I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE GERMANS

Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. And I’m not afraid of the Germans.

If we really mean “Never Again,” this is what we should be afraid of.

The Pattern of Conquest and Demographic Transformation

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’… eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within… so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Once Christian Heartlands

Once, the lands of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan were Christian heartlands. Alexandria ranked among the great intellectual centers of early Christianity, its theologians shaping the faith for centuries. Monasteries filled the Egyptian desert; travelers recorded hymns rising from caves and villages along the Nile. Syria and the Levant—Damascus, Antioch, and the coastal cities that would later form Lebanon and Jordan—formed the Christian core under Byzantine rule. These were not fringe outposts. They were majority Christian societies with deep roots tracing back to the earliest generations after Christ.

The Conquests Were Military and Against the Will of the People

In the 630s and 640s, Arab Muslim armies crossed into these territories. The campaigns were wars of conquest, not invitations. Battles such as Yarmouk decided the fate of the Levant. Cities were besieged and taken by force. Populations did not vote to replace their rulers or their faith. They were defeated on the battlefield. The swords that appear on so many Islamic flags and emblems—the Saudi national flag, the crossed swords of the Muslim Brotherhood, and countless historical standards—symbolize precisely this early military phase of expansion. The sword was the instrument that brought these lands under new rule.

After the Armies: Subordination, Pressure, and Brutality

Immediate mass conversion by the sword was not the universal pattern everywhere. Instead, a system of subordination was imposed. Christians and Jews became dhimmis—protected but unequal subjects required to pay the jizya tax. The tax created a permanent economic incentive to convert while marking non-Muslims as second-class. Restrictions limited public Christian practice: churches could not be freely repaired or built, bells were silenced, and processions curtailed. Social and legal inequalities reinforced the hierarchy.

Documented periods of greater brutality accelerated the decline. Under certain Fatimid and Mamluk rulers in Egypt, churches were closed, destroyed, or converted into mosques. The medieval historian al-Maqrizi recorded waves of church demolition and forced conversions, particularly in the 11th and 14th centuries, after which he noted that “Islam spread among the Christians of Egypt.” In Syria and the broader Levant, similar patterns of pressure, occasional massacres, and destruction of Christian sites occurred under successive dynasties. Failed revolts by Christian communities were followed by reprisals that further reduced their numbers and confidence.

These measures operated on people who had already lost political control through military defeat. They were not the free choice of the local populations. Over generations, the combination of taxation, restricted rights, social disadvantage, intermittent violence, Arab settlement, and differential fertility produced the demographic shift. Christian majorities became minorities. In Egypt the change was largely complete by the later medieval period. In Syria and Jordan the Christian share shrank steadily. Lebanon retained a Christian plurality longer—the 1932 census still recorded Christians as roughly half the population—before higher Muslim fertility, Christian emigration during the civil war, and refugee inflows completed the transition. Today these are Muslim-majority lands with only remnant Christian communities.

The old civilization did not vanish overnight. It was outlasted. Languages shifted to Arabic. The public calendar and architecture of power changed. The descendants of the former majority became the new minority living under the rules of the faith that had arrived by conquest.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

— Mohamed Akram, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America (1991), entered as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

The Inversion: Accusations Against Israel

Against this record, the modern claim that Israel is a “colonizer” committing “genocide” reverses the documented chronology. The Arab-Muslim conquests of the 7th century took Egypt, the Levant, and North Africa by force from Byzantine Christian rule and imposed the long process just described. Jewish ties to the land of Israel/Judea are continuous—archaeological, textual, and genetic. Modern Zionism was a national movement of return by a people who had lived as a minority under successive rulers, not a classic overseas colonial project.

In 1948 roughly 850,000–900,000 Jews lived in Arab countries in ancient communities. After Israel’s independence the great majority were expelled, fled under threat, or left after pogroms, property confiscations, and citizenship revocation. Today fewer than 5,000–10,000 remain across the entire Arab world—a near-total removal. Arab and Palestinian populations in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza have grown substantially through natural increase. That trajectory is the opposite of genocide.

Hamas’s 1988 charter stated that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it,” and included language calling for the killing of Jews. Its later documents used softer wording for external audiences but still rejected Israel’s legitimacy and called for full liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. Multiple Arab-Israeli wars were framed around preventing or undoing a Jewish state.

The Cautionary Parallel for Europe

Europe in the early 21st century is aging, with fertility rates well below replacement. Into this demography have arrived large numbers of people from higher-fertility, more religiously cohesive societies. Pew Research Center projections show that even with zero future migration the Muslim share of Europe’s population would still rise from roughly 5 percent to about 7.4 percent by 2050 on age structure and fertility alone. Under medium-migration assumptions the figure reaches around 11 percent; under high-migration scenarios it approaches 14 percent overall, with higher concentrations in certain countries and cities.

