(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in Arab News. Vance may be a real asset to Trump campaign)

At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, last week, J.D. Vance told delegates: “Tonight is a night of hope. A celebration of what America once was and, with God’s grace, what it soon will be again.” He lambasted globalization and pledged to restore the ability of the American economy to create more jobs and be an energy-producing economy.

When choosing Vance, the Republicans’ presidential nominee Donald Trump opted to escalate the stature of a rising star of the right wing of politics in the US and to intensify the appeal of the populist movement. It is Trump who has boosted that conservative-populist trend in American life since he first ran for president against Hillary Clinton in 2016. But Trump needs a successor, someone who can carry the torch of his Republican campaign in the years to come. He sees in Vance a political figure for whom he can serve as a political uncle as they campaign ahead of the Nov. 5 election against the Democratic successor to President Joe Biden, likely to be Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump selected Mike Pence as his running mate eight years ago. But Pence was a former governor of Indiana and part of the Republican establishment. Trump now wants to move further away from the establishment Republicans who were previously the dominant faction of the party. The establishment wing promotes the traditional Republican Party views of fiscal conservatism and support for a bigger US military. Nevertheless, its foundations have been shaken as it has compromised more on issues of government spending, abortion, taxes and frequent American military interventions abroad.

Trump wants to undermine the set of beliefs espoused by the Republican establishment with the help of the man he hopes will be his future vice president. The essential attitude of the conservative-populist pursuit in American politics, as manifested by both Trump and Vance, is that these policies are depriving the American people of their liberties and freedoms. High taxes mean that people cannot do what they want with their money and America’s wars overseas mean that the US government is more interested in what is happening in other countries than on what is good for America and the American people. Repeatedly, Trump and Vance affirm their desire to “Make America Great Again.” And to follow “America First” policies.

Vance is a disciple of MAGA. There are reports that he is a good friend of Donald Trump Jr., the eldest son of President Trump. According to NBC News, President Trump was leaning toward North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as his pick for running mate. That’s when Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump chimed in. “Don Jr. and Eric went crazy: ‘Why would you do something so stupid? He offers us nothing’,” a long-time Republican operative familiar with the discussion told NBC News. “They were basically all like ‘J.D., J.D., J.D.’,” the operative said.

There have also been reports that Vance may approach his old acquaintances in Silicon Valley, California, who are known for their very liberal views and pro-Democratic Party stances. He will seek to neutralize them and convince them that the Trump agenda for the Republican Party and for the whole of the US would also fit with their own interests.

The selection of Vance also reveals that Trump thought about other candidates and later dismissed them. He could not nominate Nikki Haley because she was his rival in the Republican primaries and always campaigned against him. He dismissed other choices like Burgum because he signed a law in his home state that banned almost all abortions. Vance is pro-life too. However, he never had the chance to sign a law determining what the rules on abortion should be.

Vance’s age may also have been a positive factor that appealed to Trump. He will turn 40 in August. This could help Trump reach young voters, who are usually more liberal in their outlook. If Trump can siphon off a segment of them to vote for him, this will make it easier for him to return to the White House.

Vance started out as a critic of Trump. Now, he is his running mate. This could also be a demonstration of the success of Trump. He convinced a former political enemy to support his views. Trump now aims to turn more of his critics into political allies. Since Vance was in the Marines, he will help Trump reach out to military men and women and their families. Trump can even do well with intellectuals thanks to the nomination of Vance, who is the author of a best-selling book titled “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.” He wrote it in 2016. It is a personal memoir of what he called “Appalachian values.” It is about growing up poor in Kentucky and what his family faced when living in Ohio, confronting many social and economic problems. While this book appeals to intellectuals, it will also resonate well with the American middle class. This could make Vance a real asset to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

Hollywood Original: 1954

On July 13, Butler, Pennsylvania eerily replayed a long-ago classic 1954 film, Suddenly, via an attempted presidential assassination, but with grim reality rather than Hollywood magic. Frank Sinatra, free off his Oscar-winning performance as Best Supporting Actor in the 1953 film From Here to Eternity, plays a psychopathic assassin hired to assassinate the president, whose train is to stop in a small town named Suddenly. He and his accomplices seize a house on a hill overlooking the train station. Taken hostage are a pacifist widow, her son and her ex-Secret Service grandpa. At the last minute, the plot is foiled, partly through the efforts of a hero local cop played by Sterling Hayden. A TV repairman, fixing the set, sees a chance to help disrupt the plot by hooking up an iron table on which the rifle is mounted to the TV’s 5,000 volts. Then the ex-Secret Service agent clandestinely spills water onto the floor. A henchman sighting through the rifle is electrocuted. Then Sinatra takes over the rifle, but the train passes through without stopping; he is then shot dead by the widow and the cop.

A visit to the film’s Trivia page reveals startling facts: (1) A real-life assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, reportedly viewed the film days before murdering JFK; (2) the film was based on a short story by Richard Sale, who took inscription from the fact that Dwight Eisenhower, during his presidency, travelled by train from the White House to Palm Springs, California, as his wife, Mamie, hated to fly; (3) two real-life presidents, Benjamin Harrison and Franklin Roosevelt, actually rode a train through the small California town where the film was made, with FDR having stopped there to speak.

Further perspective comes from Eddie Muller, Turner Classic Movies film noir expert, who in 2018 offered his Intro and Afterword takes on the film. He concludes that the film was not a major cultural influence, but simply an early entry into a film genre about psychopathic and sociopathic killers.

Real Life Replay: 2024

In stark contrast to the superb performance of the authorities in the 1954 thriller, the July 13 assassination attempt that nearly cost former (and possible future) president Trump his life was made possible by epic, astonishing failures by the Secret Service and local authorities. They were of such magnitude that Director Kimberly Cheatle was forced to resign the day after the July 22 House Oversight Committee hearing at which she gave serial evasive answers—essentially, stiffing the Committee and enraging Members of both parties.

In her July 22 testimony, Cheatle said that her agency’s mission is protecting the nation’s leaders, and called the agency’s performance “the most significant operational failure in decades,” yet still gave the agents an “A” grade for July 13. (Many Members acknowledged that those who put their bodies over Trump after the first shots were fired acted heroically.)

