78, “to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” When district courts block executive action, or fashion remedies that impose burdens on the broader society, they not only transgress Hamilton’s premise and directly affront the separation of powers, but also undermine deeper constitutional principles.

The current fashion among certain District Court judges to reflexively enjoin Trump administration actions undercuts one of the essential mechanisms of maintaining a functional system of separation of powers. Madison’s conception that the powers of the three branches of government would be in separate hands, with each resisting incursion by the other branches, does not apply when the same partisan interests animate the members of each branch.

The Founders did not contemplate the rise of machine politics. They feared factions, which they assumed were transient single-issue associations. When Madison used the word "parties" he was referring to groups with narrowly defined interests rather than two coalitions with fundamentally different views of the individual's relationship to society. As Madison observed, tyranny results from the accumulation of government powers "into the same hands." He did not seem to consider that the same hands might be different personnel in the various branches of government coordinating their activities in the interests of partisan goals rather than preservation of founding principles.

The values of the society in which a judicial system operates should be inherent in a judge’s decisions. The Constitution was designed for an enterprising and energetic society that would achieve the common good and promote human progress through individual responsibility, individual rights, and a culture of respect for the law. This conception, which guided the substance and structure of the Constitution, has been challenged by a conception of government that is therapeutic rather than enterprising, accommodating rather than law-abiding, and ideological rather than practical.

The Constitution reflected certain political priorities. Liberty and avoiding tyranny took precedence over safety; the rule of law took precedence over empathy; and limiting government powers took precedence over the illusion that it was society’s obligation to provide a remedy for every grievance.

Recent judicial activism rejects these priorities. These rejections are not founded on broad public support. There have been no plebiscites, conventions, or even representative consensus to support them. They originate solely from the ideological preferences of individual judges, and are part of a pattern of progressive activism that seeks to impose political values by elitist acclamation.

When lower court judges enter broad injunctions against executive and legislative action, on grounds that such action might transgress progressive notions of equity in individual cases, they are assuming an established consensus regarding societal and political values that does not exist.

Many of the ideological ambitions and priorities of the progressive Left require a degree of authoritarianism that is repugnant to the Constitution. To accomplish this, progressives must weaken those institutional structures, such as the separation of powers, that help protect against authoritarianism. They must also impose a set of values that are contrary to our founding principles. As Madison noted, “Mere demarcation of parchment” is insufficient to guard against these perils. Eventually the people, the ultimate source of legitimate government authority, will have to decide the issue.

The Cincinnati Cop-Outs

 Victor Davis Hanson | Aug 01, 2025 | Townhall

AP Photo/John Minchillo, File

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Recently, a large group of black youths began pummeling several white adults in downtown Cincinnati.

The original altercation apparently broke out between a black and white male in he-said/he-said fashion. But that dispute soon turned into a virtual free-for-all.

Numerous male and female black youths sucker-punched a middle-aged woman and a man. Others continued to kick or body slam the victims, who were sprawled on their backs and seemingly unconscious.

There were many disturbing aspects to the beat-downs.

One, the violence broke out along racial and age fault lines. After the initial one-on-one dispute, groups of black youths swarmed solitary older white bystanders to pound them.

Two, the surrounding assembled group of black youths not only failed to intervene to restrain the bullies. They also recorded the beatings for social media and were heard cheering on the one-sided violence.

Three, there was neither a police presence nor any timely Good Samaritan interventions.

Instead, what ended the attacks was simply the fact that at least two of the targets appeared nearly comatose. So their assailants apparently concluded that their agenda of beating whites into unconsciousness was mostly complete.

Four, oddly few of the usual black spokespeople who habitually comment on interracial violence were to be seen.

During the fake Jussie Smollett attack, self-appointed leaders from Al Sharpton to Kamala Harris immediately issued warnings about so-called systemic white racism that had reared its ugly head to victimize Smollett.

Yet when it was revealed Smollett had concocted the entire charade -- and even hired his own assaulters -- there were few if any retractions from those once so eager to shout "racist!"