Parallel societies form. Political parties court the growing bloc. Demands for accommodations expand. Explicit strategic documents, such as the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum,” describe a long-term “Civilization-Jihadist Process” whose stated goal is to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within. Similar networks operate in Europe.

Over decades the numbers compound. Native European fertility remains low. In some regions the demographic and cultural balance can tip. What begins as migration becomes a durable majority or plurality in key areas. The old Christian and secular-liberal order is not overthrown by invasion; it is outbred, out-organized, and gradually subordinated where the new majority concentrates its weight. This is not destiny—fertility gaps can narrow with assimilation, and policies can change—but the historical pattern of conquest followed by demographic transformation, and the arithmetic of differential fertility plus sustained migration, are real.

The swords on the flags mark the military origins of the earlier transformation. The question for Europe is whether a version of the same long-term outcome can unfold without new armies—through migration, fertility, and the growth of parallel societies—if the earlier choices about borders, integration, and cultural self-confidence are not made in time.

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND

How many Jews do you see in this photograph of Democratic leaders who lean heavily to the left?  

You should have spotted three right off the bat: Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff.  Here's one you might have missed: 

AOC has also publicly acknowledged distant Sephardic Jewish ancestry. Speaking at a December 2018 Hanukkah celebration hosted by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice in Queens, she described a family history of Sephardic Jews who fled persecution during the Spanish Inquisition. Some families preserved Jewish traditions privately while outwardly practicing Catholicism.

Ocasio-Cortez has personally identified as Catholic and clarified that she is not claiming a Jewish religious identity, but rather acknowledging a multi-layered ancestral heritage that includes Spanish, African, Indigenous Taino, and Jewish roots.

Interestingly, millions of practicing Catholics throughout Latin America, Spain, Portugal, and the Southwestern United States claim or have recently discovered 15th-century Sephardic Jewish ancestry. 

A 2018 study published in Nature Communications examined 6,589 people from five Latin American countries. Approximately 23% had more than 5% inferred Sephardic, East Mediterranean, or South Mediterranean ancestry, with the largest contribution attributed to Sephardic ancestry. The findings support a substantial converso legacy in Latin America, although the sample does not represent the entire region.

Counting AOC’s reported Jewish ancestry, four of the eight prominent political figures in this photograph have Jewish roots—fifty percent. That is a striking concentration in this particular group, given that Jews constitute approximately 2% of the American population.

And politics is hardly the only arena in which Jews bat above our weight. The same pattern appears in science, medicine, mathematics, economics, literature, music, and entertainment. Consider the Nobel Prizes. Jews constitute approximately 0.2% of the world’s population. I wanna make sure you get your head around that number—.2% is .002. That about one person in five hundred. Yet JINFO’s documented compilation identifies Jews and people of partial Jewish ancestry as approximately 22% of individual Nobel laureates worldwide, and 36% of American laureates. Those figures include ancestry as well as religious identity; they do not mean that every recipient practiced Judaism. The breakdown is striking:

• Economics: approximately 40% of laureates worldwide.
• Physiology or Medicine: approximately 26%.
• Physics: approximately 25%.
• Chemistry: approximately 19%.
• Literature: approximately 14%.
• Peace: approximately 8% of individual recipients, excluding organizations.

These are rounded figures from the same compilation, which documents the individuals included and their backgrounds.

Mathematics and computing show a similar pattern. JINFO’s lists place Jews and people of partial Jewish ancestry at approximately 24% of Fields Medal recipients and 30% of Turing Award recipients. These are among the highest distinctions in mathematics and computer science.

The names behind the numbers make the contributions tangible. Albert Einstein transformed our understanding of space, time, and light. Richard Feynman helped develop quantum electrodynamics. Emmy Noether made foundational contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. John von Neumann helped shape mathematics, game theory, and modern computing. These were advances that changed how humanity understands and uses the world.

In medicine, the benefits reached families everywhere. Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin developed the injectable and oral polio vaccines, respectively. Both were children of Jewish immigrants. Their work helped protect generations of children from a devastating disease.

In economics, Jewish Nobel laureates include Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, Kenneth Arrow, Daniel Kahneman, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Claudia Goldin. Their different approaches also illustrate that Jewish achievement does not imply agreement about politics or economics.

In literature, the Nobel roster includes Shmuel Agnon, Nelly Sachs, Saul Bellow, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Harold Pinter, Bob Dylan, and Louise Glück. Their work spans languages, countries, genres, and very different experiences of Jewish life.

In music, consider Irving Berlin, George and Ira Gershwin, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein II, Leonard Bernstein, and Stephen Sondheim. Their work helped define the American musical and the American songbook. Jewish songwriters even gave America such familiar standards as “White Christmas” and “God Bless America.”

