President Trump continues to seek to pressure Ukraine’s Zelensky to halt long-range drone strikes on Russia’s refineries, in a bid to calm rising diesel prices especially while the parallel Strait of Hormuz crisis persists.

Financial Times reports Monday that the US president just held a fresh phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart over the matter, where Zelensky was pressed over the strikes as Washington wants “Russian supplies to be able to reach the global market to provide relief” – also as cited in Bloomberg. News of the call broke just before Trump issued the following Truth Social statement early Monday:

The Truth Social words seem geared toward deflecting criticism that he’s curtailing Ukraine’s ability to fight and inflict pain on Russia. Trump says the Kremlin has “lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry” as a result of the war with Ukraine.

The president had starting on Sept.13 called on Kiev to de-escalate the oil infrastructure attacks, which have become so frequent as to be happening multiple times a week.

Zelensky “has to do one thing. He has to stop knocking out diesel fuel in Russia,” Trump told reporters while in Ireland over a week ago. “There are plenty of other targets. Don’t hit diesel fuel, because that’s hurting, that’s hurting the world.”

Reuters in a fresh report observes: “Oil prices slid to their lowest in 11 days on Monday as investors ‌hoped for diplomatic progress on the Iran war due to this week’s UN meeting, and eyed a partial recovery in shipments from Saudi Arabia.” The Iranian president and his delegation have (somewhat surprisingly) been issued visas and are expected to be present in New York City this week.

The report continues, “Brent crude futures and US West Texas Intermediate crude touched their lowest since September 10 earlier on Monday. The Brent contract for November was at $101.75 a barrel at 0859 GMT, down $2.12, or 2%.”

We noted previously that the IEA indicated US diesel prices surpassed $200 per barrel in early September, which was 94 percent above their pre-war level. Diesel and other similar fuels account for nearly 30 percent of global oil demand.

On Sunday we reported Ukraine Pounds Major Moscow Refinery As Global Diesel Crisis Threatens Economic Shock – which involved Ukrainian drones pounding Gazprom Neft-owned Moscow Oil Refinery, about 16 miles from the Kremlin. The facility has a processing capacity of around 245,000 barrels a day and supplies fuel to the surrounding metro area.

Zelensky had then boasted on X, “One of Russia’s key oil industry facilities and the aggressor’s logistics facility were hit. These are billions of dollars that sustain the war machine. The systems used included FP-1, RZ-100, MICH-2000, Palianytsia, Vendetta, Liutyi, Bars, Flamingo, Sichen, and Pelican.”

Insane video of a Russian air defence system Pantsir being deployed right above Moscows busiest highway right next to an oil refinery. pic.twitter.com/q6XebQV0A6

— WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧 (@WarMonitor3) September 21, 2026

It seems Trump will have an uphill battle trying to rein him in, especially given that European capitals may at the same time quietly be advising him the opposite. From Kiev’s point of view, Washington is seeking to hobble the one aspect of its war strategy that’s having a serious impact inside Russia.

Novo Nordisk shares tumbled as much as 7.7% in Copenhagen trading after Wall Street analysts questioned the Danish drugmaker’s turnaround efforts amid the loss of its GLP-1 lead to Eli Lilly & Co.

At its capital markets day earlier in London, Novo outlined plans for more than five blockbuster launches and over $23 billion in new sales in the coming years. But that comes as its obesity-market lead has been surrendered to Eli Lilly, and analysts were hoping for more commentary from management about turnaround efforts as the stock is down 18% on the year.

“Investors are selling the shares because they are not seeing concrete news that could drive the stock higher,” Nordnet investment economist Per Hansen wrote.

CEO Mike Doustdar told analysts, “We need to work harder, and we will.” However, much of the optimism from capital markets a few years ago about Novo leading the GLP-1 race has all but faded.

Much of Novo’s medium-term outlook rests on CagriSema, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Michael Shah and Christos Nikoletopoulos. That treatment has already disappointed Wall Street multiple times, including failing to match Lilly’s Zepbound in a head-to-head trial. Other potential growth drivers remain earlier in development and carry a higher risk of failure

From the peak of the GLP-1 craze in mid-2024, Novo shares in Copenhagen have plunged a staggering 74%, with shares stabilizing since August 2025.

