Authored by Darren Taylor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

JOHANNESBURG—Thousands of Chinese citizens remain in Ghana to mine gold illegally, despite a crackdown by authorities in Africa’s largest producer of the precious metal, according to law enforcement agencies in the capital, Accra.

They say the illegal miners appear to be taking advantage of the record-high gold price, which hit $3,500 in April, with much of the illicit metal being smuggled back to China.

Organized crime groups, sometimes headed by what appear to be Chinese businesspeople, are flooding Ghana with sophisticated machinery to mine gold at scales never seen before in some areas, resulting in widespread environmental damage and fueling unemployment, according to one expert who recently spoke to The Epoch Times.

According to several analysts, Chinese involvement in illegal mining in Ghana and across Africa reveals Beijing’s real motive for its increasingly strong presence on the continent: to exploit Africa’s natural resources.

With Ghana’s police now often arresting Chinese citizens accused of stealing gold, relations between President John Mahama’s administration and Beijing are strained.

Ghanaian officials have said the Chinese regime isn’t doing enough to prevent its nationals from committing crimes in one of West Africa’s strongest economies.

But China’s ambassador in Ghana is accusing locals of “galamsey,” as it’s known in the region, or small-scale illegal gold mining, and of drawing Chinese workers to Africa.

“The Chinese who are getting arrested are migrant workers who have come here to make a living,” Chinese Ambassador Tong Defa told The Epoch Times.

Grace Ansah-Akrofi, director of the Ghana Police Service’s Public Affairs, has a different view.

“While there are cases like those mentioned by the ambassador, it’s a bit far-fetched to say that it’s Ghanaian masterminds who are importing Chinese to commit crimes,” she told The Epoch Times. “We have our own people who are desperate enough to commit crimes.

“Our criminals are not going to call on [the] Chinese to do their work. It doesn’t make sense.”

Enoch Aikins, a researcher at South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, traces the roots of Ghana’s galamsey crisis to a period between 2008 and 2013, when he said more than 50,000 Chinese entered the country to mine gold illegally.

“Ever since then, there has been a strong Chinese element in these kinds of crimes in Ghana; they originally came here because they knew the laws were lax, and they also bribed their way out of trouble,” Aikins told The Epoch Times.

“But now that things are tightening up and they find they are being pushed out of an industry that makes them rich, they are angry.”

In 2023, the government-mandated Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining released a report that implicated several government officials in illegal mining.

The Mahama administration says its Office of the Special Prosecutor is investigating information in the report.

Ghana is Africa’s biggest gold producer, and the sixth-largest in the world, reporting an output of 151 metric tons in 2024, according to information from the Ghana Gold Board obtained by The Epoch Times.

About a third of its production comes from artisanal mining, some of it illegal, said Aikins.

Demand for gold, seen as a stable investment in times of economic uncertainty, has recently reached unprecedented highs, and costs almost $3,300 per ounce as of Aug. 1.

On the back of this, Chinese companies are investing billions of dollars in Ghana’s gold sector, said government spokesperson Felix Ofosu.

“We are grateful for the Chinese contribution to our economy, but surely this doesn’t mean we ignore abuses committed by Chinese citizens,” he told The Epoch Times.

In June, the Geneva-based Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) released a report detailing how foreign nationals, particularly from China and Burkina Faso, have introduced new technologies and machinery to Ghana that are increasing gold output while contributing to environmental harm.

The GI-TOC investigation said foreigners, including Chinese, are working in concert with traditional chiefs and political elites to “benefit from or enable illicit mining operations.”

“Criminal groups are allegedly engaging in gold smuggling and money laundering through casinos and other businesses,” said the independent policy research institute.

Ofosu said court cases and investigations have revealed that “Chinese criminals are the ones who finance locals and give them technical support” to facilitate illegal mining.

He pointed to the case of En “Aisha” Huang, known in Ghana as the “Galamsey Queen.”

Deported several times between 2018 and 2022, Huang kept returning “because she couldn’t resist the lure” of Ghana’s gold, said Ansah-Akrofi.

In December 2023, Huang was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison and ordered to pay a $4,000 fine for running an illegal gold mining syndicate.