This birds-eye panoramic view (3:56) of the July 13 site, taken by a drone after the event space had been completely cleared, dramatically illustrates all the major factors that led to near-catastrophe for the nation.

Nine huge failures that day are clear. In summary, they center around: (a) failure to follow through on a potential threat during the hour prior to the start of the event—one cop saw the a “suspicious man” (5:19) using a range-finder 30 minutes before the shooting; (b) failure to keep Trump off the stage until a known potential threat was neutralized; (c) failure to hustle Trump away from the site when it was not known if there were additional shooters; (d) failure to secure a landmark local building whose roof gave shooters a direct easy shot for a rifleman; (e) failure of Secret Service counter-snipers to shoot the rifleman in the 11 seconds before he fired; (f) failure to use drone surveillance as part of the security plan—whereas the shooter used a drone to survey the site. Indeed, the shooter sent multiple drone flights; he began researching the event upon its announcement on July 3, and registered for the event on July 7. The shot that took down the would-be assassin was a “million-to-one” shot, as the shooter was sheltered by the roof lip, and only the top of the shooter’s forehead and eye behind the gun scope were visible.

A former Service agent stated (2:40) that there was “definitely” pre-planning by the shooter. There will be a “hard look” at technological capabilities; more resources are needed for the campaign detail. We face the highest threat level we’ve ever had, and lack resources. An ex-US Army sniper weighed in (4:50): This is a shot your boot-camp trainee makes within the first nine weeks of training, and they eventually train to hit targets at 300 to 500 yards. This was “massive negligence to the point of me speculating about what was intentional and what wasn’t.” Noting “massive DEI”—the politically incorrect anesthetic buzzwords Diversity, Equity, Inclusion in the Biden years—he said that in this instance “DEI” means “d-i-e.” At 200 yards an average grouping capability for a rifle that holds one degree of angle is 2 inches: the average human head is 6” by 8”; the shoulder width is 20 inches; and head-to-waist is 40 inches.” Within five minutes a novice could make this shot 9 out of 10 times.

At the July 22 House hearing, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) recounted how he made 15 of 16 hits with an AR-15 rifle, having only fired the weapon once before:

I have never had any long-gun training in my life. I own an AR-15, and I last time I shot it, I shot it one time my whole life, was six years ago. That is, until Saturday.

We recreated the events in Savoy, Texas. We recreated what happened in Butler. I was lying prone on a sloped roof at 130 yards at 6:30 at night and fired with two different scopes.

So I shot eight rounds from both. You know what? The result was 15 out of 16 kill shots, and the one I missed would have hit the president’s ear. That’s a 94% success rate, and that sure was a better shot than me,” he declared. “It is a miracle President Trump wasn’t killed.

It was left, however improbably, to AOC to pose a vital question, namely, why the Secret Service security perimeter for the event did not encompass the effective shooting range for AR-style rifles, i.e., about 400 to 600 yards. Director Cheatle gave wandering evasive answers about the Service dealing with many types of weapons in various circumstances.

This video taken (0:15) by Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) shows the view from a building next to the shooter’s perch, offering agents a clear view of the roof; agents had access to this vantage point but never used it.

As we learn more daily about the shooter, two noteworthy early mistakes are a caution against prematurely trusting early reports from stressful, highly newsworthy events—the former affecting eyewitness accounts and the latter, reporters rushing to get the story out first. In this case, it turns out the the shooter was neither a member of his high school rifle club, nor was he bullied. (The school issued an online statement rebutting false reports, and said that while it will cooperate with investigations, as a result it will limit disclosure of information as to school policies, interactions with investigators and law enforcement protocols.)

On another front, we learned this week that the Service bureaucracy denied repeated Trump campaign requests for beefed-up security. The campaign asked for more agents and magnetometers at large public events, plus more snipers for outdoor events. Worse, at the event the Service claimed to have relied on local police for outer perimeter protection. But the only police officers who got close to the shooter, were, according to the New York Times, the few who went beyond the area they were supposed to protect. The the local authorities said (3:59) that they made no such commitment; they had seven officers to manage traffic, and no other responsibility.

The crown jewel of excuses for the failures was offered by Cheatle:

That building, in particular, has a sloped roof at its highest point. And, so, you know, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof…And, so, you know, the decision was made to secure the building from inside.

As for the roof slope gradient, Donald Trump Jr. said: I can assure you . . . . they’re not worried about a 5-degree pitch on a sloped roof. . . .” For his part, Trump said that Cheatle had visited with him after the attempt, about which Trump offered: “She was very nice. . . . But . . . somebody should have made sure that there was nobody on that roof.”

A retired police officer who served in the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force said (10:37) that protectors always try to be “left of bang”—stopping assailants before they fire; if they fail, the advantage shifts to the would-be assassin. Retired FBI agent Nicole Parker stated (4:52) that Secret Service resources are “stretched thin” due to increasing protection responsibilities; retired Secret Service agent Bill Gage added:

When I first joined the service in 2002, we were only protecting the president, the vice president and a few members of their family. By the time I left, we were protecting the vice president’s grandkids, foreign presidents, former presidents who were taking trips overseas. As the list of protectees expanded, so did the list of threats. The Islamic State terror group rose alongside Al-Qaeda. Fears grew about home-grown terrorism. But the Service saw no significant growth in budget or personnel. . . .

Another former agent, Chuck Marino, noted (11:54) that the director had set a goal of 30 percent female agents by 2030, per DEI. Marino has worked with female agents who were as fully qualified as he was. Had Marino been on duty, Trump would have been swept off his feet and rapidly exfiltrated—a move the undersized female agents could never have accomplished—the assumption is multiple shooters and/or a possible diversionary shooter. Retired military veteran John Spears said that Trump has been assigned the B Team.

Retired Secret Service agent Mike Matranga said:

If a countersniper assesses an immediate threat to life or bodily injury during the event, that agent can shoot to kill. The policy at the Secret Service is we do not have a “green light system” where they need to seek authority. They do not need anybody’s permission to neutralize someone.

Finally, Kimberly Cheatle’s affinity for DEI, and her service on the Second Lady’s security detail, induced Jill to promote her for Secret Service Director. Alone, this would have sufficed to remove her. Upon her resignation, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC-1) called for a “reset” of the agency.

