Much is being made of the Trump administration’s new national security strategy. In the thirty-three-page report, the administration seems to take aim at Europe, which is facing numerous serious challenges.  These include “civilization erasure” from high immigration as well as economic decline and actions by the EU which “undermine political liberty and sovereignty.”  This report echoes comments made by Vice President Vance in March when he spoke before the Munich Security Forum. Additionally, European leaders are criticized for standing in the way of a U.S. brokered end to the Ukraine war while they cannot supply the Ukrainians with the support it needs to continue the war. China and Europe need to “stand on its own feet” while Russia is not seen as a threat.

Controversial stuff to say the least but hardly anything new to anyone who has watched as Western Europe nations enabled little if any economic growth while neglecting their own defense. Additionally their lack of capital all but insures that the explosion in technology (especially AI), will leave Europe in the dust  Finally, unstable governments seem to take aim more at their citizens rights and liberties rather than address the huge welfare cost of millions of migrants who refuse to assimilate and want the goodies of the west but are a net loser to each nation.

Western Europe’s obsession with going “Green” has led to hugely inflated energy prices which in turn has led to a loss in manufacturing jobs and an inability to provide enough energy for the challenges of AI. In the U.K., about fifty percent of the cost of energy is to cover the production and delivery of domestic energy, while the other fifty percent is made up of taxes and levies to cover subsidies for renewables and system upgrades. With waiting times of up to a decade for new, reliable energy, Europe is seriously in danger of being left out of the AI movement. At the same time, much of the EU is still committed to shutting down reliable fossil energy production even though “green” energy continues to increase the cost of energy.

Along with the serious failures of green energy policies, the EU has committed to a five-percent budget for its own defense. The great question is where the Western Europeans plan to get the capital to fulfil their promise? Between the spiraling cost of welfare thanks to illegal immigrants, the lost of manufacturing jobs, ever increasing energy costs, an old and failing infrastructure and a failing public health system, Europe simply does not have enough capital to coverall all of its bases or promises.  German Chancellor has said that the German welfare system must be overhauled, but can it be done against the bureaucrats of the EU who are accountable to no one and who continue to believe in their starry dreams and economic genius?

Trump’s national security strategy may sound rough, but it should not be news to any European leaders. They know full well that they face serious problems but few in the West of Europe seem to be ready to break away from the “business as usual” mentality which has developed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Those few politicians who offer alternative ideas which appeal to a small but growing segment of the population are either outrightly banned from any coalition government, charged with various crimes or face being buried under verbal attacks which all but accuse them of being extremists beyond the pale. Hopefully, the Trump document will make more Western European leaders start to act like leaders and less like the politicians who got their countries into the fine mess they are today.

There is an old stereotype of a typical Southern Senator; he is a bit loose in his dressing, has a southern accent with a definite drawl and a mind like a steel trap. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana fills the bill perfectly. One of the most enjoyable ways to take a break during the day is to go to You Tube and view him questioning judicial nominees. He shuffles through papers pulling up quotes or writings of the nominees and he has a way of reading them that often makes the nominee look as foolish as possible. Try it.

His writes a book of stories; him growing up in a small village, his first political job, the step-by-step advancement and even the fact that it was only on his third run for the United States Senate that he achieved his goal. Then came the hard part: learning the real job of being a politician when you work in an atmosphere where many of your ninety-nine compatriots each believe that they are the burning bush before Moses. He learns but has a problem in that he, for some strange reason, seems to believe that honesty is the best policy. How quaint!

This short book of just over two hundred pages gives us a glimpse behind the curtain of life in the Senate. In the last chapter, “Speed Round,” he lays out clearly, with facts and logic his core set of political views. Transgenderism and women’s sports, China, crime, the media, and more are covered and it would be such fun to have an individual who disagrees with him, read and answer his beliefs on a one to one, face to face discussion.

This is a quick, easy to read book, but I believe you will come away respecting an individual who may not share your view or ideas of the world; that is if you can put up with honesty.

The recent “No Kings” demonstrations have brought to mind the last time a President truly acted like a King, and no, it was not the current occupant of the Oral Office. Rather it was President Biden who exercised the one power that is unrestricted, unpoliced, and total in the hands of the President: the power to pardon.