James Boafo, an expert in the environmental effects of illegal mining at Ghana’s University of Cape Coast, told The Epoch Times that “China’s hand is far from hidden” in the “destruction” happening in his country.

“Machinery brought into Ghana from China is causing a lot of damage,” he said. “Ghana’s traditional small-scale miners use very basic tools to extract gold, so they can reach only shallow depths.

“But these days, illegal miners are able to go very deep in the earth, thanks to excavators and bulldozers supplied by Chinese partners.

“In Ghana, now we have many polluted rivers because of this. Our water quality is seriously degraded, and drinking it is a problem.”

He added that criminal operations use rivers to sift gold dust and nuggets from the sediment.

“This activity causes entire river systems, across many thousands of kilometres, to be muddy,” Boafo said. “Then the operators use toxic substances like lead and mercury to take the gold from the water. Whether they are Chinese or Africans, they just don’t care.”

He said illegal mining operations fronted by the Chinese are also threatening Ghana’s cocoa industry.

“They destroy lands and forests and plantations,” Boafo said.

Well-resourced Chinese citizens are outcompeting local artisanal miners, who are consequently falling into unemployment and poverty, he noted.

Professor Gladys Ansah, who has investigated illegal mining for the University of Ghana, said Mahama’s government “should not let up” in its arrests and prosecutions of illegal miners, no matter their nationalities.

“Over the years, we’ve had a lot of committees and programs focused on getting rid of this,” she told The Epoch Times. “But they weren’t so effective, partly because our government didn’t want to offend China; so the Chinese were treated with kid gloves.”

As far back as 2013, Ansah said, a joint task force of military and police arrested 4,500 Chinese miners.

“They weren’t prosecuted; they were deported, and we paid for it because a lot of them came back and many are still here,” she said.

South African foreign policy analyst, Sanusha Naidu, told The Epoch Times that Chinese links to illegal harvesting of metals and minerals are “cementing” a growing perception in the continent that Beijing’s “real motive for being in Africa in such a big way is to exploit natural resources, by whatever means possible.”

Authored by Monica O’Shea via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Labor and the Greens have blocked debate on legislation that would have provided a clear definition of a man and a woman in Australia.

Liberal Senator Alex Antic introduced the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Restoring Biological Definitions) Act 2025 at the end of the recent parliamentary session.

The bill (pdf) specifically repeals the definition of gender identity and omits every occurrence of the word “gender identity.”

In addition, the bill provides a clear definition for men and women and substitutes the word “different sex” with “the opposite sex.”

“Man means a member of the male sex irrespective of age. Woman means a member of the female sex irrespective of age,” the bill states.

Antic said the issue would not go away and described the situation as “absolutely unbelievable.”

“The Bill was designed to protect women’s sport and women’s spaces but Labor and the Greens wouldn’t allow it to pass into the second reading,” he said in a post to X.

Antic said the Bill’s aim was to restore the definitions of a man and a woman, which had been “deleted in 2013” by the Labor government.

“Yes, you heard that right, as presently enacted, the Sex Discrimination Act has no working understanding of what constitutes a man or a woman,” he told supporters on Aug. 1.

“My Bill also proposed to remove the concept of ‘gender identity’ from the Act altogether, which the Labor government added as a category of protected classes.”

Unbelievable scenes today as Labor and the Greens blocked the passage of the debate of my Sex Discrimination Amendment (Restoring Biological Definitions) Bill in the Senate.https://t.co/bw94wd94OU

— Senator Alex Antic (@SenatorAntic) July 31, 2025

Debate Halted

The bill was shot down before it was able to proceed to a second reading.

During parliament, Queensland Liberal Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Paul Scarr pointed out that the Senate usually does not stop discussion at such an early stage.

“While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice, the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition support these normal procedures as we have with many Greens, Labor or crossbench bills that we strongly opposed,” he said (pdf).

At the first reading stage, the title of the bill is read out and a copy of the bill is read to members of parliament, with no debate. It is only at the second reading where debate takes place.

Minister for Women Katy Gallagher raised concerns debate on the legislation would hurt children who identified as trans.

