The Special Relationship Is Dead

American Thinker 

Remember how we used to think of France?  “Lafayette, we are here!” are the words attributed to General Pershing on July 4, 1917 at Lafayette’s tomb, not long after the Yanks arrived in Paris.

After World War II, NATO was headquartered in the Paris suburb of Saint Germaine-en-laye, where, incidentally, my youngest daughter was born.  General de Gaulle evicted us in 1966 when he pulled France out of NATO.  President Lyndon Johnson reportedly asked him if he also wanted us to take the graveyards full of the American dead who had fallen in Normandy and Bastogne.

That special relationship never fully recovered.

Nixon and Pompidou tried to revive it in 1972, when they signed a (still) secret nuclear weapons assistance pact.  I called it a “second marriage” in my book The French Betrayal of America, and it ended in divorce in 2003, when French president Chirac preferred Saddam Hussein’s oil to his erstwhile American ally.

So yes, Special Relationships can definitely die.  So can alliances as big as NATO.

British prime minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly huffed and puffed in recent weeks about not joining the war with Iran, initially denying us the right to use the massive U.S.-U.K. air base on Diego Garcia that was built with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

He ultimately relented, and we moved B-2 Spirit bombers to the Indian Ocean.  That shortened their flying time to Iran from thirty-six hours to just under six.

Then, on March 20, Iran launched two 2,500-mile-range missiles toward the Chagos Islands.  One of them failed mid-flight, and the other was shot down in the upper atmosphere by an SM-3 Standard missile fired from a U.S. warship.

Those missiles showed not only that Iran could hit Diego Garcia.  They could also hit London.

Since then, Prime Minister Starmer has not stopped wetting his pants.  Not a day goes by without some slavish pandering aimed at the Iranian mullahs, and Muslims in general.

As I pointed out earlier this week on London’s GB television, Starmer appears to believe that because the Iranians have not yet launched missiles against London, the U.K. is safe.

He appears to believe that if he slavishly tells the Iranians twice a day that Britain will not send warships to help the United States reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Britain will be safe from Iranian attack.

Of the twenty thousand targets hit in Iran since the war began, not a single one was taken out by the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, and Keir Starmer likes to remind the Iranians of this every single day.

He is truly the mouse that roared.

The U.S. and the U.K. once extolled our “special relationship.”  Not only did we go to war together, repeatedly, but we also shared secrets.  At one point, the U.S. and the U.K. shared intelligence they wouldn’t dream of giving to Israel, even when it related to WMD threats to Israel from the likes of Saddam Hussein.  You can ask Jonathan Pollard about that.

The U.K. and many other NATO allies have helped us in the past to defend international shipping from Somali pirates.  As recently as December 2023, in Operation Prosperity Guardian, they helped us keep open the Red Sea by attacking the Houthis in Yemen.

Of course, at the time, Donald Trump was not in the White House, and Britain had a conservative prime minister, Rishi Sunak.

President Trump is understandingly furious with the U.K. and our NATO partners.  No, the U.S. has never formally requested NATO assistance against Iran, but gee, you’d have thought some of our NATO “allies” might want to join an effort to free the world of a terrorist threat menacing us all.

Well, you would have thought wrong.

Besides Israel, which is our full partner in this war, our best ally to date has been Nichervan Barzani, president of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq.

On March 17, Trump had special envoy Tom Barrack make a special request to Barzani.  Would he consider reopening the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline so Iraqi government oil could flow to Turkey and from there to world markets?

That pipeline is a sore subject for the Kurds.  They closed it down over three years ago because Baghdad was cheating them out of the oil revenues they were constitutionally pledged to divide between them.

Put simply, Baghdad stole the oil from the Kurds and pocketed the proceeds, without so much as a thank-you.  (Kirkuk officially remains a “disputed territory,” claimed by both Baghdad and Erbil, but the Kurds consider it to be historically part of the Kurdish region.)

But Barrack told Barzani that the request to reopen the pipeline was coming directly from President Trump, and so Barzani immediately agreed.  The very next day, Iraq started sending 250,000 barrels of oil per day through that pipeline to world markets.  It was just one of many mitigating acts President Trump has taken to keep oil prices from skyrocketing.

Has the U.K. increased its oil production in the North Sea?  Nope.  In fact, it has been shutting down oil platforms, replacing them with wind and solar.  Has the U.K. considered perhaps a waiver on its renewable energy policies in view of rising oil prices?  Or perhaps just to help an ally?

No again.  The U.K. and our NATO “allies” have been banging their tin pots for years to get the U.S. to pay for their war in Ukraine.  During his first term, President Trump helped to rearm the Ukrainian army, supplying them with Javelin anti-tank missiles starting in 2018.  Thanks to those missiles, the Ukes were able to smash the initial Russian armored column that was heading toward Kyiv in February and March 2022.