Recommended

BREAKING: CPB to Close Its Doors As Trump’s Funding Cuts Bring NPR and PBS to the BrinkSarah Arnold

Such demagoguery is a well-known pattern dating back to the days of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, the Duke Lacrosse charade, the Covington kids ruse, the Michael Ford "Hands-up-Don't Shoot" fabrication, the "pseudo-transformation of George Zimmerman into a 'white Hispanic,'" or the NASCAR noose fable.

Racialists too often concoct white racist attackers and go silent when the evidence proves fabricated -- only to be primed to manipulate the next hoax.

Five, the media and authorities did their best to either hide or play down the violence.

City leaders, the chief of police, and the media variously blamed the mass black-on-white violence on 1) social media, 2) the original one-on-one dispute, 3) alcohol, 4) the lack of civilian intervention to stop the violence, and 5) a festival atmosphere -- anything except endemic racial hatred shown toward whites from the crowd of black youths.

Six, had a gang of white toughs beat middle-aged African-Americans senseless, recorded it, and cheered on the violence, there would have been immediate national outrage.

Nor did anyone wish to raise the taboo topic of inordinate black crime rates, disproportionate to respective demographic realities. In rare interracial violent crimes, the asymmetrical ratio of black-on-white versus white-on-black assaults ranges from three to five times greater.

Seven, the quiet of the left-wing media to the reprehensible violence stands in marked contrast with their usual rush-to-judgment racialism in two near-simultaneous incidents.

When a shooter of mixed African-American heritage recently entered a New York City corporate headquarters and executed four innocents, CNN falsely raised the speculation that a "white male" was perhaps responsible -- despite the photograph of the suspect, who was as clearly male as he was not white.

Media and municipal officials jumped to explain the violence as due to the killer's alleged past traumatic brain injury or because of his access to a semi-automatic weapon -- or anything other than his hate-filled plan to murder an NFL executive.

Actress and model Sydney Sweeney just cut a jeans commercial in front of a poster that said, "Sydney Sweeney has great genes"--with "genes" crossed out and replaced with "jeans." The left then exploded, alleging the ad was a supposed Hitlerian reference to white eugenics.

Yet the eugenics movement in America was mostly a product of left-wing progressives, from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger to Democrat president Woodrow Wilson.

And the ad's sponsor, American Eagle, had previously used all sorts of models from all racial backgrounds. All might agree that the ad simply shows both tight, sexy jeans and a naturally attractive wearer -- period.

The country is descending into a tribal morass of double standards and racial fixations.

The diversity/equity/inclusion industry, the defund-the-police madness, and the perpetual left-wing hunt for "white racism/white privilege/white rage" -- from the prior Pentagon hierarchy to the lunatic fringe of Jasmine Crockett, Joy Reid, and Zohran Mamdani -- have all legitimized double standards while lowering the bar of the once unacceptable.

When our careerist left-wing elites seek to divide us by race and make it essential, not incidental, to our identities, that tribalist message filters throughout communities.

The ensuing signal is that "payback" violence is OK -- on the expectation that there are no consequences for interracial violence -- as long as the victim is white and the assaulter is not.

https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2025/08/01/the-cincinnati-cop-outs-n2661231

🎭 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. 

Marco Rubio Discusses Current Geopolitical Events and Russia Hoax

Secretary of State/National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio, appears for an interview with Brian Kilmeade to discuss recent events in the world of geopolitics in addition to the events now surfacing with the declassification of the Trump-Russia hoax documents.

The beginning of the conversation starts with an evaluation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the frustration of the Trump administration to find a way to settle the issues.  The second subject is the status of U.S-India relations now that trade negotiations have stalled.   The conversation then moves to the ongoing declassification of information.

At 07:30 of the interview Rubio is asked about his previous SSCI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Rubio talks about his prior role as Chairman of the SSCI and the efforts of the Intelligence Community to manipulate public opinion.  WATCH:

Trump Orders Positioning of Nuclear Submarines Against Russia

 

President Donald Trump announced Friday he is ordering two nuclear submarines to be positioned near Russia after "provocative statements" from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

"Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on his Truth Social page. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"  

 

 

After Trump on Monday said he was reducing a deadline for Russia to agree to a Ukraine peace settlement from 50 days to 10 or 12 days, Medvedev wrote on X that Trump was playing "the ultimatum game" and that such an approach could lead to war.

