Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The fog of trillions: How Americans lost sight of their own sacrifice


In the modern American psyche, few illusions are as pervasive—and as corrosive—as the belief in “government money.” It is a phrase repeated with reverence and entitlement, invoked to justify social programs, subsidies, and entitlements. Yet beneath its comforting veneer lies a tragedy: the government has no money of its own. It produces nothing, manufactures nothing, and earns nothing. Every dollar it spends is extracted from the labor, consumption, and compliance of the American people. And most disturbingly, the people have stopped noticing.

The federal government collected over $5.23 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2025. That staggering sum came from a mosaic of sources: income taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes, customs duties, fees, fines, and tariffs. But regardless of the mechanism, the origin is always the same, the taxpayer. Whether through direct taxation or indirect cost pass-throughs, the American worker funds the entire operation. Even so-called “non-tax revenue,” such as leasing federal land or charging for national park access, is ultimately paid by citizens. The government does not earn; it collects.

This reality is obscured by complexity. The tax code is a labyrinth of deductions, credits, and withholding schemes. Most Americans never see the full scope of their contribution. Their paychecks are docked automatically, their purchases taxed invisibly, and their benefits framed as gifts. The IRS processed over 163 million individual tax returns in 2025, yet few filers could trace a single dollar from their labor to its final destination. The system is designed not for transparency, but for detachment.

And detachment breeds desensitization. Americans have become numb to the scale of government spending. Trillions are allocated annually, yet the average citizen reacts with a shrug. The numbers are too large, too abstract, too distant. As long as life feels livable—groceries are bought, roads are paved, checks arrive—the machinery of extraction goes unquestioned. The taxpayer becomes a passive participant, unaware of the magnitude of their own sacrifice.

There are an estimated 20–30 million illegal aliens receiving taxpayer-funded support in the form of housing, medical care, education, and other assistance. Yet many Americans fail to connect the dots: it is their money being spent, not some abstract pool of “government funds.” The disconnect allows billions to be redistributed without sparking the outrage one might expect from those footing the bill.

Billions in fraud scandals erupt across the country with alarming regularity. In Minnesota, a massive scheme has left billions unaccounted for, with members of the Somali community now under investigation and facing charges. Yet, despite the staggering scale of the theft, taxpayers respond with indifference—a collective shrug instead of outrage.

The Justice Department’s takedown of 324 defendants, including nearly a hundred medical professionals, should have sparked widespread alarm. Instead, the public reaction has been largely mute, as if such losses are simply the cost of doing business in a system riddled with corruption. This absence of civic outrage underscores a troubling complacency: billions in taxpayer dollars vanish, yet the collective response is a shrug. The silence reveals how normalized fraud has become in the public imagination.

Consider the payroll tax. It is deducted automatically from every paycheck, funding Social Security and Medicare. Most workers never question it. They assume they are “paying into” a system that will one day reward them. But the money is not saved—it is spent immediately to fund current beneficiaries. Today’s worker funds yesterday’s retiree. It is not a savings plan; it is a generational transfer. And yet, the illusion persists.

Half of Americans shoulder 97% of the nation’s federal income taxes, while the other half contribute just 3%. Yet there is no outrage—no recognition from taxpayers, no alarm from the media, only a quiet acceptance of the status quo. The imbalance is hidden in plain sight, as billions are siphoned away through fraud and redistribution. At what point will the American taxpayer finally awaken to the truth: there is no such thing as “government money”—only their money, taken and misused while they remain silent?

Because the truth is this: every road paved, every subsidy granted, every benefit distributed—was funded by someone’s sweat. Every dollar spent by the government was first earned by a citizen. And every act of redistribution is a moral decision, not a mechanical one.

So let us remember. Let us reconnect the dots. Let us lift the fog of trillions and restore the clarity of civic life. Because the government has no money—it only has ours. And just as families demand accountability in their own household budgets, the American taxpayer must take greater interest in where every dollar goes. It is not enough to shrug; it is our duty to demand transparency of the resources we provide.






Entertainment thread for Dec 16

 


'sighs'.

Time to Bring Our Troops Home From Syria


In his first term, President Donald Trump expressed a desire for our troops to leave Syria. Several years later, after another "ambush" attack on U.S. troops, it is time for our military to finally come home.

