International
Support for the Ukraine war continues because no one elected is actually in charge.
From LifeSiteNews
The US Intelligence Community is running foreign policy without oversight. Trump can’t stop the Ukraine war – and Putin knows it
Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday. Against the backdrop of multiple questions to him about the outcome of their discussion, let us first discuss the problem being avoided.
In the mind of President Vladimir Putin, and in the growing awareness of the American electorate, the president of the United States does not control the Intelligence Community (USIC). It is entirely possible for the USIC to take America deeper toward war despite the president and people of America not wanting that to happen. Putin is simply prepared for that outcome.
This reality explains a dynamic where President Trump engages with President Putin in an effort to stop the war in Ukraine, yet President Putin continues the war in Ukraine; because ultimately he knows President Trump does not control the elements that facilitate the Ukraine military.
People struggle to accept this dynamic. However, I would remind everyone that right now you are paying for the entire government of Ukraine to exist. Including the Ukraine government payroll, retirement benefits, healthcare, and operational budget of Ukraine overall.
Americans do not want to pay for that. President Trump does not want to pay for that. Yet, here we are, paying for that.
The same inertia process applies to the literal Ukraine war and conflict with Russia.
You might not want it. President Trump might not want it. Yet, here again we are providing weapons, intelligence, satellite communication, personnel, and systems for the war.
This is the reality of the situation regardless of your/my willingness to accept it. This reality is what President Putin discusses and accepts.
The problem for President Trump is not that this reality exists; the bigger political problem for President Trump is that people are increasingly becoming aware of this reality.
Now, many people are recently arguing against this reality. However, these are the same voices who previously stated President Trump could unilaterally declassify information within the same silo process that is designed to control his declassification authority. Empirically, and in reality, these voices are wrong.
Something needs to change. That something is generally that President Trump has to either: 1) admit publicly he does not control the U.S. Intelligence Community (very ugly); or 2) take control of that intelligence community (even uglier).
In this element of consideration you would be well served to insert the recent experience of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard; who, intentionally or not, opened the Pandora’s box containing this issue, and look what happened to her.
There was a reason Gabbard sat silently recently in the very public Cabinet meeting. I will return to this in a moment.
Side note: Those who deny this reality are likely of a disposition that reconciled advice by those who said COVID-19 virus could attack you standing at a bar, but would not approach you sitting down. The COVID virus would attack you in the paint section at Walmart, but not in the grocery aisles, etc.
Every COVID-19 mitigation pronouncement was ridiculously silly, yet people not only believed it, they followed it. The non-pretending tribe did not. For whatever reason you might attribute, the reality of that COVID-19 experience highlighted that the non-pretending tribe within America is in the minority. The pretenders included politicians, healthcare workers, most doctors, police, law enforcement, and most Americans (70 percent vaccinated).
President Trump does not have control over the USIC activity in Ukraine. If he did, he would have been fully aware of the drone strikes against the Russian strategic bomber fleet before it was carried out. By his own admission he did not know.
Prior to the increased attacks, Putin correctly noted that Ukraine does not have the military capability, the satellite communication, and guidance systems to continue carrying out strikes deep into Russia. Therefore, from the perspective of Putin, as these strikes continued they were facilitated by NATO. Ergo, NATO was factually attacking Russia, albeit using Ukraine as the proxy for it. Again, Putin with clear eyes on reality.
Into this pretending/non-pretending world, in a remarkable statement of candor we also saw Secretary of State Marco Rubio accurately – and honestly – say five months ago the Ukraine conflict was a proxy war for the U.S. against Russia.
Now, fast forward to today. The reality is the proxy war, Rubio outlined so eloquently, continues. Simultaneously, neither he nor President Trump has any control over the USIC that is carrying it out. Yet, Secretary Rubio has to sit down with Foreign Minister Lavrov and either a) be honest, or b) pretend.
Following the meeting, here are Rubio’s remarks. You decide:
Side note: Rubio brought up a good point. Germany, U.K., France and Spain all have Patriot battery’s they can spare. However, they are refusing to give them to Ukraine. I wonder why.
Again, President Trump and Secretary Rubio seem to have two options: 1) Admit their lack of control, or 2) take control.
The first option is obviously the easiest, admit the president of the United States does not have full control over the U.S. Intelligence Community. However, that comes with severe ramifications.