While all Presidents have this unique power, none in the history of the United States has pardoned his siblings, siblings-in-law, son, twenty-five hundred convicted drug convictions, and unindicted government officials for unmentioned crimes. Additionally, he overrode the federal judicial system, ignored the decisions of juries, and granted clemency to nearly every federal death row inmate. His decision was based on his personal moral view of the death penalty and went against the stated federal law. All of these actions took place just hours before he left office and in spite of a promise not to pardon his own son.

The power to pardon is not limited in the United States to the President; Governors of states also hold such power, but their power is limited by each State’s Constitution. Abuses have occurred, such as Virginia’s Governor Terry McAuliffe. In order in 2016, he allowed by fiat 206,000 convicted felons who had completed their terms to regain the ability to vote, hold public office, serve on a jury and function as a notary. There was moral outrage across the state and the state Supreme Court stated that such a blanket action was beyond the scope of his ability. In the end, the outgoing governor McAuliffe got around the state Supreme Court by issuing “individual grants of clemency.”      Finally, we have the question of should any President have so much power and what are the options for any attempt to limit his pardoning power.

The attached article gives us a fascinating look into the thinking of the Founding Fathers when they gave such unlimited power to the President. Although not in the Constitution, there were discussions as to a recourse should any President abuse his pardon power to such a degree that it went beyond all norms, and that recourse was impeachment. Yet President Biden in issuing his pardons just hours before he left office avoided even a discussion of impeachment. Imagine if a future President should decide to empty all the Federal prisons of their inmates, or “only those inmates who supported his own political party?.”  Given the actions of President Biden, we may all look with trepidation as each future President is about to leave office.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/unpardonable

Since the 1970’s, Justices for the Supreme Court have for the most part come from Ivy-League, East Coast law schools.  Justice Barrett breaks that trend ( being a native of New Orleans) and as a result, her clear writing, legal and teaching experience provides us with a clear and clean understanding of some of the key factors used in her decision making process. Her book is written in a manner that goes against the grain of the ivy league schools in that it is concise, takes on real issues and discusses the procedure, forces and philosophies which guide the decision-making process of the Court. While she provides personal background information on her life, unlike some Justices, she makes the reader understand that her rationale to reach a conclusion is not based or tainted by her personal views, but rather by understanding what the words of the Constitution mean.

It is refreshing to read her book as she clearly discusses the pros and cons of a number of issues, not only legal issues before the Court, but also the political questions facing the Court, such as the concept of Court packing, lifetime tenure, etc.  We see the actors behind the scenes such as the law clerks, the traditions of the Court that have evolved over the years, which are designed to maintain a balance of civility and professionalism even among the Justices.  Her discussions on areas such as textualism and originalism include their history and forces behind each so that everyone can understand the dynamics of each concept.

The Justice is obviously a serious scholar of the law but one which can clarify a subject in a few words where others will need much more room or confuse the issue by inserting their personal views and bias. Her love for the law and the Constitution is clear. 

During her confirmation, she withstood the slings and arrows of several Senators who attacked her over their concerns regarding health care, abortion rights, her religion and her judicial philosophy (Originalist). She withstood the fire, never once reaching or referring to any notes. The fact that she is an Originalist and would therefore not let her personal feelings impact her duties seemed to both some Senators who seem to favor an more “progressive)” attitude toward law.

 Give this read a try, especially if you wish to gain a higher regard for the Court and the Justices.

In his new book, My Fight for Canadian Health Care: A Thirty-Year Battle to Put Patients First by Dr. Brian Day, we can see the weaknesses and misdirection of a Socialized health care system that is touted as being “free.”  Of course, no rational person believes that anything that the government is involved in is “free,” especially when you realize that the average Canadian earns less than his or her counterpart in Louisiana and pays more in taxes.

Like so many other ideas, a single payer health care system sounds great in theory, but it rapidly falls apart when reality hits. Today, unless you are one of the chosen special groups (Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP, federal employees police officers and yes, prisoners), you are doomed to extended waiting periods if you need health care.

There are numerous reasons for the delays that the average Canadian faces, and here are a few as dictated by the CHA (Canadian Health Act) of 1984:

• Hospitals cannot exceed their government-stipulated budgets.
• As a result, between 1981 and 1995, surgeons at the UBC Hospital in Vancouver saw their surgical hours cut from twenty-five hours a week to five; any surgeon who exceeded those hours risked various threats including losing their “surgical privileges.”
• Medical schools have dropped admissions between 11 and 30% as it was believed that a “surplus” of doctors would increase wait times due to more individuals seeking help.