Broadly speaking, one may divide events that do not call for resignation of top management, and those that do. In the first category one may put hitherto successful pharmaceutical executives, whose companies issue vaccines that cause fatalities from a small number of customers. Probably no vaccine has ever caused zero fatalities. While monetary compensation to victims, however, small in number, must be paid, executives may be allowed by the courts to stay on and oversee remedial measures.

But: When there is an utter and complete failure of executives to fix a readily fixable problem, or when bad management exacerbates a fixable problem, and the threat of grave injury for death is readily foreseeable, termination of the responsible executives is called for—even, an essential element of addressing the problem.

Such is the case with a Secret Service management team that fails to prevent a near-assassination of high-value protectees and their families, foremost of whom are presidents, presidential candidates and former presidents, and their families. As has been universally recognized, a successful assassination was ultimately thwarted by a millimeter miss due to the former president turning his head at exactly the right instance to avoid death or serious injury. Alas, a few spectators were not so lucky.

In searching for the causes for major strategic failures, this assessment by a seasoned national security professional compares Butler, Pennsylvania to Pearl Harbor:

The keys to understanding are cognitive dissonance , confirmation bias, and normalcy bias. “Cognitive dissonance” simply means “the sudden confrontation with the unbelievable,” a conflict between new information and established expectations.

With “confirmation bias,” an individual tries to come to terms with cognitive dissonance by defaulting to the most comfortable interpretation of what he is seeing. At Pearl Harbor this meant assuming that the low flying planes were part of a drill, at Butler it likely meant initially disbelieving the evidence of one’s own eyes.

‘Normalcy Bias’ Threatens Our Security

“Normalcy bias” represents a special case of “confirmation bias.” This refers to a latency period, the period of incomprehension and inaction following the recognition of acute danger, the moment when someone “freezes.” At best, this involves delayed reaction, at worst it represents a virtually paralytic refusal to believe “this” is happening, whatever the awful “this” might be.

Bottom Line. The Secret Service needs a top-to-bottom overhaul, with the funds and other resources needed to do so. DEI must be completely eliminated, with merit the sole yardstick for all aspects of planning and operations. Many more employees besides the director must be fired.

John C. Wohlstetter, the author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress, and National Security (Gold Institute Press, 2024), is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based national security, and foreign policy think-tank.

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. La declaración de guerra)

Can you imagine the People’s Party allied with the Socialist Party and Podemos voting ETA/Bildu into an office so that Vox would not hold it? Today many Spaniards will already answer yes. And the fact is that it has happened. Last Wednesday, in the first plenary session of the new legislature of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the European PP agreed and coordinated with the Socialist group, with the so-called “liberals” of Renew and with the Greens to cast its vote for a communist, Islamist, pro-terrorist extremist in order to prevent a highly reputed candidate, the Frenchman and former director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, from becoming vice-president. The reason is that he is a member of “Patriots for Europe,” the third-largest group in the chamber, in which VOX is integrated.

The conspiracy against Leggeri says a great deal about the decisions taken at the highest levels of the European elites who, through their janissary parties of the system, have governed the European Union from time immemorial and who control the European Commission and the entire colossal bureaucratic-propagandistic political apparatus. The incessant growth of the national, patriotic and sovereigntist forces is the main danger to the status quo in which the target-selection process in social engineering, in the legislature and in the executive of the incipient centralized European megastate is firmly in the hands of the “centrist” alliance that is the permanent union of the People’s Party and the Socialists, which acts practically as a single party in everything of importance, supported by its liberal and green satellites.

Until now they believed they could control everything without upsets in the face of a marginal right which, conveniently defamed as extremist or fascist, remained paralyzed without the critical mass even to trouble the entrenched powerful. Alarmed at the national revolt that is being reproduced in practically every country of the union against the effects of the policy of this social-democratic, globalist and essentially despotic alliance, its leadership — place it in Brussels or in Berlin alike — has decided that it must go on the offensive, because otherwise it fears that in this legislature it could lose control of the process. “Wir werden eine Mauer bauen” (we will build a wall), said Ursula von der Leyen in her Thursday speech, which was a declaration of war on all those who do not submit to the steamroller she intends to impose even more than in the last legislature, precisely because she knows herself to be more fragile. No conciliatory words toward Europeans in general. The Green Pact, disastrous for agriculture, will be followed by the Clean Pact, so that industry should start bracing for a cascade of regulations that will make much production unviable. But the ideology and the discipline that Frau Ursula now demands no longer allow doubts or half measures. The motto is “You are with me or you are my enemy, and I will not stop until I destroy you.” That is what von der Leyen already did with the Polish government of Law and Justice, to which she promised support, understanding and balanced treatment in 2019 and which she managed to destroy in 2023. But it is what she is warning everyone of, because she knows that every national election from now on — as soon as the summer ends, in Austria — will see her enemy grow.

Thus they have decided to impose an even more obscene anti-democratic siege on the growing forces in Europe in order to defend the hegemony of the declining and losing forces. And the protagonist of this double operation of the bunkerization and counteroffensive of globalist social democracy, with its combat apparatus to prevent the national-conservative revolt from endangering its social-engineering processes, is the party that still manages to intercept a large part of the votes cast for change toward the right and turn them into executive force against change and in defense of the leftist and anti-national process. That is the European People’s Party. The People’s Party is the one charged with keeping upright the immense swindle that there exists something like a centrism to its left and a moderation in its alliance with the whole of the left, when in reality it acts with the left as a single party.

The Frenchman Leggeri was probably the most capable figure of all the candidates standing for the vice-presidencies. A brilliant senior French official, he was for more than seven years the director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency known as Frontex. His sin: being a member of the Patriots for Europe group for his French party, Rassemblement National. In his place, the People’s Party came to an agreement with the entire left to elect Younous Omarjee, also French, a communist from the island of Réunion, known for his immense pro-Islamist radicalism, who refuses to condemn the Hamas massacres, a furious Judeophobe, an extremist militant of Mélenchon’s France Insoumise party.