In comedy and television, consider the Marx Brothers, Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner, Joan Rivers, Jerry Seinfeld, and Larry David. Their influence runs through generations of American entertainment.

And yes, there are the Nobel Peace Prizes. Jewish recipients include Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried, René Cassin, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Elie Wiesel, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Joseph Rotblat. Wiesel was recognized for his message of peace and human dignity; Rotblat for efforts to reduce the role of nuclear weapons.

These examples only scratch the surface of Jewish achievement. Even within the fields mentioned, the names and contributions extend far beyond those included here.

And then there is the contribution the world never received. Across centuries, Jews were murdered, forcibly converted, or pressured to abandon their identity. Others converted by choice, and their descendants’ contributions may no longer be recognized as part of Jewish history. These are different experiences, but together they make the full story impossible to measure.

What discoveries were never made because a potential scientist was killed as a child? What medicines, music, businesses, and works of literature never came into being? What prosperity might their children and grandchildren have created? How different might the political world look if those communities had survived and flourished?

We cannot know. But looking at what so small a surviving people has contributed, I cannot help wondering:  How much more of a blessing might we have been—and how much did humanity lose along with us?

Perhaps there is a biblical thread connecting the achievements described here with the desire to help those who have less. Abraham was called to become a blessing to the families of the earth (GeFnesis 12:2–3). The Torah commands us to open our hands to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7–11), leave part of our harvest for the poor and the stranger (Leviticus 19:9–10), and remember that the ability to create wealth comes from God (Deuteronomy 8:18). Prosperity carries responsibility.

That inheritance may help explain why socialism’s promise of taking from those with more to provide for those with less appeals to some Jews. The concern for the poor has deep roots in our Scriptures. Whether a particular political system fulfills that responsibility is a separate question—and one on which Jews profoundly disagree.

I am still trying to understand. How does such a small people make such a large mark? And how do we best fulfill the responsibility that comes with our blessings?

P.S. A word about Jewish ancestry. Judaism is in the DNA—It is in the BLOOD. That is why Hilter did NOT care if a Jew practiced their religion. If just one or two of person's grandparents was Jewish, according the Germany's Nuremberg Laws, that person was classified as "Mischling." It was a derogatory Nazi classification meaning “mixed race” or “mixed ancestry.”

ENTER JD VANCE

TEHRAN WAS BUYING TIME AND JD VANCE SOLD IT TO THEM

I believe Iran’s leaders use negotiations to buy time. Time to rebuild. Time to develop new weapons. Time to resupply. Time to plan and prepare for their next attack.

For that strategy to work, Tehran needs the other side to believe it genuinely wants an end to hostilities. But there’s another way it can work. If the people across the table are under enough financial and political pressure to end the war, they may be willing to accept a deal they have reason to doubt. They can tell their supporters they ended the fighting while giving Iran the breathing room it came to the table to get.

The danger grows when American negotiators give too little weight to what that breathing room could mean for Israel and the Jewish people. A deal may be politically popular in Washington. But if Iran uses the pause to rebuild and rearm, who will bear the cost when the fighting starts again?

Enter JD Vance and the far right.

Tehran didn't fool Netanyahu for a moment. Netanyahu didn't believe the war was finished in June 2025. Netanyahu wanted to finish the job! Trump unilaterally declared victory. 

While Trump was claiming victory, Netanyahu shifted from all-out war to a series of targeted strikes on Iran’s military leadership. While Trump bragged about destroying Iran’s military equipment, Israel focused on the head of the octopus. One by one, top commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were killed. As Israel weakened Iran’s command structure, Tehran and Washington returned to negotiations.

And so began a series of "on-again off-again" negotiations. Trump kept pressing for a deal. This went on until February 2026 when the Israel/US —Iran war entered another Kinetic phase that lasted until another Ceasefire was declared in April 2026. 

JD Vance went back to the negotiating table again. Again giving Tehran what it wanted—TIME!  

For literally decades, Israel has been battling an octopus. Tehran is the head, and its armed proxies are the tentacles. After the April ceasefire, Trump focused on keeping oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, while Israel continued fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

On April 9, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused Israel of violating the ceasefire by striking Lebanon. After the ceasefire, JD Vance led the U.S. delegation to talks with Iran in Islamabad. On July 15, speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Vance accused some people within the Israeli government of “manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely.”

The irony is that Netanyahu had publicly laid out an endpoint. In June 2025, he said the fighting would stop once Israel achieved its objectives against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. By November 2026, Axios reported that he wanted to resume combat and urged Trump to finish the job militarily because he did not trust Tehran to honor a deal. That’s the difference at the heart of this story. Netanyahu wanted to settle the threat militarily. Vance pushed for a negotiated deal. And in my view, the longer those talks dragged on, the more time Tehran had to regroup and rebuild.