“The event came amid mounting investor pressure for clarity beyond obesity drugs Wegovy and Ozempic as Novo’s semaglutide patent expiries approach in the early 2030s. Investors were increasingly focused on Novo’s next growth drivers following setbacks for obesity candidate CagriSema. Novo said it expects revenue growth between 2026 and 2030 to be in line with industry peers,” UBS analyst Nana Antiedu wrote in a note.

Novo has been pursuing a turnaround effort this year, already leading to substantial restructuring. Doustdar has cut as many as 9,000 jobs and removed several management layers, with total cuts reaching about 13,000. Novo is also pursuing new therapeutic areas and using AI to accelerate drug development.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The hailstorm of bad news from Germany’s auto industry simply refuses to end. Again and again, heavy hailstones from corporate press offices crash down on anxious workforces at the automakers, ruining politicians’ election campaigns and destroying the last hopes of those still clinging to the promise of an electric car made in Germany.

The latest impact: According to a report by Handelsblatt, citing an internal recommendation by Volkswagen’s Supervisory Board, the personnel scalpel is once again being applied to the “Sport Luxury” division, meaning Porsche. Another 4,100 jobs are to be eliminated at Porsche, after it had already become clear that a total of 9,000 positions would disappear over the coming years. Porsche currently still employs 41,800 people.

According to the Supervisory Board’s proposal, Porsche is supposed to improve its operating profit by €3.8 billion by the end of the decade. In overhead costs alone, the Supervisory Board’s calculation shows a gap of around €700 million. That gap is to be closed through the additional job cuts. Volkswagen’s austerity program now seems to be updated almost weekly.

The notion that Volkswagen’s luxury brand Porsche could shield itself from the group-wide restructuring — or, better put, the clear-cutting — is now finally gone. The crisis runs deep, it is comprehensive, and it has already cost 150,000 jobs across the automotive sector. For consulting firm Roland Berger, there is still no end in sight. Berger expects another 200,000 jobs to disappear from Germany’s automotive sector by 2030. Entire value chains — and with them purchasing power, knowledge and prosperity — are disappearing.

A catastrophe for suppliers, for entire regions and for municipal treasuries that had relied so heavily on revenues from what was once Germany’s flagship industry. But that is what happens when you become ideologically entrenched …

Stuttgart is the blueprint for industrial locations across the republic that until recently threw themselves with fervor into the warm, ecologist current. The home of Porsche and Mercedes-Benz closed the last fiscal year with a deficit of €712 million — and the comfortably wealthy city could become a poorhouse if nobody pulls the emergency brake. Residents of these regions will have to prepare for public services — well-equipped schools, municipal sports facilities, swimming pools and recreational centers — to become luxury goods. The automotive industry is leaving; it is leaving behind empty coffers and high unemployment. A German Rust Belt is emerging before our eyes.

The downward spiral has engulfed every segment of Germany’s automotive industry: intense competitive pressure from China, tariff tensions with the United States, towering energy costs at home and an endless regulatory frenzy are all battering the business. It was therefore only a matter of time before even a luxury brand like Porsche would come under the wheels. And the company’s communications strategy seemed strangely familiar: In a kind of salami tactic, common in politics, the company has been announcing since 2024 that Porsche would initially allow temporary production contracts to expire. Around 1,500 employees were affected that year. In February 2025 came the announcement that around 1,900 jobs in Zuffenhausen and Weissach would be eliminated by 2029. Another 500 temporary contracts were not to be renewed.

In May 2026, it continued: Porsche announced the closure of its subsidiaries Cellforce, eBike Performance and Cetitec. More than 500 jobs were lost. At the end of July this year, the future package was finally presented: Another 5,000 jobs are to be eliminated by 2035, naturally in a socially responsible manner. So much should the future be worth.

Taken together, that amounts to around 9,000 jobs — meaning that more than one in three positions at the home location will disappear. Now another 4,100 new job cuts are being added — the company is being ground down further and further.

Volkswagen’s decline is accelerating. A look at its compressed margins is more than alarming: Originally, management had calculated on an operating margin of between 4 and 5.5 percent this year. It has now shrunk to 1 percent. A €10 billion special effect is weighing on the result. The ailing group is in intensive care.