On Saturday, two U.S. Army National Guard soldiers from Iowa – Sgts. William Nathaniel Howard and Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar – and a civilian interpreter were killed in Palmyra, Syria. Three other U.S. soldiers, as well as two Syrian "security personnel," were injured. President Trump is vowing "very serious retaliation" for the attack against Americans.

A member of the government's "security forces" who had connections to the terrorist group, the Islamic State (ISIS), committed the "ambush." According to Dr. Antonio Graceffo, national security analyst, writing in the Gateway Pundit, "An internal assessment on December 10 identified him as holding 'extremist ideas,' and his dismissal had been scheduled for Sunday, December 14. The attack occurred the day before, on Saturday, an administrative holiday."

It is troubling that this individual was not removed immediately by Syrian officials after his terrorist sympathies were discovered. Their delay cost the lives of three American heroes.

Along with the shooter, the Syrian government announced that five people had also been arrested for their role in the attack.

The attack underscores the instability in the country and the concerns of many experts about the ability of the new government to maintain power.

One year ago, a "lightning" military operation forced Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad into exile in Russia. His family had controlled the country for five decades.

The new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has befriended President Trump. However, he was formerly known as al-Golani, the leader of an al-Qaeda linked terrorist organization known as Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS).

As a terrorist leader, al-Sharaa was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted List from 2013 through 2024. Upon taking power in Syria and renouncing violence, al-Sharaa was removed from the "Most Wanted List," and the $10 million bounty for his arrest was "scrapped." Despite his assurances, it is obvious that al-Sharaa can never be trusted.

Currently, there are "under 1,000 American troops" in three U.S. bases in Syria. Since these troops will continue to be targets, the future of U.S. involvement in Syria may be debated within the Trump administration.

In a Sunday interview on Newsmax, former Trump National Security Council Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz said, "There's going to be an evaluation right now about our presence there and whether it should continue or whether maybe we should up the ante."

It would be ludicrous to add more troops to Syria. Instead, we should end our military presence in the country. Most Americans do not even know our troops are in Syria. Of those who are informed, many are not aware or do not support the rationale.

It is imperative not to replicate the mistakes that were made in Afghanistan. In 2021, U.S. military forces left Afghanistan after 20 years of a war that was originally launched in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The mission morphed into a "nation-building" campaign that failed miserably.

It was a wise move to leave Afghanistan; however, the withdrawal was conducted in a hurried, embarrassing manner by President Joe Biden, resulting in one of the biggest blunders in American history.

As we left Afghanistan, 13 American heroes were killed in a terrorist attack, and the Biden administration left behind billions of dollars of our military equipment and the massive Bagram airbase for Islamic jihadists, the Taliban, to use.

The human cost of that war was staggering. America lost 2,448 military service personnel and 3,846 contractors in a war that was won by a terrorist organization.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost U.S. taxpayers an astounding $2 trillion, with the interest costs reaching $6.5 trillion by 2050. In addition, "the United States has committed to pay" another $2 trillion "in healthcare, disability, burial, and other costs for roughly 4 million Afghanistan and Iraq veterans."

Imagine the positive impact on our country if those funds had been spent on the multitude of problems in the United States or on helping the millions of Americans in desperate need.

Instead, the money was wasted on a war that was eventually designed to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. Ultimately, the misguided effort was a complete failure, and, after 20 years, Afghanistan returned to chaos and terrorist leadership.

After the withdrawal from Afghanistan, U.S. forces should have also left Syria, a country that has been a hotbed of terrorism for many years.

The new leader has a tentative hold on power; however, there are elements within the government that are not loyal. To make matters worse, Islamic terrorists remain throughout Syria. Our presence in the region places our military forces in grave danger.

In a Sunday interview on Newsmax, foreign policy analyst Walid Phares noted that the attack took place in a region marginally controlled by the government. Thus, he stressed that a major concern is that some of the country's security forces have been infiltrated by terrorist groups such as ISIS.

This same concern has been expressed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has "warned, on many occasions, of the infiltration of ISIS members and individuals adopting ISIS ideology in the ranks of the government forces and security services, stressing that this infiltration poses a direct threat to the security situation and stability in Syria."

Another troubling development in Syria is the persecution of Christians. In 2011, 1.5 million Christians lived in Syria. Today, that total has dwindled to 300,000, and more are leaving every day.

The new regime has failed to protect Christians in Syria, described as "the cradle" of the faith, with 1st-century roots. For example, "in June 2025, a Christian church in Damascus was targeted in a suicide attack, which reportedly killed twenty-five people and injured sixty-three. It was reportedly the largest attack on Christians in Syria since 1860."