“We do not agree with the Senate being a place where individual harm can be done to young people across this country. That is what would have happened had we allowed this bill to proceed in the normal course, and we won’t stand for it. Trans children deserve better from this chamber,” she said.

Australian Greens Whip Nick McKim said they would not allow the Senate to discuss the legislation.

“We know exactly what Senators Antic and [Matt] Canavan are up to here. They are introducing a bill that they want to use to provide a platform for transphobic people in our community to punch down on transgender Australians and, in particular, on trans kids,” he said.

“Well, as far as the Australian Greens are concerned, we are never, never going to vote in this place to allow you to create that platform.”

However, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts raised concerns that Labor and the Greens were controlling debate.

“What we’re seeing here is an example of control, and, always, beneath control there is fear. Of what are the Greens and their coalition partner, Labor, afraid?”

The Coalition supported the bill progressing for debate, but this was blocked by the Labor and Greens majority, with 25 in favour of the bill moving forward and 36 against.

Reuters reports that President Donald Trump has announced new restrictions barring federal disaster preparedness funds from going to states or cities that boycott Israeli companies, in a move which is sure to further divide Trump’s base, given it’s widely perceived even among many conservatives as flying in the face of America First.

Critics have long argued that Republicans have been placing the foreign nation Israel’s defense and funding needs ahead of American citizens’ well-being. This certainly constitutes more evidence that this is the case. Monday’s controversial order has resulted in an avalanche of online commentary and angry reaction.

To receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), states must now demonstrate and confirm that there’s no policy of severing business ties specifically with companies based in Israel.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s office has said that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will enforce anti-discrimination laws. The US administration has long characterized the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as rooted in antisemitism. Critics have shot back that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not at all the same things.

This would impact at least $1.9 billion which FEMA distributes annually related to natural disaster and other relief. According to Responsible Statecraft:

To be eligible for $1.9 billion available in federal grants from FEMA for disaster preparation essentials, including emergency management salaries and rescue gear, U.S. states and cities must agree that they will not cut off “commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies.”

In essence, signing a loyalty oath to another country.

Reuters tallies that at least 34 US states currently have laws that prohibit boycotts of Israeli firms. For example, Governor Greg Abbott, where recent Texas anti-BDS legislation gained significant media coverage, has stated that “anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies.” It seems Trump wants to see all 50 states adopt such legislation.

A move such as this – actually linking funds which would go to Americans caught in disasters and emergencies – to a litmus test of loyalty to a foreign power, is certainly unprecedented in American legal and FEMA history.

It’s getting lots of reaction on social media, in circles on the Right and the Left…

Denying American victims of natural disasters aid if they are insufficiently supportive of Israel. Absolute insanity https://t.co/VDGybhM3Py

— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) August 4, 2025

Ah, great, more America First https://t.co/1JJNpccnX4

— Curt Mills (@CurtMills) August 4, 2025

This is a good way to create hate and resentment for their favored group. How do they not understand this?

— Rachael (@Rachael_wv) August 4, 2025

“Israel First” is trending on X in the US, with “America Last”. pic.twitter.com/Ci4Uq0KLUg

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) August 4, 2025

The Trump admin decision to withhold disaster relief funds is even more insane than I thought: It extends a ban on disaster funds from our tax dollars to anyone who refuses to deal with “Israeli companies” pic.twitter.com/xEM8YnKl4x

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) August 4, 2025

And this says it all as Trump’s conservative base is continuing to fragment over the support to Israel issue, and as the growing humanitarian disaster in Gaza continues to spiral, resulting in fiercer and more polarized reactions globally…

Authored by Josiah Lippincott via American Greatness,

Earlier this year, I was talking with a prominent libertarian economist on matters of fiscal and monetary policy. I noted that, in my view, the core problem in this unholy nexus was the Federal Reserve’s ongoing dominance over the nation’s money supply and financial industry.

It was critical, I said, that we dissolve the central bank. The inevitable consequence of credit expansion (money printing) is inflation and malinvestment. The very existence of the Federal Reserve robs savers of their purchasing power and occludes true market data, leading to investors pouring their limited resources into schemes that should not exist in a free market. In doing so, these investors did not place their funds into products that buyers actually want.