What is happening at Volkswagen is the great mirror image of German industry: poor domestic conditions and excessively high energy costs following disastrous political decisions are making industrial production at home almost impossible. Since 2018, around 15 percent of German industrial production has disappeared. Around 420,000 jobs in manufacturing have been lost since 2019. With these jobs, engineering expertise is disappearing as well — expertise that is indispensable to a society. Disastrous construction projects such as Berlin Brandenburg Airport, Stuttgart 21 or the Hamburg Opera, where costs and schedules regularly spiral out of control, loudly testify to Germany’s brain drain.

Germany in 2026: Some are no longer capable of organizing infrastructure projects, while others, representatives of business and labor unions, are incapable of anticipating trends in global markets. Together, in their hour of need, they strike up a hymn to moralism, in a green overtone, always self-assured and arrogant toward dissenting criticism. A melody of decline.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a graduate economist, has worked for or over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

President Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” positions energy security in the West as a key pillar of US national security. 

The removal of socialist Nicolás Maduro and the subsequent massive Venezuelan oil deal represent the opening act in a longer-term effort to rebuild production and secure supplies closer to the Gulf of America. 

Piper Sandler global energy strategist Jan Stuart’s view, however, highlights the time required for these new Venezuelan supplies to ramp up: any meaningful recovery in Venezuelan output could take years, with a return to historic production highs potentially requiring a decade or two. That timeline clashes with the view that additional Venezuelan barrels could provide near-term relief to US refiners amid the global diesel crisis.

“We’ll stay tuned but suspect that reaching the old record highs will take a decade or 2 and oodles of good fortune,” Stuart wrote in a note. 

Trump described the US-Venezuela deal as the “biggest oil deal in history” and said it would amount to control of 65 billion barrels of oil reserves.

North American Blue Energy Partners is set to develop the oil fields, with the Department of War holding a 35% stake in the venture and rights to a portion of its production. Venezuelan royalties and taxes could total roughly $200 billion over 25 years.

A Reuters report last week said ExxonMobil was negotiating a return to Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt for the first time in nearly two decades.

Venezuelan bonds have rallied around these developments but the risk to investors is for a prompt revival. 

Beyond energy supplies, Venezuela reportedly prepared its first aluminum shipment to the US in years last week: 15,000 metric tons from state-owned Venalum, facilitated by Mercuria Energy Group and Heeney.

The cloud hanging over Venezuela’s resources revival is the outcome of the US midterms. Stuart questioned whether US military backing for the oil deal would survive the next US election. Rebuilding production could take a decade or two. Investors now have to ask whether Trump’s commitment can last that long.

Authored by Mathew Di Salvo via Bitcoin Magazine,

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde stopped Binance from operating in the European Union, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

The newspaper on Thursday reported that the top crypto exchange was on the cusp of operating in the trading bloc but then was told it couldn’t after the central bank chief waded in.

EU law requires that local Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASP) have a MiCA license.

Binance does not.

Binance in June withdrew its MiCA application in Greece.

“Lagarde wanted to keep the controversial crypto exchange, which pleaded guilty to financial-crime violations in the U.S., out of the European Union,” the newspaper report said, citing interviews with officials.

Lagarde has long been anti-Bitcoin and pro-central bank digital currencies. Back in 2021, Lagarde said that the leading cryptocurrency was “a highly speculative asset” used for money laundering. She also criticized cryptocurrencies as a whole and said central banks would never hold bitcoin.

On CBDCs, though, Lagarde takes a different approach.

A CBDC is a digital form of fiat money, like the US dollar or euro; nations around the world are in different stages of researching and releasing them.

The EU under Lagarde is fast moving forward with a digital euro. Lagarde has described the digital euro as key to Europe’s financial autonomy while taking aim at privately issued stablecoins.

CBDCs have been criticized by bitcoiners and others in the crypto industry who think they could be used to surveil citizens.

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning CBDCs when he took office.

The WSJ report added, citing various interviews, that Lagarde was worried Binance would embed the dominance of dollar-based stablecoins in Europe, instead of encouraging euro counterparts.

Binance is the world’s biggest crypto exchange and billions of dollars in stablecoins are traded on its platform daily.

A controversial company, Binance and its CEO, Chanpeng Zhao, in 2023 pleaded guilty to anti-money-laundering violations and paid a record $4.3 billion fine.

Binance in June said it was still working to pursue MiCA authorization in another EU Member State.