For all these reasons and more, it is time that U.S. forces left Syria, a country in turmoil. 



On Civilizational Erasure


Civilizational erasure, as it relates to Europe, has been in the news lately, with the renewed and scaled up predations of Islam once again commanding center stage.

Islam’s resurgence has been a full century in the making, enabled in large part by Western ignorance and enforced taboos against discussing Islam’s highly relevant 1,400-year history of mass bloodshed and conquest.

Indeed, that history is whitewashed by Western academics, whether pseudo-historians like the late Edward Said or execrable and ahistorical oikophobes like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.  Wikipedia, Google, and artificial intelligence also play outsized roles in the academic and historical whitewash.

The true history of Islam and what it has wrought through the centuries is not taught to Western schoolchildren.  Modern Westerners have zero historical memory of Islam extending back more than a few decades, nor would they be the least bit curious if they were taught this hugely important but ignored and forgotten topic.

Armed instead with the fake morality of luxury beliefs about alleged Western racism or Islamophobia, and fetishizing whatever seems exotic, today’s decadent Westerner lacks the moral and physical courage that enabled his distant forebears to beat back the centuries-long Muslim onslaught, which finally ignited Europe’s Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment.

Regionally, and over the centuries, Muslims were known to Europeans by many names.

The Muslim Moors of North Africa (Berbers and Arabs) invaded, conquered, and occupied a vast swath of Western Europe, including present-day Portugal and Spain (for nearly 800 years), along with significant territory in France.

Al Andalusia is romanticized by fawning, servile Western scholars as a great flowering, with Muslims, Jews, and Christians all living side by side in multicultural harmony, singing Kumbaya together for almost a full millennium.  To this day, many Spaniards and Hispanics bear Arabic names like Omar and Medina.

The reality behind this sanitized gossamer of ahistoricism was the opposite.  Before they were finally evicted from Spain in 1492, the Moors brutally subjugated and pacified their European victims, murdering, taxing, and enslaving millions, with countless women and children taken as unwilling concubines and war booty.

It certainly was a Golden Age for Islam as Muslims appropriated European culture and knowledge for their own ends, but it was no Golden Age for its millions of dhimmified European victims.

In medieval Europe, the Muslims were also known as Saracens.  The swarthy Saracens did not invade Europe in order to liberate or enlighten the supposedly backward, pale-skinned European Christians, but rather to rape, plunder, and appropriate Europe’s treasures and human capital.  Europe’s so-called Dark and Middle Ages, its relative stagnation, had far more to do with unwanted and uninvited Islamic occupiers than with the fall of Rome or the Catholic Church and the Spanish Inquisition.

Muslim pirates (largely of the Barbary coast — modern Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco) were also known as Corsairs.  Well over one million Europeans were kidnapped and killed by the African Barbary Muslim pirates, with many surviving captives enslaved and sold at market.  Their stories are untold today.  Indeed, most Westerners have a benign mental image of the fun-loving Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and their eyes glaze over if you try to explain the truth of the African Muslim pirates.

In Southeastern and Central Europe, Muslim Turkic invaders were known as Ottomans.  The Ottoman Empire largely eviscerated present-day Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, and other Balkan nations, along with Hungary and parts of Poland and Austria in Central Europe.

The story in the Balkans is the same as elsewhere: conquest, displacement, wholesale slaughter, rape, widespread concubinage of women and children, little Christian boys kidnapped and converted into janissaries, and attempted genocide as Muslims annexed territory by the sword.  Indeed, Christian Armenia endured a genocide at the hands of the Muslim Turks early in the 20th century, before Ataturk abolished the Caliphate.

Since the end of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, Islam has terrorized, murdered, and enslaved millions of Christians throughout Africa and the Middle East.  It was too weak and divided to attack and terrorize the modern West — that is, until fairly recently, when Western governments began loudly encouraging and facilitating large-scale Muslim migration into Western countries.  The exhaustively long list of terror attacks against the West in recent years needs no recounting; for both a historical and updated list, see here.

If you are a reader of European descent, it is almost certain you had a distant genetic ancestor who was killed, raped, or enslaved by Muslims somewhere in Europe.  Muslim depredations against a nascent America’s merchant ships in the 1790s became the raison d’être for America’s navy.