The average Canadian faced a median wait for care from a specialist of 30 weeks, and that was on top of waiting to see their primary doctor which was necessary in order to authorize seeing a specialist. In Dr. Day’s specialty, the median wait time was 57 weeks. In 2024, Canadians were on the waiting list for a total of 1.5 million procedures.

Obamacare was sold on the basis of several major lies and has warped our health care system. There is no doubt that it needs to be amended, improved, etc. but if any politician even dares to mention a single care system as an alternative, they must be tied to a chair and this book read to them at least twice.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/where-health-care-went-to-die

You have probably not heard of John O’Sullivan, but since the 1990’s, he has been studying, writing about, and warning about the growing movement on the Left toward what we now call “wokeness”. His newest book, Sleepwalking into Wokeness: How We Got Here is reviewed by Steven F. Hayward in the latest issue of the Claremont Review of Books.

O’Sullivan has been observing and writing about the growing movement which is a combination of the Frankfurt School, the movements of the 1960’s and nihilism. He has pointed out that believers in the current movement have and will be unhappy and angry as they view the world through the exact opposite of rose-colored glasses. Traditional Liberals could, occasionally take pride in their victories before they found a new cause which could take some of their energy. The “woke” movement goes a step further down a dark path in that there can never be any victories to celebrate as each battle only goes to expose another sub-subgroup that seeks acknowledgement and which claims to be the martyr de jour.

The review by Steven F. Hayward is crisp and an easy read. If you want to better understand how we got to this point, click on the link below. It will be worth your time, and you will understand the negative forces that create such noise in our society.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/ahead-of-the-curve

I have posted a number of articles and thoughts on how governments around the world are failing their citizens. One is Germany, where between the failed green movement which is driving companies and factories out of the country to the never-ending quest for money, so they are competing with illegal drug cartels to sell the worse poisons to its’ citizens. Another is France, which has allowed over seven hundred no go zones to spread throughout the land while jailing the governments’ main political opponent. Of course, we cannot forget Sweden suffering more bombings than any other country and the government allowing their country to become the rape capital of Europe. My recent posts on the car theft rings in Canada dominated by Hamas and the lack of enforcement against the Communist Chinese drug trade and money laundering are truly disturbing.

The latest insult to one’s citizens is the appointment to the position of Home Secretary, a Pakistani Muslim woman who has declared her hatred of white men, especially those who proudly wave the British flag. She is in charge of national and public security and has made it plain that any mention of “grooming gangs of Muslims,” speech about the violent history of Islam or any negative referral to Mohammed will be severely punished. It is already a crime to pray silently in set areas in the U.K. and there is no right of self-defense or anything like the U.S. First Amendment.

She talks a good talk, claiming to seek faster deportations of illegal immigrants, especially those who have committed crimes. She has said all the right things (meaning she speaks in support of the Party leader), but there do not seem to be many individuals asking her to explain her bigoted comments against whites in the past.

I have visited the U.K. numerous times over the years, and during the past ten-years I have noticed the old ways, customs and pride slipping away. I do not know if the U.K. can be saved, it certainly is not going in a positive direction. The addition of the new Home Secretary certainly does not seem to be any indication of national revival. It is too bad; it used to be a wonderful place.

The link below will provide your with the disturbing facts.

UK Gets a Muslim Terrorist Counterterrorism Minister :: Gatestone Institute

From Drugs to Cars, from Real Estate to Politicians, the drug cartels and international terrorists like Hezbollah see Canada as the land of opportunity. Is it corruption or a tactical alliance designed to keep Canada out of terrorist’s sights? But then, this is nothing new as we know that national leaders willingly make decisions everyday that are counter to the best interests of their population.

From the German decision to allow in millions of individuals whose views are diametrically opposed to the values of their citizens, to joining in a downward race to provide more powerful and destructive drugs all in the name of additional income, to the once proud home of freedom of speech, Great Britain where you cannot even pray in your own house if you are too close to an abortion clinic, to Turkey where corruption is common and acceptable until the poorly constructed buildings disintegrate during an earthquake. Somehow, we expected better of Canada, the land of “nice people,” but then maybe it is only the common man and woman who are nice while their national leaders are shallow or worse. Or our governments have just gotten too big to operate as we all hope. Maybe there are just too many forces at work, and we have lost the ability to control the behemoth we have created.