The 10-year Treasury briefly poked above 5% this week – peaking at 5.04% on Bloomberg’s tape, the highest since 2007 – before backing off. It’s the first time it has been there since the October 2023 spike, and this time it arrived with company: Japan’s 10-year is above 3% for the first time in three decades, Bunds are at their highest in a decade and a half, gilts are at a post-2008 high, and a Bloomberg gauge of G7 sovereign debt started the month yielding its highest on average since 2000.

The drivers are familiar: oil-fed inflation impulse, massive deficits, and bondholders who have finally started charging for the privilege of holding the long end. The surprise is the geography: the US 10-year has repriced 97 basis points higher over the past twelve months, and that doesn’t even make the top four – South Korea is up 178, Japan 145, Australia 114, France 102.

As Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld explains further, government bond yields are climbing across major economies as investors contend with higher oil prices, inflation pressures, and growing government borrowing needs.

This graphic compares 10-year government bond yields across major economies, based on Bloomberg market data as of September 15, 2026.

Borrowing Costs Reach Multi-Decade Highs

Long-term borrowing costs are reaching levels not seen in decades, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury briefly hitting 5.04% on September 15, its highest level since 2007.

Still, yields have risen faster in South Korea, Japan, Australia, and France than in the U.S. over the past year.

Japan’s rise marks a significant shift from the ultra-low-rate environment that defined its bond market for decades. Its 10-year yield has crossed 3.0%, reaching its highest level in 30 years as markets anticipate further monetary tightening from the Bank of Japan. Higher yields could also add pressure to Japan’s already large government debt burden.

The sell-off has also spread across Europe. Germany’s 10-year yield reached its highest level since 2009 on September 15, while U.K. borrowing costs have climbed above 5.0%.

How Higher Yields Affect the Economy

Government bond yields act as benchmarks for borrowing costs across the economy. As they rise, financing can become more expensive for mortgages, corporate debt, and other forms of credit.

Governments face pressure as well. Higher yields make refinancing debt more expensive at a time when public debt levels are already elevated across many advanced economies.

The implications also extend to stocks.

With 10-year Treasuries yielding around 5.0%, investors can earn higher returns from relatively safe government debt, raising the hurdle for riskier assets such as equities. Global fund managers now rank turmoil in bond markets as their leading market risk.

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

Italy is moving to ban face coverings in schools and limit the number of foreign students per class, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced at a youth event on Sept. 19.

The event was hosted by her political party, Brothers of Italy. It marks a push by her government to respond to the continuing influx of non-European immigrants, especially those from the Islamic world, with the goal of ensuring these children can better assimilate into Italian society.

“For us, anyone who comes to Italy and wants to build their future here must learn our language, understand our culture, and respect our rules,” she said to a standing ovation. “It is the only serious way to welcome them.”

One major element of this education reform will be making learning Italian mandatory.

“If there is only one child in a class who doesn’t understand Italian, that child will likely be able to learn the language and integrate quickly with the help of classmates and teachers,” she said. “However, if the number of children who don’t understand the language becomes large – or even the majority – that is no longer integration; it is neglect.”

Meloni declined to specify what that limit would be. But according to research institute Fondazione ISMU, currently 11.6 percent of students in Italian schools are foreigners, nearly 12 of every 100 students.

The banning of face coverings was included in the push for increased assimilation.

“You must go to school with your face uncovered, and in Italy no one, in the name of a real or supposed tradition, can decide that a young woman must hide herself,” Meloni said.

She did not mention hijabs, traditional headscarves that do not cover the wearer’s face, in her address.

If approved by the government, this measure will need parliamentary approval within 60 days.

Meloni’s government has made an effort over the years to curb illegal immigration, winning legal battles to fast-track deportation and keep out illegal immigrants who may have entered Europe illegally through its territory but were caught outside of it

Italy has also taken measures against Spain, citing a “high risks to internal security” and a possible terrorist-infiltration threat, after tens of thousands of Moroccan nationals overran Spain’s North African enclave, Ceuta, between July 30 and July 31.

Meloni recently reached a historic milestone by becoming the longest-serving uninterrupted Italian prime minister since World War II.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

On the OECD’s yardstick – defense R&D budget allocations per $1,000 of GDP – the United States spends $3.64. The next country on the list, South Korea, spends $2.06, and nobody else clears a dollar.

Britain is third at $0.97, Germany fourth at $0.79, France fifth at $0.50. The average across the 20 countries ranked is $0.58; the median is $0.27. Greece, at the bottom, spends nine cents.