Flip it. Look at the dynamic from the outside. Imagine Emmanuel Macron or Abdel Fattah al-Sisi saying they no longer have operational control over their intelligence agencies, and those agencies have gone rogue. What would you think of France or Egypt?
Now imagine if the president of the U.S. made such a statement. How would the world react? What would happen to the dollar? How weak would President Trump look?
Thus, there is extreme pressure to maintain a premise.
Think about the recent experience of DNI Gabbard, and accept those types of consequences are exactly what the USIC relies upon to maintain its power and control. Open, even briefly, the Pandora’s box that hides reality and massive alarms are immediately triggered to isolate, ridicule, and marginalize the truth teller.
The people around President Trump have a vested interest in keeping that Pandora’s box closed. Which brings us to the second option: take control.
Factually, no one knows what “taking control” would look like.
Who exactly would enforce compliance and bring the USIC to heel? Gabbard was burned just nibbling around the edge of it. What would be the reaction from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and more importantly what would be the response from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; ironically the former silo chaired by Rubio?
Would President Donald Trump reach the same fate as President John F. Kennedy? Perhaps not, if a very public process was instituted where President Trump said exactly what the situation was. However, that approach simply goes back to point #1.
See the problem?
Let’s talk about Tulsi Gabbard’s silence at the Cabinet meeting, and role play for a moment as a Gordian Knot cutter.
Imagine a journalist who says: “Mr. President, thank you for the transparency you provide in allowing us to be with you and your Cabinet during these meetings. If I may ask a question with a brief follow up?”
[Question]: “Mr President, do you feel you have full control over the intelligence agencies of our government?”
[Anticipated Response]: “I think so, at least I would hope that is the case” (or something similar).
[Question]: “Thank you. With that in mind, what specifically provides you with the sense of assurance you do have full control over the USIC?” … and… “Would you also permit DNI Tulsi Gabbard to answer that question?”
Imagine what would follow that brief line of questioning. If the imaginary journalist were so inclined, he/she could also follow up with simple examples, like President Trump having no prior knowledge of the Ukraine drone strikes into Russia, etc.
My point is that absent of President Trump taking some action that begins the process – against the interests and advice of his protective advisors – it is going to take an external element in this dynamic to trigger a change in the situation; for better, for uglier, or for worse.
The people around the office of the president are not going to want to touch this issue…
…. Just ask Tulsi.
Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The recent leadership changes at Paramount Skydance suggest that the company may finally be ready to correct course after years of ideological drift, cultural activism posing as programming, and a pattern of self-inflicted financial and reputational damage.
Nowhere was this problem more visible than at CBS News, which for years operated as one of the most partisan and combative news organizations. Let’s be honest, CBS was the worst of an already left biased industry that stopped at nothing to censor conservatives. The network seemed committed to the idea that its viewers needed to be guided, corrected, or morally shaped by its editorial decisions.
This culminated in the CBS and 60 Minutes segment with Kamala Harris that was so heavily manipulated and so structurally misleading that it triggered widespread backlash and ultimately forced Paramount to settle a $16 million dispute with Donald Trump. That was not merely a legal or contractual problem. It was an institutional failure that demonstrated the degree to which political advocacy had overtaken journalistic integrity.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
For many longtime viewers across the political spectrum, that episode represented a clear breaking point. It became impossible to argue that CBS News was simply leaning left. It was operating with a mission orientation that prioritized shaping narratives rather than reporting truth. As a result, trust collapsed. Many of us who once had long-term professional, commercial, or intellectual ties to Paramount and CBS walked away.
David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount marks the most consequential change to the studio’s identity in a generation. Ellison is not anchored to the old Hollywood ecosystem where cultural signaling and activist messaging were considered more important than story, audience appeal, or shareholder value.
His professional history in film and strategic business management suggests an approach grounded in commercial performance, audience trust, and brand rebuilding rather than ideological identity. That shift matters because Paramount has spent years creating content and news coverage that seemed designed to provoke or instruct viewers rather than entertain or inform them. It was an approach that drained goodwill, eroded market share, and drove entire segments of the viewing public elsewhere.
The appointment of Bari Weiss as the new chief editor of CBS News is so significant. Weiss has built her reputation on rejecting ideological conformity imposed from either side. She has consistently spoken out against antisemitism and the moral disorientation that emerges when institutions prioritize political messaging over honesty.