The alliance of the People’s Party and the Socialists extends its combat units in European politics and in national policies to the far left. As has been seen in the alliance in France with a Macron and the centrists who during the campaign surrendered to the alliance of Mélenchon’s Islamist-communist discourse, here there is no longer any attack on “extremisms, wherever they come from.” Here there is now only “Kampf gegen rechts” (struggle against the right), as in Germany, where panic reigns ahead of upcoming elections in the eastern states with an AfD between 30% and 40% and the parliamentary disappearance of Socialists, liberals and Greens.

In the distribution of the committee posts, exactly the same thing is going to happen as with the vice-presidencies and Leggeri and Omarjee. The D’Hondt law that officially governs the parliament will be flouted with a vengeance. With 135 seats the Socialists have five vice-presidencies and the communists with 40 have one; the Patriots for Europe with 86 seats have none. In the committees the posts will be shared out among them all with brutal contempt for their own rules. The struggle against the right and the salvation of the planet justify everything. The good news is that von der Leyen’s forces are going to war because they are afraid. They are afraid of the answers that the electorates in the European nations keep giving them, changing the European Council as governments come to power with forces subjected to the Anti-Democratic Siege precisely by the revenge of the electorates against the swindling alliance they maintain in Brussels.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

July 13 joins a list of American dates that will be remembered without reference to the year—think December 7, November 22, September 11.

After a chorus of “shooting candidates has no place in our society” incantations that weekend, once the GOP Convention got started it was, per baseball Hall of Fame Yogi Berra’s famous malapropism, “deja vu all over again”: open season on Trump, Republicans, etc.

Worse, Harris, had in 2018 joked about killing Trump during an appearance with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres. Asked with whom she’d rather share an elevator with, Trump, Mike Pence, or Jefferson Sessions, she asked, “Does one of us have to come out alive?” DeGeneres laughed as did the audience and Kamala cut loose with her trademark cackle.

At age 77, I can recall that after JFK’s assassination jokes about such matters became strictly verboten—anyone did uttered such jokes in public risked arrest for posing a threat to the president. Short of that, being fired, and socially ostracized, was virtually certain. Call it cancel culture before cancel culture became cool—at least, for critics of Republicans.

In all, Democrats today have much to answer for. Days before the near-miss on the former president’s life, Biden said: “It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.” This April, House Judiciary chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) introduced legislation, the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act (CAPS in original). The DFPA would

reform the U.S. Secret Service’s protective mission by automatically terminating Secret Service protection for those who have been sentenced to prison following conviction for a Federal or State felony—clarifying that prison authorities would be responsible for the protection of all inmates regardless of previous Secret Service protection.

Thompson added that the bill was intended to see that former protectees convicted of a felony do not get special treatment while in prison.

Former attorney-general William Barr (whose second stint was as one of Trump’s attorneys-general) said: ” The Democrats have to stop their grossly irresponsible talk about Trump being an existential threat to democracy. He is not.”

A former assistant FBI director called (5:44) the July 13 event “a security breakdown from start to finish”; he cited the failure of the Service to properly protect the president, and a delay in getting the former president off the stage and into the car—in stark contrast, he noted, to the instant rapid response of the Service made in hustling former president Ronald Reagan into the presidential limousine and away from the scene of the shooting. Finally, he said: “Anyone who demonizes someone in the matter the he has been demonized has basically put a bullseye on him.”

An IDF special services veteran said (5:39) that a split-second head turn—a shot from an AR-15 rifle travels 3,300 feet per second—high-likely saved the former president’s life. He called a 150-yard shot “a putt.”

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino stated, of the Secret Service’s serial inactions on requests from Republicans for added security: I want to repeat, and can absolutely confirm, the USSS Director Kim Cheatle has repeatedly turned down requests for a larger security footprint around President Trump. Despite knowing the threat level is catastrophic.

In 2015 the House of Representatives issued a scathing report, United States Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis. It focused on four incidents: (1) a gunman who fired several shots at the White House on Nov. 11, 2011; several agents consorting with females of ill-repute in Cartagena, Colombia in April 2012; (3) an armed security guard with a violent arrest record who rode in the elevator with then-president Obama and later breached the security perimeter on Sep. 16, 2014; (4) two drunk Secret Service agents—one who was part of the president’s protective detail—who interfered with an on-site investigation of a March 4, 2015 bomb threat. The Committee findings cited budget shortfalls, high attrition rate, poor morale, lack of confidence in Service leadership, and calls for bringing outside leaders to lead a full-scale effort. A core comprehensive compilation was posted at National Review.

Nothing better encapsulates this current failure of the Secret Service than Director Cheatle’s “sloping roof’ alibi: that a sloping roof—in fact, an upward gradient of, NOT making this up, three percent, raised “safety concerns as to the security forces; never mind that the gradient that counter-snipers faced on their roof top perch was greater than three percent.

Bottom Line. The Secret Service is being run into the ground. Democrats have seen their main theme—hostility to Trump as Evil Incarnate, trashed by a tectonic event—NOT a Black Swan—as it was entirely foreseeable. The image of Trump, nearly martyred, fist raised in the air with an American flag in hand, will be the iconic image of the 2024 campaign and will go down in history, joining the iconic 1945 photo of GIs failing the flag atop Mount Suribachi during the sanguinary battle for control of the island of Iwo Jima.

John C. Wohlstetter, the author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress, and National Security (Gold Institute Press, 2024), is a senior fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, DC-based national security, and foreign policy think-tank.

Hayman Homer is bridging the cultural gaps in entertainment with his captivating work in the film industry.

In the international realm of filmmaking, a new name stands out: Hayman Homer. This young up and coming American actor of Kurdish origin has taken on the film industry with his standout performance as the first Kurd to portray Jesus Christ in The Messiah (2024) This historical drama is currently showing at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., the biggest bible museum in the world. Hayman also plays a war medic in the drama thriller Aman (2024).

Hayman is deeply motivated by his background. Born in Erbil, the capital of Kurdistan, he and his seven siblings were raised by a single mom. Hayman was only 10 years old when his dad was killed. Hayman’s father first became a prisoner of war and was later martyred in the Kurdish-Iraqi war, fighting for Kurdish independence as a Peshmerga intelligence operative… “My father was a revolutionary for the Kurdish people’s rights, he sacrificed his own life for the sake of freedom and the existence of Kurdish identity against the dictatorship of Sadam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime in Iraq. I’m continuing his path through filmmaking and telling powerful stories that resonates with the world to give a voice for the voiceless. His struggle and my mother’s dedication to raise a big family on her own with honor and dignity is what motivates me the most.” Hayman stated.