The link below takes you to an article on how Canada has become the playground of the worse of humanity.

2025 Risk Report Confirms Hezbollah Crime Networks in Canada, Echoing U.S. Warnings Ottawa Ignored: Op-Ed

Have you ever travelled anywhere in the world and discussed with a local, even if only for a minute or two, their opinion of their government? If such a conversation has taken place in what traditionally called in the past, the “free world,” I doubt if you ever heard anyone say anything positive about their government. Of course, you do not get into that type of conversation in third world countries or those countries which are ruled by authoritarians; you may get some eye rolling, but those folks know the danger of being honest.

The nearly universal dislike, distrust or plain disgust with one’s government is seen everyday and the study connected to the link below from the U.K. reflects these strong feelings. The issues which drive many of those feelings are on the whole, relatively common across much of the world; uncontrolled immigration of people who do not share the common values of the new host nation, belief in governmental inefficiency and corruption in areas such as health care, welfare, rising crime (normally tied to mass immigration), a political class which has lost touch with the electorate, etc. Finally, as we have seen in France and the U.S, individuals who threaten the status quo are subject to politically motivated investigations and even barred from participating in elections for years.

All the while, the traditional elite political class seems unable or unwilling to look at let alone implement serious policies to answer any of their publics concerns. The result is the rise of the populist right of the center and the violence of the radical left, which in turn, pulls more from the center to one side or the other out of frustration and disgust.

Thanks to faster and poorly vetted information via the internet, the old days of both sides having the luxury of time to study, analyze and believing that time will cool tempers are long gone. Love him or hate him, President Trump is echoing FDR’s efforts to offer solutions to the problems of the day. FDR believed that doing something was better than doing nothing and while his policies created problems of their own, his actions created the impression of positive action. Trump hit the floor running with a full plate of targets and policies and thus far his opponents have not found an answer that appeals to the masses. Will a European version of Trump be found and withstand the slings and arrows of the European ruling class or will the European ruling class continue with the same tired policies which have led to today’s discontent among the masses. Time will tell, but the clock is running.

https://open.substack.com/pub/morningcall/p/morning-call-shattered-trust?r=2d3pff&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

The author, famous liberal attorney, and author (of over fifty books on law, legal history and legal/social commentary), is no fan of Trump. As of the book’s publication (2023) he had never voted for Trump but has been ostracized by many of his life long liberal friends and associates for his commentaries on the legal gambits by the Left over the past ten years. Disinvited by schools and groups that he has spoken before over the past forty years, he lays out the dangerous tactics of the Left as well as the Media and Academia.

Stating specific actions, he discusses how they create a danger to our Constitution and the rule of law. He criticizes both the far right and left throughout the book but focuses more on the Left who he says has shown that far from being the staunch defenders of freedom as they claim, has shown themselves to be acting strictly from political motives. He attacks the ACLU which he claims has lost its’ reputation and standing due to bowing to the demands of “diversity,” as well as the Democratic party. While he praises the base goodness of Merrick Garland and Jack Smith, he believes they have bent to political pressure in creating a double standard to justice. For example, how can Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger and even Joe Biden criticize Donald Trump when their actions in the handling of secret documents while both in and out of office be considered as lesser than the documents at Trump’s house? He criticizes the raid for documents at Trumps house which was not of national importance as the FBI waited until two days after the authorization of the warrant (which was closer to a Bill of Attainment) to make sure that Trump was a thousand miles from his home.

The interview he has in the book with Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerry Baker lays out the dubious rational for the attacks on Trump according the legal and historical arguments and is a worth while read for both those legally versed and non-legally versed individuals. Unlike many attorneys, Dershowitz writes in a clear, concise manner which may very well explain his successful longevity as an author and legal commentator.

This is a short book (less than two-hundred pages) but it is clear that his defense of Trump is not based on the politics of Dershowitz but rather on his concern for the harm to the rule of law and the Constitution done by those on the Left who have made fundamental errors of judgement caused by their personal animas.  Perhaps the truth of his arguments is his personal cost caused by those who hailed him as long as he supported their views which were legally defensible.