In 2006, Middle East historian Bernard Lewis warned of “the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers.” He was writing about nuclear deterrence, but his warning raises a question for negotiators too. If Tehran’s leaders see their conflict with Israel as part of a final struggle, why assume they see a deal as the end of that conflict? They may see it as time to prepare for the next round.

On November 4, the morning after the midterms, JD Vance wrote, “The reason we lost is the war.” Among the changes he said voters wanted was a call to “change our relationship to Israel.” To me, that was the unofficial opening of his 2028 presidential campaign. The day after Republicans lost Congress, Vance was already telling voters where he would part ways with Trump and put "America First."

That quiet start will grow louder each week. JD Vance doesn't even need to say it because Tucker Carlson and his followers AND Trump/Netanyahu hating Democrats will say it for him. All that makes Tehran the winner.

Iran International reported, citing classified government documents and other evidence it reviewed, that Iranian security forces killed more than 36,500 people during the January 8–9, 2026, crackdown on nationwide protests. If Trump had cut off the head of the Octopus and buried the Revolutionary Guard under the rubble of Pickaxe Mountain, in my opinion many of those slaughtered Iranians might be alive today and the Iranian people could have had the opportunity they have been promised by Trump to take back their country.

At the end of the day, Trump and Netanyahu are in the same boat. Both Netanyahu and Trump have little to lose and a lot to gain for finishing the war the right way, the way it should have been done in June 2025! 

It is still not too late!

If Israel and the Trump Administration topple the IRGC and free the Persian people from their evil government leaders, Iran’s proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis will lose the support they depend on. That will give Lebanon and Yemen the chance to take back their countries as well. 

If this were to happen, and it can, that will be Netanyahu and Trump's greatest legacy, which is what both men want. That would change the Middle East and the world for the better. 

HISTORICALLY SPEAKING

How Bad Was the Republican Defeat? The 2026 Midterms in Historical Perspective

How bad were the House losses?

Republicans took a serious hit in the House. In Ballotpedia’s November 5 tally, Democrats had flipped 30 Republican-held seats, with some races still uncalled. That count was within the range of past midterm defeats.

Democrats flipped 31 Republican-held seats in 2006 and 42 in 2018. Republicans suffered even bigger House defeats in 1958 and 1974, when Democrats took 48 and 49 Republican-held seats, respectively.

How bad were the Senate losses?

The Senate was a serious setback for Republicans. The Associated Press reported that Democrats flipped at least seven Republican-held seats, including seats in Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina. That already exceeds the six Republican-held seats Democrats flipped in 2006. But Republicans have suffered bigger Senate defeats. Democrats flipped nine Republican-held seats in Ronald Reagan’s second midterm in 1986 and thirteen in Dwight Eisenhower’s second midterm in 1958.

Notable Bad News

What stands out about 2026 is that Republicans lost both chambers in the same midterm, something that has happened only four times since World War II. The Senate losses were substantial, and the results in traditionally Republican states made them especially striking. Even so, the seat count has clear historical precedents.

Losing both chambers makes 2026 a consequential defeat for Republicans. The House numbers, though, put the scale of the loss in perspective. Republicans have endured steeper House losses before, and the size of this defeat alone tells us little about who will win the White House in 2028.

Democrats have been on the losing end, too

The closest parallel with the parties reversed is 1994. With Bill Clinton in the White House, Republicans gained more than 50 House seats and eight Senate seats, taking control of both chambers in the same midterm. Clinton went on to win reelection two years later, even as Republicans held the House.

Democrats took another major hit in 2010 under Barack Obama. Republicans gained 63 House seats and six Senate seats. They took back the House, while Democrats held the Senate. Two years later, Obama won reelection.

Both parties have suffered major midterm defeats while holding the White House. The 1994 example is especially relevant because Democrats lost both chambers, just as Republicans did in 2026. A midterm can change who runs Congress overnight. The next presidential election gives voters a fresh decision after two years of seeing what both parties do with the power they have.

Could Republicans Rebound in 2028?

The 2026 Democratic wave gives Republicans an opening in 2028, especially if Democrats struggle to deliver results. With Trump still in the White House and Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, the next two years will bring divided government. Trump’s veto power gives him leverage over major legislation, and a breakdown in negotiations could lead to gridlock. If families are still feeling squeezed by high prices, or if voters see the new Congress spending more time on investigations and political messaging than on the issues that drove the midterms, some may turn against the Democratic majority.

Historical patterns support the possibility

The next presidential election can go either way. After Republicans took both chambers in 1946, Harry Truman won in 1948 by campaigning against what he called a “do-nothing Congress.” After Democrats took both chambers in 2006, they built on those gains in 2008, when Barack Obama won the presidency.