Altogether, we spent an estimated $350 billion to help our NATO allies defend Ukraine against the Russians.  And they won’t even send us a few minesweepers to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz so NATO can buy oil?

The president is understandably furious with the U.K., NATO, and our European “allies” — so much so that he has floated unilaterally withdrawing from the alliance.

Chuck Schumer was quick to tell the media that Democrats would never give the president the two-thirds vote in the Senate he needs to withdraw from a treaty organization.  But the president already secured a legal opinion in 2020arguing that as president, he has executive authority over treaties and can indeed withdraw without Senate approval — and see y’all in court for the next twenty years.

The Special Relationship is dead, and not because of Trump.  Yes, alliances can die, too.

Podcast thread for April 6th

 

back to work.

We Cannot Take the 'Middle Way’

 

The Road to the American Revolution

Jared Gould   |  6 April 2026

On April 6, 1776, the Continental Congress opened American ports to trade with the world, but closed them to Britain.

The resolution was retaliatory. In March 1775, Parliament passed the New England Restraining Act, blockading colonial shipping, severing access to global commerce, and barring New England ships from the North Atlantic fisheries.

Congress responded in kind: “any goods, wares, and merchandise … may be exported … to any parts of the world which are not under the dominion of the said King.” The colonies would decide where they traded. And with whom.

Of course, the decision to open the ports did not go without dispute.

As early as February 1776, debates over whether to open the ports were already underway. John Adams took notes of the debate, detailing that some delegates worried that opening the ports would foreclose any remaining path to peace with the Crown. (Some were not enthusiastic about total independence and believed reconciliation might still be possible). Others feared that, without a formal alliance, American ships would be easy prey for the British navy. A “middle way” was even proposed, which would have simply limited trade rather than initiate a full break.

But Congress rejected a middle path.

Instead, it opened its ports, and by doing so, the colonies enabled the receipt of covert aid from France. By May 1776, France was delivering muskets, gunpowder, and artillery. And when July came, trade was listed among the Declaration’s top grievances: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” Who decides where a nation trades, and on what terms, is who holds power. The colonists decided they would.

We lack the will for total independence now.

The United States spent the better part of the last several decades transferring critical manufacturing capacity to China in pursuit of cheaper goods and higher margins. In doing so, we have coupled ourselves to an adversary that could, on short notice, withhold materials on which we depend.

Some members of Congress recognize this danger.

Rep. Tom Cotton, for example, has proposed barring Chinese nationals from handling U.S. military equipment, and Elizabeth Warren joined him in sponsoring the Chip Security Act to tighten oversight of advanced AI chips and prevent their transfer to China. Meanwhile, proposals such as the Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025 aim to address vulnerabilities in higher education—the issue of this series’ parent organization, the National Association of Scholars.

These efforts are not nothing. But they are not decisive either.

Congress, taken as a whole, has settled into a kind of “middle way” with China. It is willing to act on narrow questions of national security, but unwilling to confront the broader reality of economic dependence.

Nowhere is this middle way more evident than in higher education.

The Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025, for instance, appears to be collecting dust. And even as Congress is aware of espionage and intellectual property theft, it allows American universities to remain deeply dependent on international enrollment, including large numbers of Chinese nationals. The President himself has indicated that as many as 600,000 Chinese nationals may attend U.S. colleges and universities.

The colonies did not choose a middle way. Total economic separation from Britain carried disruption, exposure, and uncertainty, but it ended in independence.

We cannot take the middle way now.

Art by Beck & Stone

Don’t Freak Out When We Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case

Townhall 

Are you ready to be sad? Because I’m not going to sugarcoat it for you. I’m not going to whistle a happy tune as I blow sunshine up your Schumer. We are not going to win the birthright citizenship case at the US Supreme Court. 

It’s not going to happen for a number of reasons. I wish it would happen. I also wish I could get a unicorn for my birthday. It’s not going to happen, and I want to let you know why so you don’t freak out. It’s not the result of a conspiracy. It’s not because everybody else is stupid, one justice notwithstanding. It’s because that’s how the legal system works. You don’t have to like it. You do have to understand it if you don’t want to be emotionally incontinent every time something in a courtroom doesn’t go your way.

I respect you enough to tell you how it’s going to be. And it’s not going to be what you hope.

First, I’m not going to rehash the arguments about birthright citizenship. I already agree with you. I think the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. I know all the reasons, and I’m familiar with the arguments. You don’t need to convince me. Please don’t fill the comments up with, “Well, Kurt, what about this particular bit of legislative history or that particular definition of ‘jurisdiction?’” We’re past all that. It doesn’t matter anymore. The Court is going to do what the Court is going to do, and I’m going to tell you below what the Court is going to do and why. You don’t have to like it, but you should try to understand it if only to be better prepared for the next fight.