This inevitably leads to cycles of boom and bust that are ruinous for the common good.

I expected him to agree. After all, this was a libertarian economist; I assumed that ranting against the Fed, fiat money, and government interference would be his thing.

Instead, he simply shrugged. Getting rid of the Fed is impossible, he told me. We therefore had no choice but to make our peace with this system and try to make it work as well as we could.

“Impossible.” That word stood out to me.

Precision in language matters. When we use a word, we should know what it means. We should not say things cavalierly. Without clear language, there can be no clear thought.

If something is in fact impossible, then, of course, we should not spend time debating about it. It is impossible, for instance, to have the sum of the three angles of a triangle add up to any number other than 180 degrees. It is likewise impossible to drop a heavy weight from a height and expect it to float or for a human being to give birth to an oak tree.

These things are truly impossible. By the rules of logic in the world we inhabit, certain things cannot be otherwise. They simply are. These brute facts are not a subject of deliberation. Nothing is to be done about them.

We should be deeply wary, however, in assigning this status of immovable fact to things that, as it turns out, can be other than what they are.

Just because a thing is difficult to accomplish or unlikely does not make it impossible.

Political regimes can change. There are, for instance, many different kinds of governments on the earth, and they differ in crucial ways. Laws are made and unmade. People move. Governments come into being and are overthrown.

There was, for instance, a time in this nation’s history when the Federal Reserve did not exist. There may come a time when it will once again cease to be.

Congress brought the Federal Reserve into being by law. It could be undone by the same process. Human institutions do not possess the certitude and unchanging quality of the basic axioms at the heart of logical thinking. 2 + 2 has always and everywhere equaled 4, but the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. That government has not always existed everywhere and always.

Man has a nature. He always and everywhere has the same features. All men seek good things and avoid bad things. Men may disagree wildly about what those things are, but all of us are engaged in this fundamental pursuit. If a suicidal man thought he would be better off alive than dead, he would not kill himself.

Moreover, we see that human beings always give birth to human beings. We all need to sleep, eat, and defecate. Man is always and everywhere a being unto death. These are unchanging realities for us.

It is incorrect, however, to attribute an unchanging nature to things that are in fact changeable. I notice that on the American right, there is often a profound sense of pessimism and melancholy that stems from this error.

Many an influencer, activist, or commentator I have known will proclaim a given policy or campaign to be “impossible.” They will write it off as unfeasible with a wave of the hand. It cannot be done. Why even try?

This despairing view of reality has poisoned many great projects and prevented countless others from even getting off the ground. There are indeed many policy changes that are not wise to pursue or that require resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

Trade-offs and opportunity costs are simply part of life. They are unchanging features of human action. But to say that a thing comes at a price or is difficult is not the same as saying it is impossible.

Nor are crude references to statistics a substitute for thought. The odds of any given American becoming a billionaire are only 1 in 380,000, but those odds are not definitive statements about an individual’s ability to create a groundbreaking innovation (or utilize government regulations to monopolize a lucrative market).

At the end of the day, pointing to aggregates is not enough to understand the individuals that are part of the whole. Averages can be useful politically and can even help guide personal decisions. But an average isn’t everything. It isn’t the last word.

Precision in thought—knowledge of what we know and acknowledgment of what we don’t—is crucial for political life. Despair is a sin, and pessimism is not necessarily wisdom. You often can, it turns out, just do things. And you should!

As the American right moves forward in the coming years, we need to remind ourselves of this core truth. Real change, both for good and ill, is always possible. It is an error to presume to have knowledge that we really don’t have.

Both mindless optimism and free-falling pessimism are wrong. The latter is, among conservatives, more common than the former. It poses a greater spiritual danger. The temptation to sit on one’s hands, wishing and whining but never doing anything useful, is very powerful on the right. A whole legion of anklebiters, cranks, and dour-faced losers surrounds us.

These people are a spiritual dead end. There is nothing to be gained, in the end, from complaining or fantasizing about an apocalypse in which action will then and only then become possible. We live in this world, right here, right now. We should focus on that!