For 2028, much will depend on how voters feel about the economy, whom the parties nominate, and whether voters think Congress and the White House have addressed the problems that drove the midterms.

In short, the party that just won a big midterm does not automatically carry that momentum into the next presidential election. The subsequent race is shaped more by the economy, candidate quality, events of the intervening two years, and whether the newly empowered party is seen as effective.

Why 2028 could favor a Republican rebound under certain conditions

- Divided government and delivery: Democrats will have the majority but limited ability to enact their agenda without Trump’s signature. If affordability and economic problems persist (or if voters blame the new Congress for inaction), Republicans can run against “Democratic control of Congress.”

- Lame-duck dynamics: Trump cannot run again. The 2028 Republican nominee will be new. A large midterm loss can sometimes free the party to distance itself from an unpopular president and nominate someone with broader appeal (though Trump’s influence over the primary remains a variable).

- Voter thermostatic behavior: American voters often punish the party currently seen as holding more power or failing to improve conditions. Controlling Congress shifts some of that responsibility toward Democrats.

- Map and candidate factors: The 2026 results expanded the map in ways that could either stick or prove temporary. Senate and House seats won in deep-red states are often harder to hold in a higher-turnout presidential year if conditions shift.

At the same time, the scale of 2026 (flips deep into red territory and a large popular-vote margin) is notable. Analysts such as Nate Silver have pointed out that waves of this magnitude in a second-term lame-duck period are relatively rare in the modern era and could signal lasting weakness if Trump’s low approval carries over to the party’s 2028 nominee. Republican recovery is plausible if Democrats underdeliver or overreach, but it is not the default outcome.

In Summary:

2026 does not doom Republicans for 2028. It creates an opportunity for them if the next two years are characterized by gridlock, persistent economic discontent, or Democratic missteps. Those outcomes have happened before; so have continued or expanded gains for the party that won the midterms. The actual result will depend on what happens between now and 2028 more than on the midterm numbers alone.

The Truth of the Matter

Donald Trump is still president. Even when Republicans controlled Congress, he had to fight to get his agenda through. He got the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law, and its provisions will influence family finances and business investment for years. A Democratic Congress will make new legislation harder to pass, but Trump can still spend much of his time on foreign policy. That’s where I think he’s most in his element. He loves making deals, and he still has two years to sit across the table from foreign leaders and work out agreements that serve American interests.

Securing the border and enforcing immigration law. The Border Patrol recorded about 238,000 encounters at the U.S.–Mexico border in fiscal 2025, the lowest annual total in more than 50 years. From October 1, 2025, through August 11, 2026, ICE reported removing 215,447 people with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. The two figures show the scale of the change at the border and the reach of enforcement inside the country.

Falling violent crime and exposing fraud. The FBI reported that violent crime fell 9.3 percent from 2024 to 2025 and that the violent crime rate recorded its largest year-to-year decline since FBI estimates began in 1936. State and local efforts deserve credit, too. At the federal level, the Justice Department announced its largest health care fraud crackdown to date, charging 324 defendants in alleged schemes involving more than $14.6 billion in intended losses and seizing more than $245 million in assets. That’s a concrete example of protecting taxpayer dollars and the programs people depend on.

Economic growth and making more in America. The initial federal estimate showed real GDP growing at a 3.4 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2026. Unemployment was 4.2 percent in September, down from 4.4 percent a year earlier. Beyond those numbers, Trump put a question at the center of the economic debate that I think matters for the long run. How much of what America depends on can we make here at home? The U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement strengthened North American content rules for vehicles, and the One Big Beautiful Bill allows businesses to immediately deduct qualifying investments in equipment and domestic research.

Giving children a financial head start and patients another option. The One Big Beautiful Bill established Trump Accounts, including a pilot program that provides a $1,000 federal contribution for eligible U.S. citizen children born from 2025 through 2028. In his first term, Trump signed the federal Right to Try Act, giving eligible terminally ill patients a pathway to seek certain investigational treatments. Both measures give families options that can matter long after a president leaves office.

Strengthening the military and defending the homeland. Trump signed the law creating the Space Force, giving the country a military branch focused on protecting capabilities we rely on in space. The One Big Beautiful Bill provided more than $156 billion in additional defense funding, including money for shipbuilding, munitions, and air and missile defense. That investment also supports work on Golden Dome, a layered defense system the Pentagon is developing to detect and intercept threats such as ballistic missiles.

Dealing with threats and making security agreements. U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, and U.S. intelligence assessed that Operation Epic Fury curtailed Iran’s ability to project military power in 2026. Closer to home, Trump authorized the operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and his administration reached an agreement with Panama to deepen cooperation on canal security. The United States, Denmark, and Greenland also reached a security agreement that expands the U.S. military role in Greenland while reaffirming Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ right to decide their own future. Greenland’s parliament ratified it in November.