One thing, though. Don’t write off the arguments against our position as crazy or insane or frivolous or stupid. When you do that, you underestimate your opponent. Maybe it’s because I’m a lawyer, and every time I walked into court, I believed in my arguments just as my opponent believed in his. Just because you don’t agree with someone else’s legal argument does not necessarily mean it’s crazy. Oh, believe me, there are plenty of crazy arguments out there. But what we’re arguing against is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has been in effect for nearly 150 years. Clearly, many people find it persuasive, even if we don’t. 

Again, I’m a lawyer, so I’m used to disagreeing with everybody, and I don’t take it personally. You shouldn’t either. It’s bad for your blood pressure, and it prevents you from rationally understanding the opposing view, which you must do so you can better attack it. A bad lawyer dismisses his opponent’s dumb argument out of hand and fails to take it seriously. He often walks into court and is surprised to find the judge taking it seriously. A good lawyer respects the opposing argument enough to understand it and, therefore, be able to defeat it.

So, here’s your spoiler. We’re going to lose this case, likely on procedural grounds rather than on the issue of birthright citizenship itself. What it is probably going to be is the justices somehow ruling that Trump‘s executive order banning birthright citizenship is procedurally flawed and unenforceable. The majority opinion is probably not even going to reach whether the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship. Now, the three leftist justices will probably write a concurrence to that effect, but that’s not going to be the holding of the case that creates precedent. Their avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban is not necessarily because the other justices are cowardly, though it does provide a great excuse to avoid a great controversy. There is a principle in the law that courts will avoid ruling something unconstitutional if they can do so on some other ground. And they will be most happy to do so here.

You see, judges don’t like weighing in on big controversies. This is a controversy, even if you don’t agree with the other side’s position. Many people agree with the other side’s position. Whichever way the Court rules, it’s going to take heat. You take more heat for upsetting the status quo, so judges tend not to do it. They will, but not necessarily the first time they face an issue. Roe v. Wade lasted 50 years before it was overturned. It is a huge ask to appeal to the Supreme Court to change something we’ve been doing for so long. Do not underestimate the tendency of the courts to maintain the status quo. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to leftist judges, as we’ve seen with the disgraceful conduct of the district courts. They often ignore this norm when it comes to Donald Trump's actions. But the higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court, tend to avoid major changes when they can. And here, they can. They can say Trump’s executive order is somehow procedurally inappropriate, and they don’t need to talk about the 14th Amendment at all. I think it’s likely, though not certain, that they will.

I’m not saying this is right. I’m saying this is reality. You can either accept reality and work around it to win, or you can be mad. Personally, I prefer to channel my energy into victory.

And we can have victory. The arguments were very interesting because they set the stage for some statutory fixes that could pass constitutional muster. We’re not going to get a constitutional amendment that is going to change things in the foreseeable future, but by raising these arguments and spotlighting some of the practical consequences of birthright citizenship, Trump has set the stage for legislation that can address some of these issues while remaining in compliance with the birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

For instance, you remember a lot of the arguments regarding the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” There may be ways to craft legislation to define and expand or constrict that concept. One justice offered a very interesting hypothetical, which was that a child of two Iranian parents is born in the United States, but the government of Iran considers him a citizen who owes it military service. Is he subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? But how about Iran? This concerns his allegiance. And that’s a good question. Does a foreign country considering you a citizen who owes it duties mean you don’t owe allegiance to the United States? Perhaps we can craft a law where somebody who is the child of people who are present here legally is not considered to have allegiance to a foreign government, regardless of what the government says, but a child of people who are here illegally retains their allegiance to their parents’ homeland. After all, nobody disputes that ambassadors’ children are not American citizens because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. This bears further attention.

We also saw concerns about birth tourism, particularly Chinese women who come here for a week, drop a brat, then head back to Beijing with a Manchurian citizen. I hate saying it, but Justice Roberts was right – the existence of this unforeseen problem (because they didn’t have jets that could whisk a mom into America and back to China when the amendment was drafted) does not change what the text of the Constitution says. We don’t do the living Constitution thing where the Constitution changes over time by some sort of mysterious process. You change the Constitution by amending it. It might be interesting to see how a statute that says a person born to foreign parents in the United States and then immediately taken away for an extended period is not truly under the jurisdiction of the United States fares before the Court. 

You can also change things with immigration laws and regulations governing foreigners. Why are we offering visas to pregnant Chinese women? Or any pregnant foreign women? Maybe we make birth tourism a crime. And maybe we could prioritize removing pregnant illegal aliens. We could also impose a civil penalty for being an illegal alien who gives birth to an American citizen by birthright citizenship, such as a fine or a perpetual ban on legal presence. We should certainly take pregnant women in custody who are near term and send them to Guantánamo Bay, where they can give birth on Cuban soil. Other folks have other intriguing ideas.

So, there are practical steps we can take to ameliorate some of these problems. But the big problem is the birthright citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Sadly, that’s not going to get fixed by this case. It just isn’t. But we’ve started a discussion of the subject. We’ve started the fight. And now we just have to finish it. 