Her brand centers on the belief that journalism should clarify rather than obscure. During President Trump’s recent 60 Minutes interview, he praised Weiss as a “great person” and credited her with helping restore integrity and editorial seriousness inside CBS. That moment signaled something important. Paramount is no longer simply rearranging executives. It is rethinking identity.
The appointment of Makan Delrahim as Chief Legal Officer was an early indicator. Delrahim’s background at the Department of Justice, where he led antitrust enforcement, signals seriousness about governance, compliance, and restoring institutional discipline.
But the deeper and more meaningful shift is occurring at the ownership and editorial levels, where the most politically charged parts of Paramount’s portfolio may finally be shedding the habits that alienated millions of viewers.The transformation will not be immediate. Institutions develop habits, internal cultures, and incentive structures that resist correction. There will be internal opposition, particularly from staff and producers who benefited from the ideological culture that defined CBS News in recent years.
There will be critics in Hollywood who see any shift toward balance as a threat to their influence. And there will be outside voices who will insist that any move away from their preferred political posture is regression.
But genuine reform never begins with instant consensus. It begins with leadership willing to be clear about the mission.
Paramount has the opportunity to reclaim what once made it extraordinary. Not as a symbol. Not as a message distribution vehicle. But as a studio that understands that good storytelling and credible reporting are not partisan aims. They are universal aims. Entertainment succeeds when it connects with audiences rather than instructing them. Journalism succeeds when it pursues truth rather than victory.
In an era when audiences have more viewing choices than at any time in history, trust is an economic asset. Viewers are sophisticated. They recognize when they are being lectured rather than engaged. They know when editorial goals are political rather than informational. And they are willing to reward any institution that treats them with respect.
There is now reason to believe Paramount understands this. The leadership is changing. The tone is changing. The incentives are being reassessed.
It is not the final outcome. But it is a real beginning. As the great Winston Churchill once said; “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.
For the first time in a long time, the door to cultural realignment in legacy media is open. And Paramount is standing at the threshold and has the capability to become a market leader once again. If Paramount acts, the industry will follow.
Bill Flaig and Tom Carter are the Co-Founders of The American Conservatives Values ETF, Ticker Symbol ACVF traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Ticker Symbol ACVF
Learn more at www.InvestConservative.com
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Johns Hopkins University (JHU) announced on Thursday it is making tuition free for families earning less than $200,000 and will waive both tuition and living expenses for those making less than $100,000.
The university stated that “a majority of American families” will qualify for the fee exemption, allowing most students to attend without contributing a single dollar. The decision is meant to help recruit “the best and brightest students to Johns Hopkins irrespective of their financial wherewithal.”
“Trying to understand financial aid offers can be overwhelming,” David Phillips, vice provost for admissions and financial aid at JHU, said in the announcement. “A big goal here is to simplify the process. We especially want to reach students and families from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural locations, and small towns across America who may not know that a Hopkins degree is within reach.”
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
In 2018, Michael Bloomberg donated nearly $2 billion to the university, the largest ever single gift to a U.S. university. JHU said it used this money “to become permanently need blind and no-loan in financial aid.”
The university also receives the most federal funding of any university, raking in more than $3 billion from the government in fiscal year 2023 for research and development alone. This is more than double what the next highest recipient of federal funding that year, the University of Washington, received.
Despite this, JHU in June complained that federal funding cuts forced it to institute a hiring freeze and pause annual pay increases for employees. In its message to the community at the time, the university also mentioned its disagreement with “recent efforts to limit or withhold visas from the international students and scholars.”
Some universities admit mass numbers of foreign students in order to pad their pockets, as such students often pay full tuition and fee costs without financial assistance.
Bovaer Backlash Update: Danish Farmers Get Green Light to Opt Out as UK Arla Trial Abruptly Ends!
Carney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers
Canada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers
Chinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case
-
Business2 days agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
Business2 days agoP.E.I. Moves to Open IRAC Files, Forcing Land Regulator to Publish Reports After The Bureau’s Investigation
-
International1 day agoIs America drifting toward civil war? Joe Rogan thinks so
-
Energy2 days agoCanada’s oilpatch shows strength amid global oil shakeup
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoEU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech
-
COVID-192 days agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Fraser Institute20 hours agoCourts and governments caused B.C.’s property crisis—they’re not about to fix it
-
Alberta18 hours agoChatGPT may explain why gap between report card grades and standardized test scores is getting bigger