The gap is about to get wider: the Department of War’s request for fiscal 2027 is $1.5 trillion, 42% above this year’s funding.

As Visual Capitalist explains further, defense research and development is one way countries invest in future military capabilities, from advanced weapons systems to emerging technologies.

This visualization ranks selected OECD countries by defense research and development (R&D) budget allocations per $1,000 of GDP. The data comes from the OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2026 Issue 1, with figures covering 2024 or the latest available year as of August 2026.

Defense R&D has also historically played an important role in shaping civilian technologies. Research tied to national security has helped support breakthroughs in fields such as computing, aerospace, satellites, medicine, and advanced materials. However, the link between military spending and innovation is not automatic, as secrecy can impede knowledge diffusion, among other factors.

The U.S. Leads by a Wide Margin

The United States ranked first, with defense R&D budget allocations equal to $3.64 per $1,000 of GDP. In absolute terms, the U.S. is also the world’s highest military-spending country by a wide margin, with 2025 spending totaling $954 billion and accounting for one-third of global military spending that year.

The U.S. allocation was nearly 1.8 times South Korea’s and more than 3.7 times the United Kingdom’s, which ranked second and third, respectively.

The table below shows defense R&D budget allocations per $1,000 of GDP for selected OECD countries:

Although U.S. military spending as a share of GDP decreased in 2025 compared with the annual average between 2015 and 2022, the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of War announced in April 2026 that its Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) Defense Budget would request an unprecedented $1.5 trillion, a 42% increase compared with 2026 funding.

Included in that amount are plans to increase defense R&D spending from $16.6 billion in 2026 to $18.7 billion in 2027, with a stated focus on a general science and technology fund.

South Korea and Europe Round Out the Top Five

Allocating $2.06 per $1,000 of GDP to defense R&D, South Korea ranked second, making it the only other OECD country above $2.

South Korea has emerged as one of the world’s fastest-growing arms producers and exporters, supported by sustained government investment in its defense industry.

Reflecting this growth, four South Korean companies appear in the SIPRI Top 100 list of global arms producers with the largest arms sales revenues in 2024. Their combined revenues increased by 30% from 2023 to 2024.

Following South Korea, the ranking drops quickly. The United Kingdom placed third at $0.97 per $1,000 of GDP. Between 2019 and 2024, the UK’s Ministry of Defense tripled its net expenditure on R&D from £1.02 billion to £3.07 billion.

Germany followed in fourth place at $0.79 per $1,000 of GDP, while France ranked fifth at $0.50 per $1,000 of GDP. France and Germany are the European Union’s largest and second-largest defense R&D spenders, respectively.

Most Countries Spend Far Less on Defense R&D

Across the 20 OECD countries shown, the average defense R&D allocation was $0.58 per $1,000 of GDP.

The median was much lower, at $0.27 per $1,000 of GDP, showing how much the top spenders skew the average.

Within the top 20, the drop-off is steep. The U.S. allocation of $3.64 per $1,000 of GDP was more than seven times fifth-ranked France’s $0.50 and more than 40 times 20th-ranked Greece’s $0.09.

Defense R&D intensity varies considerably among wealthy economies because countries may prioritize procurement, active personnel, operations, or research differently.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The potential pullback of some US forces from the Baltic States upon the completion of its force posture review could be followed by European NATO if Russia agrees to pull back some of its forces from Belarus in order to then establish partial buffers in the post-war European security architecture.

NBC reported last week that the US is considering withdrawing up to half of its ~80,000 troops that are deployed to Europe along with large amounts of equipment. This coincides with European fearmongering led by Poland and France that Russia plans to ramp up its hybrid attacks against European NATO (E-NATO) into increasingly regular kinetic ones that it’ll then deny. E-NATO is also undergoing rapid militarization led by Poland and Germany while deploying ever more forces to Russia’s doorstep.

These sky-high NATO-Russian tensions might be reduced upon the US’ potential drawdown of its forces in Europe depending on the success of the following creative diplomatic proposal. If some US forces are pulled from the Baltic States, then the US might coerce its E-NATO allies to follow suit if Russia does the same with at least some of its forces in Belarus, which they fear could be exploited by it as a launchpad into the Baltic States. The military-strategic logic behind this proposal requires some explanation.