The Pentagon typically doesn't announce the deployment of nuclear submarines because they are often on secret missions surveilling Russian and Chinese submarines, Politico reported.

Trump did not say whether he is positioning submarines that are capable of launching nuclear strikes.  

 

https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/donald-trump-russia-medvedev/2025/08/01/id/1220981/ 

Classified Documents Were Safer At Mar-A-Lago Than With The FBI

It seems that in the hands of the FBI, no document was safe from the whim of agents eschewing public transparency.

The  Federalist 

Former President Joe “Auto Pen” Biden’s weaponized FBI seemed to place great importance on the proper handling of classified documents when it raided Mar-a-Lago in August 2022. It was so important that the FBI spent nine hours searching President Donald Trump’s Florida home, meticulously rifling through even Melania Trump’s clothing and arranging documents marked “secret” on the floor to create a damning photo op, even though Trump had the power when president to declassify the documents.

It was obviously politically motivated. Otherwise, the FBI would have been just as alarmed when it later learned Biden had classified documents in his Delaware garage. The Department of Justice (DOJ) did a little investigation, wrote a report, and decided, “No criminal charges are warranted” for Biden.

Yet for Trump, Biden’s weaponized DOJ seized boxes of documents and, just in time for the presidential election, indicted Trump and dragged him through a year in court before dismissing the case in July 2024. After Trump took office again in 2025, the boxes of documents were returned to him.

But this week, we discovered the FBI has been appallingly sloppy with thousands of classified FBI records that were produced on the taxpayer’s dime and are of interest to the public. Documents related to the FBI’s involvement in former President Barack Obama’s Russia collusion hoax. Documents by the thousands, hidden in a secret FBI room and stuffed in burn bags, meaning they were marked for destruction. According to Fox News Digital, FBI Director Kash Patel has given the documents to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

Stack that on top of the June revelation that the FBI agents hid federal documents within the FBI’s computer system by coding them “Prohibited Access,” thereby making them invisible in searches. A keyword search for these hidden documents in the FBI’s computer system would not be enough to find them. The only people who could access them would be someone who knew of their existence. 

It seems that in the hands of Biden’s FBI, no document was safe from the whim of agents eschewing public transparency.   

Documents are safer under Trump’s care at Mar-a-Lago. Trump has made no indications that he intends to destroy federal records. It is clear from the indictment that Trump never hid the fact that he had the documents, and now that the election is over, no one seems bothered that Trump has the documents again.

By contrast, the FBI hid and destroyed documents, and when asked to provide documents for investigations, the FBI has been uncooperative.

There are valid reasons to keep certain documents hidden. For example, if making a document public causes a threat to national security, outs undercover law enforcement, or if the information could destroy an ongoing investigation.

But the FBI and other DOJ agencies have abused their authority, hiding information that should have been public. The measure for hiding a document should not be, “Will this kill my career if it gets out?” or “What are the political implications of this information being made public?”

Good, bad, or ugly, it is always right to speak the truth, and it is the people’s right to understand all aspects of the government it funds. The criteria to classify a document as secret must err on the side of keeping the public informed. In truth, many of the documents being released in recent weeks — deep state documents related to rigging the U.S. election —  do not meet the standard for classified materials. They were hidden only because they were embarrassing, and possibly criminal.

Devin Nunes, chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, recently told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures that he believes the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago because they were looking for the recently declassified intelligence community assessment that details the Obama Administration’s apparent effort to sabotage Trump’s first term as president with the bogus Russia collusion narrative. 

“Why was there a raid at Mar-a-Lago? What led to that raid? What led to the appointment of that special counsel? What the hell were they doing at Mar-a-Lago? What were they looking for? This was an unprecedented act in U.S. history, where the Department of Justice raids a former president’s home,” Nunes said. “Whatever scheme they had cooked up, whatever they were looking for, they didn’t find clearly, but that was to try to stop President Trump from being reelected.” 

The magnitude of a scandal is directly related to how vigorously someone hides evidence of wrongdoing. In the case of the FBI, with its infinite power to hide things as classified, prohibited access, or by simply deleting evidence, the document scandal is quite real, and much more important than the phony scandal of the Mar-a-Lago raid.