Beyond Europe, in what historian Will Durant labeled the bloodiest chapter in human history, the Mughal empire (Mongolian-Turkic Muslims of Central Asia) conquered and subdued the Indian subcontinent, slaughtering tens of millions of polytheistic Hindus.

With unmistakable relish, Western educators attack the British empire for its (comparatively tame) subsequent exploitation of the Indian subcontinent (while also bringing education and infrastructure and eliminating cultural barbarities like suttee), while completely ignoring the exponentially more destructive and deadly Muslim Mughal conquest and occupation of India.  Muslim invaders were hardly known for their accurate record-keeping, so a full tally of the astronomical death toll in India and Europe wrought by the Mughals, Moors, Arabs, Ottomans, and others is beyond reach.

By contrast, the British colonizers who arrived later in India kept reasonably accurate records, recording censuses, including deaths by starvation, disease, rebellion, droughts, cyclones, and the like, all of which gives us a better guesstimate of the suffering in India under British rule.

Returning to the theme of civilizational erasure, sadly, that horse left the barn in Western Europe.  Nations in Central and Eastern Europe such as Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Czechia (the Visegrád Four) still have a fighting chance to resist the crescent tide that has swept away Western Europe — but only if they keep their borders completely closed to Muslims and eventually extricate themselves from the clutches of the European Union.

Many Christmas markets in Europe are now closed due to “uncontrolled vehicles” and related Islamist threats while church bells and caroling fall silent in order to avoid offending Muslims.  Meanwhile, the Muslim muezzin sounds triumphantly throughout Western Europe and even in American cities of the Upper Midwest.  Islamic supremacism is on the march, its triumphalism augmented by its alliance with Western progressives who denounce any reminders of Christianity, including celebrations of Christmas.

Burn a Koran or post a meme mocking Islam, and go to prison for a hate crime.  Burn a Bible, and hey, you’re bravely speaking truth to power.  Citizens of the West all know the drill by now.

Will the governments of the Anglosphere learn their lesson from the Western European canary that dropped dead in the coal mine?  Events in locales as varied as Minnesota and the United Kingdom (it appears as if all of Albion is bent over and grabbing its ankles, undergoing a government cavity search) suggest that the answer is probably no

To paraphrase the otherwise cartoonish James Carville, it’s the demography, stupid.



🎭 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. 


President Trump Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Against the BBC for Edited Jan. 6 Clip



President Trump has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for their 2024 documentary, "Panorama," which distorted Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, making it seem as though he directly incited the January 6 riot. 

"The formerly respected and now disgraced BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech in a brazen attempt to interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election. The BBC has a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda. President Trump’s powerhouse lawsuit is holding the BBC accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing," a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team told Fox News Digital. 

Trump is represented by attorneys Alejandro Brito, Edward Paltzik, and Daniel Epstein.

The lawsuit states:

The BBC, faced with overwhelming and justifiable outrage on both sides of the Atlantic, has publicly admitted its staggering breach of journalistic ethics, and apologized, but has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses.

The company had previously issued an apology for the edit and said they pulled the movie from its platform. However, a spokesperson for the BBC said that, "While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim."



Trump Wants to Raise Money and Hegseth Wants Warriors; an Ancient Institution Might Please Both


RedState 

The U.S. military seizing a "dark fleet" tanker carrying an embargoed load of Venezuelan crude oil marked a sea change in the way the U.S. has dealt with the problem of smuggled Iranian, Venezuelan and Russian oil  A vast fleet of unregistered, and uninsured tankers provides the means for crude oil under U.S. and UN sanctions to make its way to refineries in China and keep outlaw regimes in money. 

In my post on Saturday, I sketched out how the network of at least 397 tankers, ranging from super tankers to short-haul tankers, operates outside international law; see 'Dark Fleet' Tanker Seized Near Venezuela Ran Sanctioned Oil to China, Says House Committee – RedState. The administration obtained a warrant to seize (see Terrorism Law Now Unleashed: Feds Unseal Tanker Seizure Order – RedState), and presumably forfeit, the MT SKIPPER and its cargo based on U.S. law, specifically, 

  • 18 U.S. Code § 2339B(a)(1): Materiall support to a foreign terrorist organization,
  • 18 U.S. Code § 981(a)(1)(G)(1): Civil asset forfeiture of foreign and domestic property belonging to persons "planning or perpetrating" terrorism,
  • 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5): Commission of terrorism, and
  • 18 U.S.C. § 981(b): Asset forfeiture.