But it’s not going to help by freaking out, being demoralized, blackpilling, or whining about how we didn’t get our way this time. If you’re not paying attention, let me help you. We’re winning about 90% of our cases. We lost tariffs, sort of, and we are going to lose this, sort of. We’ve won everything else. The Trump Justice Department’s track record is astonishing. 

There’s a saying among trial lawyers that if you never lose, it’s because you never try cases. If we’re pushing the envelope, sometimes we’re going to push until the envelope tears. That’s a good thing. So, don’t be discouraged. We’re never going to win all our court cases. Sometimes we’re going to lose, and it’s going to hurt. So what? Welcome to real life. The answer isn’t to throw up our hands in despair. The answer is to keep fighting.

Time for Europe to Defend Itself

American Thinker 

Four years ago, the Biden administration was working with the United Kingdom and the European Commission to pay for diminutive comedian Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s war with the Russian Federation over territories where supermajorities of the population identify as Russian.  We were told that the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine “belonged” to Ukraine and that the only way to “preserve democracy” was to deny those people a democratic vote to join the Russian Federation.  “Democracy” also apparently requires the installation of a Ukrainian dictator, a complete crackdown on an independent press, widespread censorship of public debate on social media, the denial of religious freedom, and a brutal campaign of press-ganging men into military service to die as cannon fodder for a corrupt Ukrainian regime that launders money from U.S. and European taxpayers into the bank accounts of the West’s political and financial elites.

Just as globalists in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and across Old (and increasingly Islamic) Europe turned the “Reign of COVID Terror” into an opportunity to bilk taxpayers, enrich elites, and grow the totalitarian national security State, the same globalist scum quickly turned the Ukraine conflict into another “emergency” requiring more taxes, censorship, and public sacrifice.  All of a sudden, anything criticizing the official public policies of Western governments was labeled “Russian disinformation.”  If you disagreed with whatever the West’s vaunted “experts” said, you were dismissed as “Putin’s puppet.”  Pro tip for information warfare enthusiasts: When government authorities identify dissent as “propaganda,” that’s propaganda! 

The COVID propaganda project gave us a chorus of World Economic Forum buffoons posing as national leaders all singing, “We must ‘Build Back Better.’”  When that schtick got old — or, rather, when ordinary citizens across the West started to show signs of resistance against their imperial rulers — the West’s globalists turned Ukraine’s Chief Munchkin into a “freedom fighter” battling the pernicious authoritarianism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin.  The same yahoos — Biden, Trudeau, Macron, Queen Ursula, and the rest of the WEF’s rump-kissing claque — who screeched like wounded cockatoos, “Build Back Better,” now all huffed in unison, “Ukraine!  Ukraine!  Ukraine!”  It never ceases to amaze me that the day after Canada’s “Freedom Convoy” protests against COVID “vaccine” mandates came to an end, the official launch of the new hit television drama, “WAR: Ukraine,” began.  It’s almost as if Western globalists yank us commoners along by the leash from one spectacular production of nonsense to the next (just to see how much money they can steal from our pockets when their hands aren’t busy groping small children).

Some people in the U.S. and Europe were made to really care about a country that has long been considered so incorrigibly corrupt that other corrupt countries can’t help but blush.  Lemmings who had been walking around with multiple paper masks over their faces to magically protect themselves from viruses that don’t fear masks all of a sudden waved Ukrainian flags with gusto as if they could identify Dwarf-King Zelenskyy’s money-pit-proto-nation on a map!  Nobody wanted to admit that the same übermenschen from sub rosa groups such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission — who have made a financial killing from “green energy” and mRNA “vaccines” over the years — had simply returned to their favorite investment of all: actual killing.  War brings new taxes, new regulations, new forms of censorship, new military investment, and new ways to exploit asymmetric information for financial gains.  In short, wars bring profits!  And what better place for corrupt globalists to make tons of money than to take advantage of the corrupt swindlers putatively governing the traveling circus known as Ukraine!

The United Kingdom (still smarting from its misadventures in the Crimean War one hundred and seventy years ago) demanded that Russia hand back Crimea to its MI6-managed Ukrainian friends.  Queen Ursula of the pan-European (and increasingly Islamic) empire demanded that Russia respect the right of Europeans to overthrow any Ukrainian governments that Brussels doesn’t like (see the U.S.-E.C.-organized 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine, or what Western propagandists still shamelessly call the “Revolution of Dignity”).  BlackRock and other multinational investment firms selflessly volunteered to help finance the war, purchase Ukraine’s assets on the cheap, and invest heavily in the subsequent reconstruction projects of a destroyed nation.  Google and Facebook promised to censor all public debate averse to globalists’ interests as “Russian propaganda.”  