Opening doors in the Middle East. The Abraham Accords helped establish formal relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Those agreements created room for trade, diplomacy, and cooperation that future administrations and the countries themselves can build on.

Taking care of the nation’s capital. Under Trump’s initiative, the National Park Service is repairing aging park infrastructure, conserving historic stonework and sculpture, and rehabilitating fountains in Washington, D.C. The projects include Lafayette Square, Freedom Plaza, and upgrades at the World War II Memorial. These are places where Americans come to see and learn about their history. They’re worth taking care of.

It's the democrat's chance to show what they can do.

They can change policies and take the country in a different direction, but they can’t take these accomplishments away from Trump. They’re part of his record, and I believe their benefits will be felt for years. It will be hard for Democrats to surpass that record, and Trump still has two years to add to it. That’s why I’m looking ahead with some optimism.

LOOKING FORWARD AFTER THE MIDTERMS

"To rule is easy, to govern difficult."

PERSPECTIVE

America is waking up to the results of the mid-term election. Here's some thoughts on what we are waking up to. 

The Senate has been virtually useless anyway. According to an October tally, during Trump’s second term, the Senate had passed only 85 bills that originated in the House. Separately, Speaker Mike Johnson said in September that about 700 House-passed measures were awaiting Senate action. Senate Majority Leader John Thune was McConnell’s top deputy and a close ally. Like McConnell, Thune has been virtually useless, at best, during Trump’s second term. The constitutional presiding officer of the U.S. Senate is the vice president of the United States, JD Vance.

Moving forward, if the hyperpartisan Chuck Schumer becomes Senate majority leader, there should still be enough balance in the Senate to make passing any really crazy bills difficult. And if some get through that Trump doesn’t like, he can veto them. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers—67 senators if all 100 vote. Trump still holds the trump card.

In addition, scheming Chuck Schumer’s painful partisanship is on full display when he reveals his hateful obsession with going after Trump. If Democrats make impeaching Trump and Cabinet members their main focus over the next two years, I doubt it will help them in 2028.

Another attempt to impeach Trump would be extraordinary—and, in my view, absurd. It would reinforce the very argument Democrats should want to disprove: that their opposition to him has become an obsession driven by personal hatred and partisan vindictiveness.

Plus, if Dems succeed in having Trump impeached and removed from office, JD Vance becomes president! Vance would likely govern even more conservatively than Trump. Incumbency could give him an advantage going into the 2028 election. Democrats would be doing themselves no favors, and the smart ones know that.

Besides, Trump has only a couple of years left in office anyway. If the impeachment process takes a year, removing Trump would merely trim a year off his term and speed up Vance’s rise to the presidency.

A lot of what Trump is going to do over the next two years won’t involve Congress very much anyway. Foreign policy is largely the president’s responsibility. He can pursue deals, although Congress retains influence through funding, sanctions, and oversight. If Marco Rubio stays in place, Trump will also retain a key partner in pursuing his foreign policy agenda.

If Trump focuses on finishing off Iran and bringing down oil prices, he can pursue much of that agenda through executive authority, although achieving those objectives will depend on more than his decisions alone.

Ironically, for the next month or two, Trump and Netanyahu are pretty much in the same boat. And they both have the same objective: to finish off the IRGC. That’s the legacy they both want.

If Trump continues to score some big foreign policy and economic wins while Democrats spend two years trying to impeach him and pass tax increases and socialist policies, they are going to look pretty bad heading into the 2028 campaign, which will kick off before we know it.

Last but not least, Democrats have now sent another putrid antisemite to Washington by the name of Abdul El-Sayed, along with some others. Islamists continue to tear apart Europe. The scourge is now in America's House. Results of this election truly are a wake-up call. 

What’s more, Schumer endorsed El-Sayed, and that choice deserves scrutiny. If El-Sayed promotes antisemitic rhetoric, Schumer cannot escape accountability for helping elevate him. The same standard applies to every other Democrat who supported El-Sayed, either directly or by backing candidates who endorsed him. That includes AOC, who also endorsed El-Sayed.

Democrats are convinced they’ve just scored a huge win. I’m not so sure Trump didn’t win in some bizarre way. Knowing Trump, he will probably frame it that way.

The situation just got very interesting!

One final thought: if Democrats want to call this election a referendum against Trump, they must also answer for the alternative they intend to deliver. Trump has stood against the far Left’s push toward socialism and fought for secure borders, controlled immigration that serves America’s interests, a competitive capitalist economy, and the return of American manufacturing—for both prosperity and national security. Democrats would make a profound mistake by treating this election as permission to abandon that vision simply because they despise the man advancing it. Hatred of Trump is no substitute for a governing vision, and it will not excuse the consequences of their choices. Winning seats is one thing. Taking responsibility for what comes next is another. To Democrats celebrating today, I say: be careful what you wish for.