This opens the possibility of a centuries-old institution being called back into service: the Prize Court.

At the height of the Age of Sail, all maritime nations operated what were called prize courts. These institutions, frequently consisting of a single adjudicator, were responsible for the disposition of hostile warships, privateers, commercial ships, and blockade runners. It was prize courts that converted captured hostile ships into cash.

This is how prize courts operated. A captured vessel was brought into a harbor where the jurisdiction of the court was located. The first step taken was to adjudicate the legality of the capture. At this stage, the ship's owner could contest the capture, and, if the owner could prove the ship wasn't contraband, the captain bringing it in was held personally liable for damages arising from the capture and the delay caused by the capture and prize court action.

Much like modern civil asset forfeiture cases, the court tried a case in rem, that is, "against the thing." A modern civil asset forfeiture case might be called U.S. v. One Solid Gold Object In Form of A Rooster, a prize case could be U.S. vs. MV Minnow, or, in the case at hand, MT Skipper. 

  • There is no jury. Under U.S. law, a federal district judge can dispose of prizes.
  • There is a presumption of guilt. The ship's owner must prove that the ship was captured illegally. If the owner fails to appear, the ship is automatically condemned as a prize.
  • Condemned prizes and their cargo are sold at auction.

Now this is the sweet part: the prize money is divided between the government and the forces that made the capture. 

Under Royal Navy rules, the cash remaining after the prize agent had been paid for selling the ship and cargo was divided according to a fixed hierarchy.

  • Two-eighths went to the captain or commander. This often helped them become rich and powerful.
  • One-eighth went to the admiral or commander-in-chief who gave the ship its orders. (If orders came directly from London, this eighth also went to the captain). [Editor's note: The commander-in-chief, in the case of the MV Skipper, would correspond to the USSOUTHCOM commander.]
  • One-eighth was shared among the lieutenants, sailing master, and captain of marines.
  • One-eighth was shared among the wardroom warrant officers (like the surgeon and purser), standing warrant officers (like the carpenter and boatswain), lieutenant of marines, and master's mates.
  • One-eighth was shared among junior warrant and petty officers, their mates, marine sergeants, the captain's clerk, surgeon's mates, and midshipmen.
  • The final two-eighths were shared among the rest of the crew. Skilled seamen got more shares than ordinary seamen, landsmen, and boys. For example, an able seaman received two shares, an ordinary seaman one and a half, a landsman one share, and a boy half a share.

To keep cut-throat competition to a minimum, a prize was shared among every ship "in sight" of the capture. Britain awarded its last prize money during World War II. Even then, it was losing its grip on manliness. The money went into a "welfare" fund to benefit all sailors.

A successful cruise could make the captain very wealthy. A commander-in-chief of a very active station like the West Indies would become incredibly rich. 

What are we looking at in terms of potential cash flow? The oil seized aboard the MT Skipper is valued at approximately $100 million. The ship itself is valued at roughly $80 million. The 143 "dark fleet" supertankers, such as MT Skipper, would be worth an eye-watering $25.7 billion. The remaining tankers of all classes are worth at least that much. Moreover, if the U.S. government purchased the ships, it would solve the intractable problem of how to supply U.S. forces in the Pacific with fuel in time of war. In a Napoleonic Wars scenario, the USSOUTHCOM commander would have pocketed over $3 billion. Under U.S. law, last updated in 1862, the prize money allocated for the capture of the MT Skipper would be half of the sale value; the other half would go to the government. The division of spoils is:

The ship’s share was divided into 20 parts, of which the captain took 3 unless he had to share with a superior when it became 2, commissioned officers divided 2, warrant officers 2, chief petty officers 3, petty officers 3, and seamen and marines 7.

The 3/20 share due to the captain of the USS Gerald R. Ford would amount to approximately $13.5 million. Each of the approximately 15,000 sailors and Marines in the task force would receive more than $2,000. Ceiba, Puerto Rico, would never recover from the fleet coming in.

Unfortunately, Congress voted to end paying prize money to sailors and marines in March 1899, but, as President Trump has shown, there are ways around laws if the president is so motivated. I think an argument could be made that the law ending prize money is an unconstitutional encroachment on the president's authority, both as commander-in-chief and as the head of the executive branch, which is in charge of selling condemned prizes. At a minimum, it would be interesting to see the dragging given anyone suing to stop the distribution of prize money.