Hayman, being deeply motivated by the struggle of the community in which he grew up, commits his work to showcase the rich culture of Kurdistan on the global stage and break down stereotypes of minority groups. The Kurdish-born American actor is one of the few actors, of Middle Eastern origin, using his platform to promote diversity and to reduce prejudicial portrayals of minority groups in Hollywood. “I want to use my platform to expand diversity and raise awareness about issues that matter and help make a real difference in the world,” stated Hayman.

His mission is evident in his groundbreaking role as the first Kurd to portray Jesus Christ – which not only brings representation to Kurds in cinema but also promotes peace by showcasing acceptance of all religions in Kurdistan. Furthermore, his mission is evident in his lesser-known community efforts off screen as a board member of the Kurdistani Diaspora Center and Tennessee Kurdish Community Council that work to promote principles of democracy, peace, free opinion, coexistence, and community cooperation. His public service initiative reflects his educational background as he holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and international relations from Salahaddin University.

Hayman is driven by his origins as well as his passion to bring diverse representation into entertainment as he expands his work into the American film industry and beyond. He aims to not only portray stories through acting but also through his work into film producing.

On producing, Hayman reflects: “this allows me to bring powerful and compelling stories to the big screen, explore different aspects of humanity, and tell stories that resonate with people all over the world”.

Up next is Hayman’s ambitious secret project bringing the saga of a Kurdish renowned mythological character to life as a Hollywood blockbuster. He plans to continue utilizing inspiration from both Kurdish and American history and literature to help feature well-rounded portrayals of diverse backgrounds. Hayman works tirelessly to change the disparity in the lives of Kurds and other isolated minorities in the Middle East, creating positive outcomes and inspiring hope.

Rahim “Mr. Kurd” Rashidi is a media fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington DC think-and-do tank.

(This article was written by John Wohlstetter and appeared in The American Spectator. 25th Amendment: Acting President Is Not President)

Calls abound for the removal of President Biden over his objection, using the involuntary disability provision, with Vice-President Kamala Harris to then assume the presidency. What the text of Section 4 makes clear, however, is than under that provision, she can be Acting President only. Section 3, covering voluntary disability, provides the same.

Herewith the full text of Section 4, the “challenge” provision of the 25th Amendment, setting forth the rules and procedures for ascertaining presidential involuntary inability to discharge the “powers and duties” of the presidency:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. (Emphasis added).

A vice-president can only become President under Section 1, which states: In the case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death or resignation, Vice-President shall become President.

An Acting President exercises the “powers and duties” of the presidency, but does not hold the office of the presidency. This means that Harris cannot nominate a new vice-president, as Section 2 states:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President, the President shall nominate a Vice-President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Given the proximity of events to the upcoming election, this distinction may seem academic. But Harris, who ardently wants to become the first female president, must win the 2024 election to become president-elect, and then be sworn in on January 20, 2025 to become America’s 47th President.

Put simply, Section 4 was not designed to forcibly remove a president from office. The Constitution’s procedure for such removal is impeachment by the House, per Article I, sec. 2, cl. 5; and then obtaining a conviction at trial in the Senate, per Article I, sec. 3, cl. 6.

The distinction would hardly be academic, if a vice-president became Acting President with years left in the president’s term, as there would be a protracted vacancy in the office of the vice-presidency. The last vice-presidential vacancy that lasted over a year was 14 months between Lyndon Johnson’s November 22, 1963 ascension to the presidency, and Hubert Humphrey’s swearing in as vice-president on January 20, 1965.

Since ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there have been two brief vice-presidential vacancies: two months in 1973 while Gerald Ford was waiting for Congress to confirm his appointment by President Nixon; and four months in 1974 while Nelson Rockefeller was waiting for Congress to confirm his appointment by President Ford. During those intervals the next-in-line of presidential succession was House Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK).

Signs of Biden’s cognitive impairment were substantial enough in mid-June 2021, for Rep. Dr. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who had served as personal presidential physician for three presidents (Bush 43, Obama, and Trump), to call for President Biden to take a mental competency test — less than five months into his term.

This could have become a huge succession problem during the current administration, were the president to have had a stroke and lapsed into a coma, unless he had prepared a memorandum to the vice-president akin to that authored by President Eisenhower, on March 3, 1958, which subsequently was adopted by presidents Kennedy and Johnson. It provided:

THE PRESIDENT and the Vice President have agreed that the following procedures are in accord with the purposes and provisions of Article 2, Section I, of the Constitution, dealing with Presidential inability. They believe that these procedures, which are intended to apply to themselves only, are in no sense outside or contrary to the Constitution but are consistent with its present provisions and implement its clear intent.

(1) In the event of inability the President would — if possible — so inform the Vice President, and the Vice President would serve as Acting President, exercising the powers and duties of the Office until the inability had ended.

(2) In the event of an inability which would prevent the President from so communicating with the Vice President, the Vice President, after such consultation as seems to him appropriate under the circumstances, would decide upon the devolution of the powers and duties of the Office and would serve as Acting President until the inability had ended.

(3) The President, in either event, would determine when the inability had ended and at that time would resume the full exercise of the powers and duties of the Office.

Alternatively, in event of inability of a president to communicate, a properly executed legal instrument (living will, power of attorney) can provide a basis for a surrogate decision on the president’s behalf.

(During his two terms as vice-president under Bush 43, Dick Cheney prepared a March 28, 2001 pre-signed undated resignation letter in event of his inability to carry out “for a significant time” his responsibilities as vice-president, or to communicate the same after a triggering health emergency.)

Bottom Line. If Constitutional formalities are observed, and absent a legal instrument designating a surrogate decision maker, Joe will have to agree — or be persuaded to agree — to step down.

John Wohlstetter is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Maria Maalouf and appeared in Arab News. US struggling to calm Israeli-Hezbollah tensions)

This week’s exchange of rocket fire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, coupled with escalating clashes that have included the assassination of a prominent Hezbollah leader and the targeting of military and civilian targets in northern Israel, has caused American officials to worry that this escalation could push the war-torn region into a broader conflict.