P.S. For those who believe a higher power is in control, my assessment may make even more sense. 

“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.” —Daniel 2:21, KJV

A DECADE LATTER

Trump’s Two Terms Have Been a Direct Reversal of the Obama Doctrine

The foreign policy approach that defined the Obama years—and was largely continued under Biden—rested on the belief that limited U.S. pressure, sanctions relief, and selective engagement would moderate Iran, contain jihadist groups, and stabilize the Middle East without large-scale American commitments. The results fell short of those aims and left durable problems that subsequent administrations have had to manage.

Under Obama, the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran exchanged temporary constraints on enrichment for the release of tens of billions of dollars in previously frozen Iranian assets and broader sanctions relief. Tehran retained its nuclear infrastructure and knowledge base while using the financial breathing room to expand support for its proxy network. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen all increased their arsenals and operational reach during and after this period. At the same time, ISIS expanded rapidly after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and amid the Syrian civil war, seizing territory, declaring a caliphate, and directing or inspiring attacks far beyond the region. The administration’s response degraded the group but did not prevent its peak expansion or fully eliminate residual networks. Domestic border enforcement also loosened relative to earlier standards, contributing to rising illegal crossings that later accelerated.

Obama’s Third Term: A New President, the Same Playbook

In November 2020 during an interview by Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Obama said: 

“People would ask me, ‘Knowing what you know now, do you wish you had a third term?’ And I used to say, ‘You know what? If I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front man or front woman, and they had an earpiece in and I was just in my basement in my sweats looking through the stuff, and then I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony, I’d be fine with that.’” 

Then, with the help of the Russian Hoax—built on a fake intelligence report paid for by Hillary Clinton—Obama got his wish: the same officials and the same failed doctrine were installed under a stand-in president.

Biden’s term largely extended the same framework. Efforts to re-engage Iran on the nuclear file, combined with uneven sanctions enforcement, allowed Iranian oil sales and revenue streams to recover. Those funds continued to flow toward proxy groups that stockpiled missiles, drones, and rockets later used against Israel, U.S. forces, and commercial shipping. ISIS remnants persisted in remote areas. Illegal immigration across the southern border reached record levels for several years, straining resources and enforcement capacity. Critics labeled the administration’s internal decision-making process as heavily reliant on staff and automated tools—an “auto-pen” presidency—while core policy continuity with the prior Democratic approach remained visible on Iran, regional proxies, and border measures.

The Downstream Costs

Those policy choices carried measurable costs that extended well beyond the original theater.

Containing and ultimately confronting Iran’s nuclear program has required sustained diplomatic, economic, and military effort. Years of sanctions relief and incomplete verification left Iran with advanced centrifuges, enriched uranium stockpiles, and hardened facilities. Subsequent administrations have faced the expense of rebuilt sanctions regimes, intelligence operations, defensive systems for partners, and, more recently, direct measures to set back enrichment and related infrastructure. Each increment of Iranian progress raised the price of later action.

Iran’s financial and material support for Hamas enabled the group’s military buildup in Gaza—tunnels, rockets, and trained cadres—that culminated in the October 7, 2023 attack. That assault killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel, took more than 200 hostages, and triggered a wider war whose regional effects continue. The resources Hamas used were not generated in isolation; they traced in significant part to the revenue and supply lines that remained available under the earlier sanctions posture.

In Europe, the combination of Middle East instability, jihadist networks, and large-scale migration has produced repeated security incidents, integration failures, and political strain. Terror attacks, grooming scandals, parallel societies, and rising support for parties demanding stricter controls have become recurring features of European politics. While not every migrant flow originated in the Obama-era conflicts, the incomplete containment of ISIS, the persistence of Iranian-backed militias, and the broader regional disorder contributed to displacement and radicalization that crossed into European cities.

Trump’s Reversal: A New Direction, a Different Playbook

Trump’s first term (2017–2021) and the opening phase of his second term have focused on reversing these specific elements. In the first term, the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, reimposed and expanded sanctions, and designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Iranian oil revenue declined and proxy funding was constrained relative to the post-deal years. Coalition operations accelerated the dismantling of ISIS’s territorial caliphate. Border policies were tightened through asylum restrictions, the Remain in Mexico program, and barrier construction, correlating with lower illegal crossing numbers.

Since January 2025, the second term has resumed and intensified sanctions enforcement against Iran, limited oil exports that had risen under Biden, and maintained pressure on proxy networks. Border enforcement has again prioritized deterrence, asylum limits, and removal capacity, reversing the sustained surge of the prior four years. Across both terms the pattern has been consistent: reject the nuclear-deal framework, apply sustained economic pressure on Iran’s revenue streams, prioritize the military defeat of ISIS-held territory, and enforce immigration statutes more strictly than the Obama and Biden approaches.