Just as E-NATO fears that Russia could exploit Belarus as a launchpad into the Baltic States, so too does Russia fear that E-NATO could exploit the Baltic States as a launchpad into either Kaliningrad, Belarus, or “mainland Russia”. E-NATO claims that its gradual military build-up in the Baltic States is to deter Russia while Russia’s own regional build-up is arguably to deter E-NATO. The resultant security dilemma risks a major war by miscalculation or a (Ukrainian?) false flag and is why tensions must urgently be reduced.

The key to this proposal is Belarus, Russia’s mutual defense and Union State ally with which the US is in the midst of a fast-moving rapprochement marked by phased sanctions relief in exchange for the release of so-called “political prisoners”. President Alexander Lukashenko is receptive to Trump 2.0’s outreaches in order to reduce multifaceted Western pressure on Belarus since the large-scale phase of the Ukrainian Conflict began nearly half a decade ago and to counterbalance disproportionate dependence on Russia.

They and Putin could thus agree to an arrangement whereby any planned American military drawdown from the Baltic States leads to a partial drawdown of Russian forces in Belarus, incentivized by more sanctions relief for both of them, conditional on E-NATO pulling back its forces from the Baltic States. Poland, where Trump is considering a permanent US military presence and which already commands E-NATO’s largest army, could then become the bloc’s military bastion if they redeploy their forces to there.

It was earlier explained why “Poland Would Be The Baltic States’ Best Security Guarantor In NATO 3.0“, namely due to geographic reasons, the aforesaid military factors, and its envisaged leadership of the Intermarium. If this arrangement is implemented, then it could turn the Baltic States and Belarus into partial buffers, both of which would remain under their allies’ mutual defense umbrellas for deterrence purposes, which could spark progress on Ukraine’s negotiated demilitarization for the same purpose.

If coupled with a Russian-American(-Polish?) mechanism for verifying compliance and addressing issues as they may emerge (e.g. Ukrainian drone flights over Belarusian and Baltic airspace), then tensions could be reduced and a basis for the post-war European security architecture would be established. All eyes are therefore on Belarus ahead of the US’ reported European military drawdown since that country and its leader are the key to this vision for averting a major war in the most realistic way possible.

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Last week, President George W. Bush sat down with his former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to discuss the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States. While reflecting on his actions twenty-five years earlier, Bush went out of his way to defend Islam: “I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion.” Bush’s absurd statement echoed a similarly absurd statement he made days after the attacks when he told the world, “Islam is peace,” even though the burned bodies of three thousand dead Americans strongly suggested otherwise.

There have been 50,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Without question, Islam is a cult of conquest, misery, and war.

Bush’s Islamic appeasement angered me twenty-five years ago, and his continued appeasement infuriates me today. I cannot believe that the man who asked Americans to go to war against an Islamic menace that threatened (and still threatens) the world can be so intellectually shallow and morally obtuse. “Islam is a religion of peace,” is a disingenuous stock phrase that is too cute by half. President Barack Obama loves to tell the same lie.

While Americans fought and died in foreign lands in an effort to keep Islam’s homicidal evil from causing further harm to the United States, Bush and Obama resettled Muslims into America’s heartland. Twenty-five years ago, the sight of a woman wearing a burqa in the Midwest would have shocked and worried passersby. Today, it is too common for anyone to feign surprise. Both the number of Muslims and the number of mosques in the United States have more than doubled since the Islamic terror attacks that changed our country permanently. Bush told Americans that we had to fight the terrorists “over there” so that we would never again have to fight them “over here.” While brave American warriors died “over there,” Bush and Obama betrayed those warriors’ sacrifice by inviting more Muslims “over here,” ensuring that Americans will continue to endure Islamic terror attacks until this existential threat is honestly recognized and neutralized.

President Bush is eighty years old, plenty old enough to have learned that he has no business telling Muslims what their “religion” means. If he were telling black Americans what it means to be black, critics would rightfully accuse him of “whitesplaining.” Does Bush believe himself to be an expert on the Quran? Has he become a Texas imam or an “austere religious scholar” during retirement? If not, then why does he insist on telling Americans that Islamic terrorists “subverted their religion”? The opposite seems patently clear: Wherever the scourge of Islam stretches its poisonous tentacles, Islamic violence is certain. Muhammad was a pedophile who encouraged the rape, torture, and murder of innocents. It should be no surprise that pedophiles, rapists, and murderers consider that malevolent deviant a “prophet.”