Oh my, what a magnificent war!  It has had everything globalists adore!  It managed to turn a mad midget who plays piano with his penis into Winston Churchill!  It justified blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines and forcing Europe’s peasants into using much more expensive “green energy”!  It excused more government money-printing and spending that conveniently inflated the value of assets owned by the 1% of the 1%!  It allowed the titular leaders of European nations to strut about on the world stage as if they were courageous military generals rallying troops on the front lines — while really doing nothing but callously dropping vulnerable Ukrainian lads into a meat grinder that has made the rich wealthier and the poor fertilizer.  European elites have demonstrated their virtue and bravery one dead Ukrainian at a time.  The whole bloody affair has had all the pomp and circumstance of old, flatulent monarchs dining on beans, broccoli, cabbage, and cheese.

European gentry never wanted a real war — one in which they might risk life and limb.  They simply wanted a war that would cause their investment portfolios to fatten up while they prattled on about bravery and sacrifice.  How do we know?  Because the moment that President Trump began incinerating the mad mullahs of Iran, Europe’s globalists tucked tail and ran…or at least hightailed it to the closest water closet for fresh underpants.  

After cutting off oil production in the North Sea in the name of “climate change” and banning Russian energy supplies in the name of “democracy,” Europe depends quite a bit on Middle Eastern oil to stave off economic death.  However, Europe is also right now transitioning from a Western to an Islamic civilization.  Europe’s political elites are so afraid of Islamic immigrants that they would rather permit them to rape their youngest daughters than cause a scene.  They certainly can’t be seen going to war against an Islamic country!  Wealthy Europeans don’t mind sacrificing the continent’s peasants to mass slaughter, but they have no interest in seeing a scimitar up close themselves.  Yes, yes, best to wear the white feather of cowardice as if it were a symbol of European principle.  America’s courageous cowboys will surely save Old Europe from itself!

Except…maybe not this time.  President Trump is not happy that our so-called NATO “allies” have refused to support America’s mission in Iran.  U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer says, “This is not our war.  We will not be drawn into the conflict.”  Starmer wants to decouple from the U.S. and rejoin the E.U.  France, Spain, Italy, and the U.K. have now denied the U.S. military permission to use European bases or airspace.  Europe’s NATO members collectively insist that Iran is not NATO’s concern.  

To which President Trump has appropriately pointed out that Ukraine is not a NATO member and therefore not America’s concern.  Both the president and Secretary of State Rubio believe that if European members of NATO cannot be persuaded to protect their own economic interests in the Strait of Hormuz, then it is time for the U.S. to reconsider its NATO commitments to European security.  “Allies” in name only aren’t really allies at all.  For those of us tired of Europe’s crusty aristocracy leeching off of American military muscle while habitually grousing, the possibility of cutting off the Old World’s freeloaders is pleasant news.  Americans shouldn’t fight for a continent that has no interest in defending itself.

Can Europe save itself without the US?

Can Europe save itself without the US?

The problems with defense of Europe are complex. Europe not wanting to defend itself is only one of them.

Susan Quinn for American Thinker

Europe has been taking a lot of flak in the last two months in the midst of the Iran War, raising the question of whether its members are capable of or interested in militarily defending themselves.

An example is a serious conflict that arose recently when President Trump asked the Europeans to help the U.S. open the Strait of Hormuz.  The Strait has been mostly closed to traffic by the Iranians, and Trump insists that the waterway should be an open and free passageway.  Iran disagrees and wants sovereignty over it.  The U.S. doesn’t access the Strait very often, but Europe does.  Unfortunately, European states refuse to engage their militaries to keep the Strait open.  To make matters worse, those countries where U.S. bases are established won’t allow the U.S. to use their territory or air bases.  And Trump is furious at the European countries for their lack of cooperation:

The U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!

The fact that Iran has developed missiles that can reach the far reaches of Europe should be especially concerning.  But Europe has stood firm.  Although much has been said about the spike in oil prices due to the Strait’s near shutdown, prime minister of the U.K. Keir Starmer insists he won’t get into the fight and that the nation will simply need to bear the escalating prices.  He believes that diplomacy is the best way to resolve these issues.

The problems with defense of Europe are complex.  Only a few nations, primarily France, actually have a military industrial complex.  The U.S. wants Europe to conduct its own fighting but would be happy to provide weapons and armaments, which still creates the mindset of dependency.

Europe has tried to be responsive to these latest demands by developing the ReArm Europe plan under the tutelage of the European Commission.  Eight hundred billion euros will be put aside for defense, as well as additional funding from the E.U.  Additional requirements include ensuring that 65% of items be issued from European companies.

Although this decision sounds optimistic, the pressure from Trump to “buy American” may discourage manufacturing and purchasing within Europe.  In addition, these changes are mostly expected to be made over years, not months, and raise the question of whether Europe will be armed in time.