The earlier doctrine produced stronger Iranian influence, better-armed proxies, an early ISIS surge, and later border strains. The policy reversals under Trump have directly targeted those outcomes. Whether the corrections prove lasting depends on sustained enforcement and the responses of Iran and its partners, but the contrast in approach across the two administrations is clear and documented.

On November 3rd, I am voting for Trump to finish the job!

GOT THE TIME?

The Times They Are a-Changing!

By Jonah Ritter

There was a time when wearing a watch made more than a fashion statement. Telling time was a meaningful function.

A watch suggested you had places to be, responsibilities to fulfill, and people counting on you. Being “on time” mattered because your time—and other people’s time—had value. Of course, owning a watch didn’t make someone responsible. But it could convey that impression, along with the wealth to afford one.

A watch could also symbolize a privilege easily taken for granted: having some command of your own time. Many laborers and servants had little say over their working hours; enslaved people were denied that freedom far more completely. For those whose labor stretched from before sunrise until after sunset, the sky itself marked the working day. They needed no watch to tell them how little of their time belonged to them.

Of course, not everyone could afford a watch. But time mattered to the whole community, so towns and villages placed clocks on towers and public buildings. Erecting a clock was a gift to the people. It gave everyone a shared reference, helping them coordinate their work, keep appointments, and meet their obligations.

The village clock helped a community function by helping its people be on time.

Today, nearly everyone carries a watch. We call it a phone.

As phones took over timekeeping, putting on a wristwatch became less of a practical necessity. For some people, clipping a pocketknife to a belt or pocket offers more everyday usefulness than strapping on a watch.

Traditional watches became mostly a fashion statement. And the more they became a fashion statement, the more their appearance mattered.

Someone could easily spend thousands of dollars on a watch without needing it for any practical purpose. The watch might still communicate success, taste, or importance, but its owner could get the time by glancing at a phone.

Did that mean the buyer would settle for less accuracy?

Heavens, no! You still expected precision. Craftsmanship. The satisfaction of owning something that worked remarkably well—even if you rarely needed it to tell you the time. There was something comforting about knowing that the watch you hardly needed kept such precise time.

He’s watching the time. She’s watching him.

Then there is the pocket watch: A pocket watch takes too much time to use. You have to reach for it, pull it out, perhaps open its cover, check the time, and put it away again.

But a pocket watch is the ultimate fashion statement. It says, “Watch me watching time.”

A pocket watch was also a piece of men’s jewelry—a display of taste, wealth, and standing. To a woman attracted to those qualities, its appeal went well beyond telling time. In that respect, a pocket watch could be downright "sexy."

The times they are a-changing, though. The watch is making a comeback as something functionally relevant.

It will still tell you something you want to know to help you live and go about your day. Only now, that information goes far beyond the time.

It is about you—and what matters to you.

Your heartbeat. Your activity. Your sleep. Information that helps you pay attention to your health and well-being. Reminders about things you need to do. Text messages you can read or listen to without reaching for your phone.

And the possibilities keep growing.

Imagine trying to explain all of that to a watchmaker in the 1800s. A device on your wrist that receives messages, tracks your movements, and measures your pulse? What would that craftsman have made of it?

One thing the early wristwatch makers got right was the location. The wrist is a remarkably convenient place to put something useful: accessible, visible, and always close at hand.

They could never have imagined how useful it would become.

Ironically, the watch is still about time. A watch has always told us how much time has passed and helped us make better use of the time we have left. It still does, now with more ways to help us meet our responsibilities and care for ourselves.

And if paying closer attention to our health helps us live longer, a watch may even help us gain more of the very thing it measures.

Before we put time on our wrists, we found it in the rhythms of creation.

Technology opens possibilities in all things, and timekeeping is no exception. Yet beneath each new invention lies an ancient pursuit: since mankind first noticed the sunrise’s reliability, we have sought to understand the rhythms of creation and bring our lives into harmony with them.

Ultimately, seeking harmony with the rhythms of creation can become a way of seeking a relationship with the Creator. Seen in that light, we can appreciate one impulse behind early religious practice—and why some ancient sacred structures also served as monumental timepieces, marking the movements of the sun and the turning of the seasons. 

In a way, a wristwatch isn’t so far removed from Stonehenge. We’ve just made it considerably easier to carry.

Watches have changed with the times, but that aspect of their purpose remains: helping us make the most of time.

There is so much more to be said about staying on "God time." God gave us "appointed times." The bible, both stories, revolve around them. But I have run out of time—The End.