Since Oct. 7, the Biden administration has been working diligently behind the scenes to reduce the chances of a war between Hezbollah and Israel, which could escalate into a regional war involving the US or expose American troops in Syria, Iraq and Jordan to greater risks.

The most notable US efforts to calm the ongoing tensions between Israel and Hezbollah included the visit of envoy Amos Hochstein to the region on June 18. In Israel, he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. In Beirut, he met with Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, acting Prime Minister Najib Mikati, the Lebanese army commander and other officials. He clarified that the US does not want an escalation and called for an end to the ongoing Israeli aggression on Lebanon, as well as the restoration of calm and stability at the latter’s southern border. He pointed out that continuous Israeli threats to Lebanon would not prevent the US from seeking calm, which is a priority for it and all friends of Lebanon.

During his visit, Hochstein emphasized to both parties that the Biden administration wants to avoid further escalation into a larger war, pointing to the urgent need to restore security at the Lebanese-Israeli border and for residents to return to their homes. He added that the conflict along the border has lasted long enough and ending this conflict now would be in everyone’s interest. He said this would be achievable through a diplomatic path if both parties agreed.

Simultaneously, the US affirmed its provision of security support to Israel, which could serve as a deterrent to Hezbollah. American officials, including National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk, reassured a delegation of senior Israeli officials who visited Washington recently that, if a full-scale war broke out between Israel and Hezbollah, the Biden administration was fully prepared to support its ally, although it would not deploy American troops on the ground in such a scenario. These personal assurances came as cross-border attacks between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah increased, raising fears of another full-blown conflict in the Middle East.

Since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza on Oct. 7, Hezbollah’s provocations against Israel have continued, escalating in recent weeks. The Biden administration has repeatedly stated that it does not want another war on Israel’s northern front and has urged de-escalation.

On June 24, the US administration presented a proposal that included a diplomatic solution to reduce tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, establishing a buffer zone on the border. The US is striving to reach an agreement between the two sides that includes Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the border area and repositioning north of the Litani River, about 30 km away from the border with Israel. Hezbollah has rejected this option, insisting that its fight against Israel will continue until a ceasefire is implemented in Gaza. Israeli and American officials are trying to find an alternative that does not amount to a ceasefire in Gaza, which does not seem imminent.

American officials have expressed concern about several scenarios, believing that Israel’s recent strikes inside Lebanese territory might be paving the way for a major offensive by the Israeli army and that Hezbollah might respond with larger rocket attacks on Israel. These officials are increasingly worried that Israel could initiate a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon — a war Israel cannot end without American support.

Some officials are also concerned about the scale of Hezbollah’s attacks, which could lead to unintended consequences, forcing Israel to respond and potentially triggering all-out war. An American official mentioned that Israeli forces in the northern command are training in brigade-sized units but are not yet in a position to start an offensive.

If a full-scale war breaks out between Israel and Hezbollah, the latter, as an Iran-backed armed group, could potentially overwhelm Israel’s air defenses in the north, including the Iron Dome missile defense system. This would make full US support for Israel even more crucial. Furthermore, American officials are worried that, without a ceasefire in Gaza, the likelihood of war between Israel and Hezbollah will increase, significantly worsening the regional crisis and drawing the US deeper into the conflict.

The threat posed by Hezbollah to Israel, which is the most important US ally in the region, has become a significant political issue, with many Israelis who were evacuated from their homes in the north still displaced. The increasing cross-border attacks between Israel and Hezbollah make it difficult for the US to ease tensions in the region, especially if the Biden administration’s efforts to mediate a hostage deal and a ceasefire in Gaza continue to falter. The White House sees the ceasefire talks and the tensions between Israel and Hezbollah as highly complex, given that both sides have miscalculated with their escalation of rhetoric and the intensity of their attacks, while believing they can still avoid a full-scale war.

Assessing the chances of success for the aforementioned American efforts involves considering several factors, including disagreements between the American and Israeli sides on some issues. American officials have revealed that the disagreement between Netanyahu and President Joe Biden’s administration over withholding weapons from Israel will hinder US-Israeli diplomatic efforts to calm tensions at the Lebanese border and avoid war with Hezbollah.

There is no doubt that Netanyahu’s actions could create a crisis between the allies, leading to a further erosion of Israel’s deterrent power in the region, especially in the eyes of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. In an address to the Knesset, Netanyahu promised to bring back all the hostages and emphasized that the war would not end until this goal was achieved, along with the elimination of Hamas and the safe return of southern and northern residents to their homes.

Some observers believe that any agreement with Hezbollah will be temporary and Hezbollah and Iran’s long-term strategy will remain unchanged. Therefore, the success of any diplomatic path, even temporarily, requires offering incentives to Hezbollah, such as agreeing on a defined border line. Both the US and Israel face a significant challenge, given that Hezbollah’s primary goal, since its inception, has been the removal of Israel. Recent developments suggest that American diplomatic efforts might encounter significant obstacles as long as the military operations and assassinations continue.

In conclusion, the situation seems to be heading toward a full-scale armed conflict if a settlement is not reached between the parties involved, particularly with Hezbollah linking its offensive operations against northern Israel to events in Gaza. This means that escalating the conflict into a full-scale war would undermine US mediation efforts, potentially diminishing Washington’s influence, as has happened in recent weeks when Netanyahu insisted on continuing with Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

Maria Maalouf is a Senior Media Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

(This article was written by Peter Huessy and appeared in Warrior Maven. There is a Massive Nuclear Arms Race Started by China & Russia)

The Washington Post recently noted that the world has a lot of arms but not much control. And surprisingly, the Post then went on to explain while the US has exercised restraint in its nuclear modernization—staying within the New START limits—not so Russia and China, with the result that an arms race is underway.

As retired Admiral Charles Richard noted in 2022 China is adding to its nuclear arsenal at a breathtaking speed. Russia has a significant upload capability in the multiple thousands of warheads, especially concerning given there have been no New START inspections for many years, on top of thousands of theater nuclear forces under no arms limits.