To understand how complicated it will be to develop missiles alone, imagine this issue:

The United Kingdom’s strategic capability is hampered by the fact that its Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) are manufactured and serviced in the United States. This is a critical point of concern as the United States can stop supporting the UK’s deterrent, thus leaving it vulnerable to leverage. And as the French missiles are incompatible with the UK’s submarines, making a new system for the UK or retrofitting its submarines to use French missiles will require massive political and financial undertaking. Therefore, European nations such as Germany, Poland, and others interested in an indigenous European deterrent must unite to aid the United Kingdom and France politically, financially, and possibly technologically in achieving this goal.

Along with this type of issue, there are questions of who will develop nuclear armaments and who will provide protection to the rest of Europe, how to develop independence from U.S. security protection, the dangers of Russia and China, overreliance on diplomacy to solve conflicts, and a reluctance to engage militarily.

By the time Europe gets its act in gear, it may be too late.

Image: Old Photo Profile via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.

🎭 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. 

Police Arrest Man for Shooting Alleged Pedophile Soliciting Minors for Sex

Townhall 

Police arrested a Fort Worth man on Friday after he allegedly shot another man in the groin at an apartment complex.

Marckus Renfro, 33, was taken into custody after he allegedly shot a man who had already been reported to the police for soliciting children for sex, according to CBS News Texas.

Renfro’s family told the authorities he shot the man to protect underage girls in a group. Law enforcement has not yet confirmed this account.

Officers were called to an apartment complex at 11:43 a.m. on Friday after received reports about a man who was possibly under the influence and propositioning minors for sexual favors. As the officers arrived, they heard a single gunshot.

The officers found a man matching the suspect’s description near a convenience store. He had been shot in the groin. The authorities transported him to a local hospital where he was listed in stable condition. Police identified him as the same man who was reported for soliciting minors.

Dontavius Williams, Renfro’s brother-in-law, told Fox 4 that residents had already been raising alarms about the individual before the shooting. 

"My little cousin told me that the dude said, 'Oh, come back and smoke some meth with me,' you know, 'have some drugs,'" Williams said. 

He said people in the neighborhood “had already heard that a certain dude had been messing with other little kids around here," he added.

Jamie Ramirez Renfro, Marckus’ wife, described the moments leading up to the shooting, saying the two men “exchanged some words.”

“When Mar[c]kus was walking away, he just ran up on him, like he was trying to approach him, like to hurt him in some way,” she said. “And then he said something to Mar[c]kus, and then he turned around, and Mar[c]kus shot,” she told Fox 4.

Tarrant County Jail records show Renfro was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, according to CBS News Texas. The records also show he is facing other charges from previous cases, including assault causing bodily injury and evading arrest or detention.

$74K Chinese Robot 'Wolves' vs. American Grunts: Smart Money's on the Grunts

RedState 

China, that bastion of creativity and truthfulness (yes, I'm kidding), is claiming to now have a cutting-edge new piece of military hardware, that being a four-legged robot dog that can carry a variety of weapons. The Chinese developers are calling these things "wolves."

Yeah, right.

China’s showing off a new combat robot mutt they call a “wolf.” America’s gun owners who have seen the videos no doubt pondered the obvious question: What caliber would solve that problem should any of us be lucky enough to live where a shipping container of these so-called “super-soldiers” are set loose?

Just like those flashy Temu-grade Chinese air defenses that flopped so spectacularly in Venezuela and Iran, Beijing’s latest combat wolves are likely all hat and no cattle. There’s a reason Harbor Freight hasn’t sent a manned rocket into orbit: junk looks great in promo videos, but real life won’t allow people to add some airbrushing or CGI to remedy the shortcomings.

Sure, these quadruped “wolf packs” strut around with machine guns, grenade launchers, micro-missiles, and allegedly obstacle-clearing mobility. They appear to have a “collective brain” for swarming coordination. The salesmen have their scripts ready: Robots supposedly clear streets in minutes, humans chill in the rear, and attrition shifts to drone-vs-bot playdates with lower body counts. The magic elixir for urban combat!

Now, as it happens, I have some questions.

First: Assuming these things are running at least semi-autonomously, how will they be able to differentiate between friend and foe? Will they be taught which uniforms each side is wearing? That would seem to be a bad mistake, as the other guys could just switch shirts and completely bollix these "wolves."

Second: What's the power supply on one of these things? How long will it last in combat operations? How will it be recharged in the field?

Third: We see, in the video above, robot "wolves" running around on well-maintained city streets. How will they fare in the field? Will they be able to navigate rough, rocky terrain? Heavy vegetation? 

I suspect these robot "wolves" are nowhere near ready for prime time.

Look, I've been out of uniform for a long time, but I spent some time around 11 Bravos, enough to have some idea how they think, and I think most grunts would have a field day with these things. While one 5.56mm round in a knee joint would halt one of these wolfbots, there are many other fun ways to reduce them to a non-threat. An M2 .50 caliber would send a bunch of these robo-wolves a new program command: "Leap fifty feet into the air, fly apart, and scatter yourself over a wide area." You will have seen the video, where the carrier opens up, and a bunch of these murderbots slowly debark. Now, imagine plopping a 40mm grenade in that hatch the moment it opens.