Writer Antonio Graceffo wrote a well-researched essay this month describing in detail how Muslims are persecuting and murdering Christians across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. Carrying out massacres against Christians with hammers, machetes, axes, and guns, Muslims are right now engaging in a genocide that corporate news media and Western governments entirely ignore. In Nigeria, the Congo, Mozambique, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, and Indonesia, Muslims threaten Christian lives. These are the barbaric conquerors whom Bush defends as noble representatives of the “religion of peace.” No self-described Christian should stay silent while Muslims slaughter Christ’s followers around the world. Somehow, Bush remains quiet about Islam’s unquenchable thirst for Christian blood.

Islamic bloodlust continues to exsanguinate much of Europe. A recent German report shows that foreign migrants (most of whom are Muslim) are responsible for 47% of all violent crime in Bavaria. Over 80% of North African asylum-seekers in Switzerland have been accused of committing crimes while in the country. While British children beg the government not to resettle illegal immigrants into their tiny villages, the United Kingdom is granting settlement or citizenship to one new migrant every single minute.

How is the British government combating this unsustainable invasion? The Home Office hands each Islamic migrant a nine-page booklet explaining that rape and pedophilia are illegal and that women have the same rights as men. In this behavioral guide written primarily for Muslims, the British government outlines how it is not okay to beat women, mutilate girls’ genitals, have sex with children or unconscious women, or leave babies alone. The document further advises Muslims that “women must consent to sex in all situations” and “are allowed to work, study, and make their own decisions” without “permission from men.”

In a section on rape, Muslim men are informed that it is not appropriate to threaten someone into having sex or to have sex with someone who is “asleep, drunk, or unable to respond.” The British government warns Islamic immigrants: “If you have sex with someone without their consent, this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime in the UK. You could go to prison, lose your support and accommodation, and it will affect your asylum claim.” Furthermore, there are no exceptions for child rape: “Even if they say yes, it is still illegal.” Finally, Britain’s new Muslims are reminded that it is not acceptable to intimidate or abuse people or take sexual pictures or videos of strangers without their consent. These “religion of peace” people sure do need a lot of help figuring out that it’s not okay to rape or beat women and children! Perhaps the Brits should stop dropping them off in rural villages where they quickly outnumber the locals ten to one.

A rational person should have no problem understanding Islam as a threat to the world. President Bush held a position of immense power from which he could see Muslim atrocities as key features of that cult belief system. The fact that he remains too much of a moral coward to confront and denounce Islam’s murderers, rapists, and terrorists with clarity and resolve has contributed greatly to the current moral confusion plaguing the United States.

We now have members of Congress who openly support Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. A terrorist-sympathizing Muslim is the mayor of New York City twenty-five years after his “religion of peace” friends flew hijacked commercial airliners into the Twin Towers and murdered thousands of civilians. Another terrorist-sympathizing Muslim running for the U.S. Senate from Michigan agrees with Muslim members of Congress that 9/11 was worse for Muslims who subsequently endured “Islamophobia.” When Islamic terrorists aren’t trying to murder Americans with their vehicles, bombs, firearms, or knives, they’re rioting in the streets and demanding “justice” for Hamas animals who rape and kill women and behead and microwave babies.

Bush’s inability to identify Islam as a murderous cult ideology has exacerbated the Islamic supremacy problem in the United States. In preparation for the twenty-fifth anniversary of 9/11 this year, public school administrators instructed teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia, to avoid associating the attacks with Islam. Teachers were even told to treat Muslims as heroes and to create “safe spaces” for Muslim students. Virginia’s Democrat governor commemorated 9/11 by ignoring the act of Islamic mass murder and pretending that three thousand Americans died from some kind of inexplicable natural disaster. While New York City’s Muslim mayor laughed during the 9/11 Ground Zero ceremony, New York’s Democrat governor left early, so that she could appear on cable news. Meanwhile, Gen Z Americans are largely indifferent to the September 11, 2001, Islamic terror attacks on the United States. Some even celebrate Osama bin Laden.

Americans promised never to forget Islam’s war against the West. Twenty-five years later, it is obvious that too many did forget. President Bush’s moral equivocations are partially to blame for this travesty.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.