North Korea and Iran, one an expanding nuclear armed rogue state and the other on the nuclear doorstep, are allied with Russia and China, adding to nuclear dangers. Combined with its proxy terror groups such as the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has shut down western allied freight traffic in the Red Sea and Suez, attacked US forces some 170 time in the region, and launched thousands of rockets and missiles at Israel and other allies of the US in the region. On top of which, Putin makes serial nuclear threats to Ukraine, while China says if Japan comes to the defense of Taiwan, it will suffer the same fate as the country did in WWII.

The Post was right to characterize the 2010 nuclear program of record as consistent with the New START treaty. But absent a new agreement by China and Russia to restrict arms, the US is indeed projected to face two nuclear armed peer adversaries for the first time, each with unrestrained nuclear arsenals.

What then are we meant to do? There are two approaches.

As the Posture Commission noted, the program of record is necessary, even critical, but not sufficient. The Senate Armed Service Committee calls for four new initiatives: (1) make all 76 B52s nuclear capable; (2) deploy Sentinel in all 450 silos; (3) establish a SLCM-N program office; and (4) create a high-level DoD official to oversee all nuclear programs. One could also reasonably add three additional Columbia submarines post 2042 as well as add warheads to the SLBM and ICBM legs of the Triad.

Now critics note that we should just improve our conventional capability. But as General Anthony Cotton has told Congress, if nuclear weapons are introduced into a conventional conflict, “nothing holds,” thus requiring for the USA to have both a conventional and nuclear deterrent second to none.

This is where Putin and Xi are making the world dangerous—as they are threatening the use of nuclear force as an adjunct to their conventional capability, using nuclear weapons not to deter conflict but to make it serve their purposes—getting the US and her allies to stand down in a conflict, what the Posture Commission described as nukes for bullying and coercion.

Chris Yeaw told us earlier Russia and China combined may have within the decade some 10,000 deployed nuclear weapons. Annie Jacobson says we need more negotiations and diplomacy—not more weapons. But she does not say what we are negotiating and where diplomacy will take us. She and others say make the US nuclear arsenal smaller—kill the ICBMs and make the US force with 70% fewer SNDVs and 25% fewer warheads, while eliminating any hedge to build beyond the current New Start warhead level.

This idea of killing our ICBM needs some examination. Some six arguments are common.

First, if we just removed the silo targets, the Russians wouldn’t be tempted to attack them. ICBM silos first, New York city next?

Second, ICBM s are apparently on a hair trigger although no President has ever called for their launch in the past 3.2 million minutes since the MMIII went on alert in Montana in October 1962. That is some “launch control.”

Third, for some reason the Russians are suicidal, and will launch nearly all their ICBM warheads—over 900—to take out 400 Minuteman ICBM silos and associated warheads and 45 launch control centers spread over 32,000 square miles over 5 states. While ignoring 350-400 sub warheads that could be deployed from Kings Bay and Bangor and 60 bombers from 3 bomber bases with anywhere between 600-1000 cruise missiles and gravity bombs available for retaliation. To say nothing, of the estimated 800 warheads at sea also available for retaliation.

Fourth, another charge is if the Russians launch their submarines at the ICBM silo, they secure a shorter flight time making it even more difficult for a President to launch our ICBMs back at Russia. But Moscow has around 500 submarine-based warheads in their entire fleet, not all of which are on alert. The force simply cannot hold at risk the entire US ICBM force.

Fifth, given the Russian missiles would have to either be launched at different times or would reach US soil at different times—either scenario would allow the US to launch after being attacked which would place Russia in nuclear jeopardy.

Sixth, critics often say the nuclear modernization effort is simply too expensive. But if you examine the defense budget, all modernization efforts within DOD—subs, sub missiles, ICBMs, bombes and NC3—come to $18 billion annually, which is 2% of the defense budget, and one third of all DOD-NNSA nuclear expenditures, including all sustainment and all modernization.

Another way to measure the cost is that over the 50 years of the ICBM force being deployed, it comes to an annual investment of $2.6 billion annually, compared to $128 billion annually for food stamps and the $76 billion annual Federal cost of caring for illegal aliens. As General Mattis has said, “the US can afford survival.”

To restore deterrence and prevent the world from spinning out of control, continuing the program of record and the newly recommended additional capabilities is the only choice we have unless again as Admiral Charles Richard explained, we wish to disarm and get out of the nuclear deterrent business. We can rust to obsolescence or modernize to deter. Those are our only two choices.

Peter Huessy is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.

As I wrote in my last TAS article:

The importance of settling remaining issues pertaining to presidential succession can hardly be overstated. Of 45 prior presidents, nine failed to complete their term: four were assassinated; four died of natural causes; and one resigned. Of 48 prior vice-presidents, 18 did not complete their term: 9 died of natural causes, 2 resigned; 9 ascended to the presidency. In the 179 years prior to the 1967 ratification of the 25th Amendment, the republic was without a vice-president for 37-3/4 years — 21 percent of the time.

A Debate Inflection Point

After Thursday’s presidential debate, one thing is clear: Joe Biden will NOT be nominated at the Democratic Convention. He will be persuaded to announce that he will not run for re-election — a reversion to his 2020 campaign pledge, made to assuage voter concerns about his age, that he would serve as a one-term president.

Longtime passionate Biden supporter Van Jones gave his evaluation (1:00): “It was painful.” He called for replacing Biden on the ticket. CNN’s chief national correspondent, John King stated (1:27) that the Democrats, after a “game changing” debate, are in “a deep, a wide and a very aggressive panic” over Biden’s disastrous performance. He added that among the options party insiders are considering is to visit the president at the White House and ask him to step down, or to have “prominent” Democrats call publicly for his resignation.

Early in the debate Biden had an episode of slurred speech, and then a brain freeze (4:20, at 0:28-0:42). Finally, there was the spectacle of First Lady Jill Biden escorting (4:37, 0:1 to 0:18) her clearly physically frail husband off the debate stage. (READ MORE from John Wohlstetter: The Summer 2024 Presidential Succession Crisis)

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, a longtime critic of the former president, in her Friday column, called the debate “as consequential as any presidential debate in history, and the worst night for an incumbent in history … an unmitigated disaster for Mr. Biden … a rout for Mr. Trump.” She added that were the election held the next day, Trump would win in a landslide.