I suspect China's worried about their upcoming demographic crash, and is looking for ways to make up for the lack of young men. And, I have to admit, fielding a bunch of these may show down the reactions of an opposing American force - by making them fall to the ground laughing.

Trump drops 51st state idea over ties to King Charles and 'all that 'Oh, Canada' thing':

 U.S. president reportedly concedes that undoing 200 years of Canadian history in one presidential term 'is not going to happen

Donald Trump, upon confirming King Charles III is in fact Canada's head of state, seemed to dial back interest in annexing it, according to a royal expert. Photo by Anna Moneymaker /Getty Images

Given his mercurial nature, it’s impossible to say that Donald Trump has entirely abandoned his wish to make Canada the 51st state, but it would appear that the U.S. president’s reverence for King Charles III — whom he was seemingly unaware is still Canada’s head of state — has tempered that desire.

“Do they still recognize the King? Or have they stopped that,” he asked royal biographer and author Robert Hardman, who interviewed the president about the monarchy for his latest book, Elizabeth II: In Private, In Public, set for release this week.

Hardman, who shared multiple excerpts from the book with the U.K. Daily Mail, said the topic came up in the late 2025 interview at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida when the president asked the veteran journalist’s thoughts on the U.S. bid to acquire Greenland from Denmark.

He said it was a bad idea that risked destroying NATO and pivoted to a request that he stop suggesting Canada, a staunch historical ally to the U.K. and “a gallant D-Day partner,” be annexed by the U.S.

“Attempting to acquire it would undoubtedly make the King of Canada unhappy,” he included, prompting Trump’s query about the nation’s sovereign rule.

Hardman said the president countered that Canada’s “terrible politicians” are friendly to his face, but cut him down behind his back and went on to repeat his false claim about the arbitrary establishment of the Canada-U.S. border.

“The problem is some guy drew that straight line to make a border. He should just have drawn it 50 miles further north and then there wouldn’t be a problem,” Trump said, according to Hardman.

He said that Trump accepted that his dream of Canada as the 51st state wasn’t unfeasible within a single presidential term.

“I suppose the Canadians have got 200 years of history and all that ‘Oh, Canada’ thing. You can’t deal with that in three-and-a-half years. I guess it’s not going to happen,” Trump reportedly contemplated.

“This was the closest I had heard to an acknowledgement that, as long as Canada had the King, Mr. Trump was not going to usurp him,” Hardman wrote.

Trump hasn’t publicly offered up a direct 51st state comment in some time, but he’s alluded to the notion.

In a Truth Social post about Asian Carp in the Great Lakes last month, Trump referred to Prime Minister Mark Carney as the “future Governor of Canada.” He’s made the jab at Carney seldom, but used it in reference to former prime minister Justin Trudeau repeatedly before he left office last year.

In January, he shared a doctored image showing a Western Hemisphere in which Canada — along with Greenland and Venezuela — covered by the American flag.

 While Buckingham Palace, on behalf of the Royal Family, has stated that Trump’s 51st state rhetoric is not something it would comment on, there have been subtle signs of support for Canada.

As reported by The Conversation, last March, amidst repeated Trump’s barbs, a week after meeting with Trudeau in the U.K. and after donning Canadian medals and honours at a British naval ceremony, the King and Queen Camilla planted a red maple tree on the grounds of Sandringham, the royal family’s private estate in Norfolk.

A few days later, he met with representatives from the Canadian Senate, presenting a ceremonial sword to Gregory Peters, the Usher of the Black Rod, one of the Senate’s chief protocol officers.

Then, of course, came the King and Queen’s much-heralded visit to Canada last May, where Charles delivered the first throne speech to make the opening of the 45th Parliament.

The speech ended with a standing ovation after he said: “As the anthem reminds us: The True North is indeed strong and free!”

As for U.S. state visits to the U.K. and vice versa, Trump conducted his interview with Hardman roughly three months after his visit to England last September, his second as president, a feat the writer said Trump was very proud of.

From the left, former U.S. president George W. Bush and late Queen Elizabeth II waves alongside First Lady Laura Bush and Prince Phillip from the balcony at the White House in 2007. It was the last time a British monarch has made a state visit to the U.S. Photo by JIM WATSON /AFP/Getty Images

The visit comes as the president and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have found themselves at odds over the Iran war. Trump has criticized his counterpart for not involving the U.K. and for not granting use of bases to the U.S. military.

Trump has consistently expressed admiration for the Royal Family over the years and he was particularly enamoured with Queen Elizabeth II.

“She has embodied the spirit of dignity, duty, and patriotism that beats proudly in every British heart,” he said during a state banquet at Buckingham Palace on his first visit in 2019.