President Trump wants to reduce the national debt without raising taxes, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth wants to bring back the warrior ethos. I submit that instituting prize courts and imposing no season or size limit on "dark fleet" ships could make both men wildly successful while throttling Venezuela's and Iran's revenue streams and hamstringing China's ability to fight a war.



Biden Blew Off Warnings That Terrorists Were Flooding Into US Following Botched Afghan Withdrawal


RedState 

report came out Sunday morning that may have been overlooked due to the fact that our attention was, understandably, focused on the deadly shooting at Brown University and the terrorist attack on Chanukah-celebrating Jews in Australia, but there was some important information revealed that needs to be discussed. Namely, senior United States intelligence officials have now confirmed that President Biden had been made aware of the fact that hundreds of Afghan nationals with terrorist ties were being allowed into the country without proper vetting, and he chose to ignore those warnings.

According to the report, officials had flagged to the Biden administration over 1,000 Afghans with ties to the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations who had entered the U.S. as part of Operation Allies Welcome, which resettled persons who had aided operations in Afghanistan. Those concerns apparently fell on deaf ears, with Biden prioritizing "mass migration over security" and completely disregarding those warnings that “identified terrorist threats."

This information merely reinforces the mounting pile of evidence that Biden willingly suspended the vetting system typically used by the U.S. government in order to evacuate Afghans as the Taliban retook the country following his administration's bungled withdrawal. 

Simon Hankinson, a former diplomat who is now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explained: "The deliberate decision was taken to evacuate tens of thousands of Afghan nationals and their immediate relatives on the premise that the principal applicants had rendered significant service to the US government effort in Afghanistan." Hankison added that, in the administration's rush to evacuate families, the U.S. didn't have the "time or means” to ensure those with terror ties were being weeded out and denied entry into the country.

Despite claims by Biden administration officials that they performed thorough background checks on all Afghan evacuees, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) inspector general discovered that border agents lacked “critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect the evacuees” because they were not provided basic information like names and dates of birth, nor did they have access to the evacuees' travel documents.

All of this takes on a renewed importance and urgency in the wake of Sunday's brutal massacre at Bondi Beach. It's becoming abundantly clear that too many western countries have put out the welcome mat for Islamists without first doing proper due diligence, all in the name of diversity. And it's the citizens who pay the price when the government doesn't do its job.

Right here in the U.S., too many of these "Afghan nationals" have turned out to be individuals that should have never been allowed into the country. One shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he gunned down two West Virginia National Guardsmen as they protected the streets of Washington, D.C., resulting in the death of Sarah Beckstrom and serious injuries to her colleague, Andrew Wolfe. Just days before that, another one was arrested in Texas after making terroristic threats on TikTok.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been in the media in recent days reassuring Americans that the Trump administration is now "revetting" the nearly 1,000 Afghan nationals living in the U.S. who've been identified as having ties to terrorist groups. Said Gabbard, "We know that Al Qaeda and ISIS continue to actively plot attacks against our homeland."

As I've written before, cleanup in Aisle Biden continues apace.



Trump’s Oil Tanker Seizure: Another Shocking And Unprecedented Act That Isn’t Shocking Or Unprecedented



News media and politicians are howling in alarm over the U.S. government’s supposedly dangerous and shocking seizure of “a Venezuelan oil tanker.”

Same framing with more detailed whining in The Guardian:

Amid a bunch of Democratic Party alarm-sounding, the panic is at least partially bipartisan. Sample quote:

Rand Paul, a Republican senator of Kentucky, told NewsNation that “seizing someone’s oil tanker is an initiation of war” and questioned whether “it’s the job of the American government to go looking for monsters around the world, looking for adversaries and beginning wars.”

But it’s not a a Venezuelan oil tanker, though it was carrying Venezuelan oil. It’s a stateless oil tanker, flying the flag of Guyana but apparently not registered with Guyana. The maritime journalist and former Merchant Marine captain John Conrad explains this in detail. As he writes in that long post:

No real flag = stateless vessel.
And stateless vessels have zero legal protections.

Stateless vessels are subject to seizure, and are seized. Legal definitions and discussion here. This example on the other side of the world is from this year:



Sample news story about this April seizure:

A Kremlin-linked oil tanker was detained by Estonian authorities on Friday just outside Tallinn, in what marks the first time the Baltic country has directly targeted Russia’s “shadow fleet.”