Friday saw the New York Times editorial board — literally the Bible for many influential Democrats — call upon the president to step down:

There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden…. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.

There is yet a further complication: The text of section 4, the involuntary disability provision of the 25th Amendment, does not specifically contemplate permanent removal of the president — only that a president’s involuntary inability makes the vice-president an Acting President — exercising the “powers and duties” of the Office, without holding the Office of the Presidency. It provides, in pertinent part:

If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Thus, in a worst-case scenario, the president can renew, seriatum, requests for restoration of presidential powers, leading to an endless cycle of presidential application and Congressional rejection.

A further problem is now to deal with Kamala Harris, who is viewed even more unfavorably by voters. One way is to select California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has made himself publicly recognized as a presidential nominee; per clause 3 of Article II, section 1, which provides:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for Two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “inhabitant’ as residing permanently in, having established domicile in, or being a citizen of, a State. Both Newsom and Harris were born in, and are permanent residents of California. (Between 1966 and 1986, Harris resided elsewhere much of the time, but has resided continually in California since 1986.)

Thus, California Electors who vote for Newsom as president cannot also vote for Kamala. To be sure, California’s Democrat Electors would choose another Democrat. But if the November presidential election result yields a margin of less than 52 electoral votes for the victor — widely considered a virtual certitude — were Newsom elected president, he would be saddled with a Republican vice-president. This could prove consequential in event of 50-50 tie votes on legislation or federal judicial nominations; a GOP vice-president could cast the tie-breaking vote against Newsom’s nominees.

Bottom Line. Few believe that a manifestly weakened president can handle the immense daily workload of the presidency. Those making decisions behind the scene resemble the clandestine regency that arose for the last 17 months of Woodrow Wilson’s second presidential term, triggered by the president’s massive stroke. (READ MORE: Can America Survive Israel’s Nuclear Destruction?)

But that clandestine regency succeeded in considerable measure due to the pre-modern state of national and global communications. There was no television, with its compelling visual images; only newsreels aired in theaters days later; let alone were there 24/7 videos online, trillions circulated by social media. Broadcast radio was in its infancy: The first commercial radio broadcast, from KDKA Pittsburgh, was aired November 2, 1920 — exactly 13 months after Wilson’s October 2, 1919 disabling stroke.

It seems clear that, one way or another, Democrats will find a way to get Biden to drop out of the race and — though this is fraught with risk of losing support among several core Democratic constituencies — manage to replace Kamala Harris as well. With Trump viewed as Evil Incarnate, the Democrats will wager that most voters will come home this fall. It is a better wager than betting Biden’s inability to vigorously campaign won’t worsen.

John C. Wohlstetter is author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security(Gold Institute Press, 2024).

(This article was written by Hermann Tertsch and appeared in El Debate. La gran cita del narcocomunismo en Honduras)

The great display of contempt for the popular will that the sinister operation of the European Union’s oligarchy is proving to be in Brussels — to impose Ursula von der Leyen as president of the European Commission and a coalition for a left-wing policy — is not the only anti-democratic event being held in the world these days.

True, the media have focused, most of them with applause, on the European People’s Party’s betrayal of the massive conservative turn of the vote in the EU’s 27 nations by once again forging a coalition with the entire left, the losers of the elections, in order to continue the policy of the past five years of disastrous results. Which, let us hope, will bring a massive reaction from the national, sovereigntist and truly conservative forces, including those that still remain in the European People’s Party.

With little attention in the media, far from Brussels, in Honduras a sinister but monumental summit concludes today — of dictators, narco-communist governments, governments still disguised as «progressive», aspiring tyrants, terrorists, subversive groups, chiefs of cocaine cartels in ideological disguise, and assorted fixers of the vast networks of NGOs that this symbiosis of the communist movement and organized crime has set up all over America and also in Europe. Gathering there are the São Paulo Forum (FSP), the Puebla Group, the Progressive International — which amounts to the North American branch of the São Paulo Forum — and CELAC, another invention of the FSP to impose ideological criteria on the alliance of Ibero-American states outside the OAS.

There are the criminals Nicolás Maduro and Daniel Ortega and, of course, their good friend José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the adviser of the murderers of the Venezuelan regime and also adviser to the head of the government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. There will be López Obrador, an expert in governing with drug cartels, and Gustavo Petro, who is learning from him and from Maduro. Neither Evo Morales nor Ernesto Samper nor Rafael Correa is missing. There are members of all the franchises of these narco-communist multinationals that move through Ibero-American and European politics.

The Madrid Forum has denounced this meeting, which is, besides, a great act of coordination of forces against the forces of freedom unleashed by the triumph of Javier Milei in Argentina and by the fears of losing that great ally which the administration of Joe Biden has in fact been for the totalitarian and narco-communist Ibero-American forces. The victory of a Donald Trump with a matured agenda against Russian, Chinese and Iranian penetration in the American continent produces terror in the capitals of the São Paulo Forum, with Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil at the head.

The official objective of the meeting is to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the removal of former president Manuel Zelaya — husband of the current president — who in 2009, on the orders of Hugo Chávez, tried to perpetrate a coup d’état through the illegal modification of the Honduran Constitution in order to perpetuate himself in power. The aim is to impose a false narrative, according to which Zelaya was the victim of a coup d’état, when in reality he was removed for assaulting the constitutional order.

In Tegucigalpa there are many hundreds of socialist and communist participants from both sides of the Atlantic, many linked to — and also convicted of — an endless number of crimes: from corruption, through sexual abuse, of course drug trafficking, and even kidnappings and murders.

Marked presence of the so-called «Progressive International» controlled by Bernie Sanders, whose mission is to legitimize the tyrannies of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and to open the way for new regimes hostile to freedom, fundamental rights and the sovereignty of nations. The radicalization of the North American left has been of great help to the narco-communist regimes, and thus also to the ease of penetration by China, Russia and Iran, which pose a massive strategic threat against the U.S. A considerable part of the Democratic Party has thus in fact become a fifth column of the fundamental enemies of the U.S.

Hermann Tertsch is a Distinguished Fellow (Honorary) at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington D.C.-based foreign policy and defense think tank.