After her death, he issued a statement in which he called her “a grand and beautiful lady.”

Trump’s been equally complimentary of her son in his thus far short reign, calling the King “a friend” and “an elegant gentleman,” as reported by Town and Country Magazine.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trump-canada-51st-state-king-charles-royal-biographer

Graduated, Not Educated Inflated transcripts and empty credentials are driving parents to challenge schools in court.

Graduated, Not Educated Inflated transcripts and empty credentials are driving parents to challenge schools in court.

Pete Connolly for American Spectator

Inflated transcripts and empty credentials are driving parents to challenge schools in court.

American education is broken; this isn’t a secret. But parents are starting to fight back with lawyers—not because their kids aren’t getting into Harvard, but because schools are failing to deliver any semblance of effectiveness and to make even the most basic promise of education itself.

Consider the recent case in Washington State. Makena Simonsen, a student in the Edmonds School District, graduated with a 3.87 GPA. As a parent, you’d be saying, “Great job, nice work.” That is precisely what the administration wants — to keep parents off their backs. Yet, according to attorney Lara Hruska of Seattle’s Cedar Law, this student was reading at an elementary level.

This “empathy” diploma, her attorney asserts, did not open doors — it “shut the door” on further support.

According to the lawsuit, the district effectively passed her along without ensuring she had mastered basic skills. This “empathy” diploma, her attorney asserts, did not open doors — it “shut the door” on further support. By receiving a standard diploma, she was disqualified from a transition program that could have helped her develop basic life and vocational skills. In turn, this cost the student and her parents money. She had planned to enroll in the district’s free vocational program, which helps transition special-needs students into independent life, but discovered she was ineligible because she received a regular high school diploma. Instead, she enrolled in Bellevue College’s Occupational and Life Skills program at a cost of more than $40,000 annually. (RELATED: How the Classical Education Movement Is Rescuing a Lost Generation)

For the Simonsen family, what was presented as an achievement became, in practice, a financial barrier.

The lawsuit goes further, alleging what has been described as “benevolent discrimination” — a system that, in an effort to avoid difficult truths, lowers expectations while maintaining the appearance of progress. The result is not compassion. It is educational malpractice.

“By letting her kind of pass along, giving her these grades and then giving her this diploma — which shut the door on her transition services access — they actually caused her harm,” Hruska states. “Her diploma was more of a participation trophy.”

This should be a tipping point. School systems must be forced to prove measurable, not superficial, progress — rather than the status quo: ‘wink-wink’ submit the assignments, get the grade, accumulate the credits, and we’ll award the diploma. Grades assigned, credits accumulated, diplomas handed out willy-nilly — and when the bill comes due, it will be the taxpayers who pay it.

This dishonesty is not limited to one district; unfortunately, this is commonplace. The incentives are clear: graduation rates trump literacy; optics replace outcomes. Careerist administrators are not judged by what students know, but by whether they are pushed through the system with the least possible resistance; symbols and funding — not substance — are the coin of the realm.

This hollowing-by-design extends into higher education, where a similar pattern continues. Colleges increasingly serve as holding-pattern institutions, delaying maturity and placating underprepared students. (RELATED: Buyer Beware: The College Edition)

The real danger is that this breakdown will not stay confined to schools, but will extend into the decisions families make every day.

For generations, one path to prosperity was clear: study hard, go to college, succeed. That path justified real financial sacrifice. Parents saved to support their children’s education, believing it was a smart bet on a better future.

But that path is eroding.

Parents are not naïve, especially when it comes to their finances. They see the flaws — not because they have lost faith in education itself, but because they are losing confidence in the metrics used to measure it.

Families may begin to reconsider the assumption that college is the best investment. Savings that once flowed into 529 plans may be diverted. New pathways — the trades, apprenticeships, direct entry into the workforce, entrepreneurial efforts — may begin to look far more attractive than a $300K comparative literature degree. (RELATED: A Bag of Rocks for $400,000?)

If that shift occurs at scale, the economic implications will be significant. Higher education depends on a steady influx of students and the financial commitments — backed, of course, by the government — that accompany them. A loss of confidence, even gradual, could force a reckoning — one that colleges and universities have long feared.

In that regard, the failure of K–12 education is even more damaging because parents are not being provided with accurate information to make decisions for their children.

The solution is not complex. It is simply ignored.

Yet individuals in the free market can make choices — and in doing so, disrupt the system.

As Friedrich Hayek wrote in The Use of Knowledge in Society, economic knowledge “never exists in concentrated or integrated form.” Markets succeed because they harness that dispersed knowledge, allowing individuals to coordinate in ways no central planner could replicate.

For good or ill, we live in a litigious society. These lawsuits, combined with the market’s quiet discipline, may prove to be the force that finally disrupts the “central planners” of the education industrial complex. A system that cannot gauge knowledge will eventually be measured by the market — and the market is far less forgiving than school administrators.