The vessel, named the Kiwala, had been reportedly operating under the flag of Djibouti. However, it was caught not flying a flag, which is a violation of maritime law. Although the crew provided a flag certificate, the Djibouti naval authority said it could not find the Kiwala in its national registry.

The seizure of a stateless oil tanker is not shocking, not an unusual act of aggression, and not something that only the administration of Mean Orange Hitler would be likely to do. Resist the panic.

With that said, my best guess is that Senator Chris Van Hollen’s quote in The Guardian is accidentally correct. The senator from MS-13 says that the seizure of the tanker proves that the administration’s story about blowing up drug boats to stop drugs is a lie: “This is just one more piece of evidence that this is really about regime change — by force.”

As I wrote recently, the lethal strikes on drug boats have happened right alongside continued Coast Guard interdictions by normal means, so there’s a logic to the strikes that hasn’t been announced and will only become clear to us as it develops. A long post on X suggests, I think with convincing logic, that the drug boat strikes and the tanker seizure are part of the same effort to starve the Maduro regime to death without fighting a war: “The goal is not a ground invasion or a prolonged conflict. The goal is to create a short, intense financial crisis within the regime that makes Maduro’s continued rule untenable.”

In that sense, the seizure is an act of aggression, but not one that represents a government that is sleepwalking into war. It’s an act of aggression with significant political effects and credible legal cover.

That same logic suggests that the Trump administration is treating drug cartels as state-aligned actors and political entities, regime organs, not merely as criminal enterprises.

My argument stays the same: There’s a strategic effort underway that isn’t entirely clear, and we’ll see it become clear over time. The seizure of a stateless oil tanker carrying Maduro’s oil is aggressive, but it isn’t clearly reckless or an act of “sleepwalking.” We’ll see how it develops.



Australia Doesn’t Have A Gun Problem, It Has An Islamist Problem



At least 15 people were murdered at a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Australia on Sunday after two alleged Islamic terrorists opened fire.

One of the suspects, Sajid Akram, moved to Australia in 1998 on a student visa before becoming a permanent resident, while his son, Naveed Akram, was born in Australia, according to Sky News. Authorities previously investigated the son “on the basis of being associated with” alleged terrorists, but authorities ultimately determined “there was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence,” according to the report.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese carefully stated in an interview that the attackers’ antisemitic “ideology” was an “extreme perversion of Islam,” but authorities haven’t released any official statement describing the motive. Even so, the truth is obvious: The terrorist attack resulted from a failure to confront the radical Islamic extremism that is inundating the West and was enabled by mass migration.

Yet within hours of the attack, Prime Minister Albanese proposed “tougher gun laws” and warned about “right-wing extremist groups.”

University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers, parroting a common left-wing talking point, said on X: “Just want to share with my American friends how the Australians respond to a shooting tragedy. Action, rather than thoughts and prayers.” But no draconian gun law would have stopped what authorities later discovered.

Police said they found “a range of IEDs” and “explosive devices” in a car purportedly belonging to the suspects, adding that the suspects planned to use the explosives to inflict “further damage,” according to Sky News. In other words, even if firearms had been unavailable, mass casualties were still the objective. The method may be interchangeable, but the intent was not.

The circumstances are hardly unique. Earlier this year a suspected radical Islamist allegedly used Molotov cocktails to light Jewish demonstrators on fire in Boulder, Colorado.

Last year an Afghan national was arrested for allegedly plotting an Election Day terrorist attack on behalf of ISIS, and just recently a different Afghan national allegedly shot and killed one National Guardsman and critically injured a second after being imported here by the Biden administration.

In Europe Paris canceled its iconic Champs-Élysées open-air concert on New Year’s Eve after authorities cited “unpredictable crowd movements,” though, as the New York Post reported, “critics loudly blamed France’s open-door immigration policies.” France’s interior minister sent a letter to state officials warning of a “very high terror threat” at open-air Christmas markets from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, according to the Post. At least six terrorist plots “have been thwarted to date in 2025 in France,” according to the report.

In all cases, the problem wasn’t the weapon — because the weapons changed — it was radical Islamists. But that’s the truth that Australia’s leaders and leftists refuse to acknowledge.

Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Pretending this attack was the result of loose gun regulations rather than a failure to address the importation and radicalization of violent Islamist extremists is not only dishonest, it’s dangerous.

If the lesson learned from this massacre is to further restrict the rights of lawful citizens while ignoring the ideological threat that motivated it, Australia won’t have fewer attacks — it will have more.