I don’t know, for instance, if we will succeed in my lifetime in eliminating the Federal Reserve. I am not certain that it should be the highest priority for conservatives in this moment. But I am certain that we cannot live in peace and freedom while the central bank burrows its way into every aspect of the American economy.

The right thing to do is to oppose tyranny wherever it is found. We should be honest, if only to ourselves, about what needs to be done. We should never pretend that slavery is preferable to liberty or defeat to victory.

We should fight. We should make a day of it. We should follow the words of Virgil’s Aeneid:

Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it!

In 2023, Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes warned that Beijing effectively has the US military’s supply chain by the balls, thanks to America’s reliance on rare earths and other materials which either come from, or are processed in, China. 

According to Hayes, Raytheon has “several thousand suppliers in China,” because of which “decoupling … is impossible.“

“We can de-risk but not decouple,” he told the Financial Times, adding that he thinks this is the case “for everybody.”

“Think about the $500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 per cent of rare earth materials or metals come from, or are processed in, China. There is no alternative,” he said. 

Fast forward two years later – and China’s recent curbs on the export of critical minerals are rippling through the U.S. defense supply chain, slowing production schedules and sending manufacturers on a global search for scarce materials needed in everything from munitions to fighter jets.

(And of course, last month ZeroHedge premium subs were treated to “The Coming Rare Earth Revolution And How To Profit” – full of names that have exploded higher since publication…)

In short, amid a surge in U.S.-China trade tensions earlier this year, Beijing tightened its control over rare earth exports. Those shipments resumed after the Trump administration reached a set of trade concessions in June, however China has kept a firm hold on materials destined for defense use. Accounting for roughly 90 percent of the world’s rare earth output – and dominating the supply of other strategic minerals – China has also barred the sale of germanium, gallium and antimony to the United States since December. The three metals are essential for bullet hardening, night-vision optics and other military applications, the WSJ reports.

Some contractors warn that their reserves are running dangerously low. Bill Lynn, chief executive of Leonardo DRS, said Wednesday that his company’s supply of germanium has fallen to “safety stock” levels. The metal is used in infrared sensors for missiles and other systems. “In order to sustain timely product deliveries, material flow must improve in the second half” of 2025, he told investors. Leonardo DRS, a U.S. subsidiary of Italy’s Leonardo, is exploring alternative suppliers and possible substitutes.

For others, the bottleneck has already meant missed deadlines. One drone-parts maker supplying the U.S. military delayed orders by as much as two months while hunting for non-Chinese sources of magnets, which are produced from rare earth elements. Traders say prices for some materials have multiplied several times over; samarium, used in high-temperature magnets for jet engines, has been offered at 60 times its typical price.

The Pentagon has instructed defense contractors to phase out magnets containing Chinese minerals by 2027. While some firms have stockpiled magnets, most carry only months of supply for other critical materials. Smaller drone manufacturers — often startups with limited resources — are considered especially exposed.

Dak Hardwick, vice president of international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, said the problem is discussed constantly within the industry. “I can tell you…we talk about this daily and our companies talk about it daily,” he said.

A recent analysis by defense software firm Govini found that more than 80,000 components used in U.S. weapons systems contain minerals now under Chinese export controls. Nearly all such supply chains depend on at least one Chinese source.

Western buyers say Chinese authorities have begun demanding detailed disclosures – including images of products and production lines – before approving shipments. In May, New Hampshire-based ePropelled received such requests from a Chinese magnet supplier, along with a list of questions about its customers and assurances the magnets would not be used for military purposes. “Of course we are not going to provide the Chinese government with that information,” said Chris Thompson, the firm’s vice president of global sales. When the company refused, shipments stopped, extending delivery times to twice their usual length.

The firm turned to suppliers in the United States, Europe, Japan and Taiwan, as well as to emerging producers Vulcan Elements in North Carolina and USA Rare Earth in Oklahoma. Those new sources are not expected to deliver until later this year and will need to develop non-Chinese supply chains of their own.

Washington has begun to respond. The Pentagon has invested in expanding domestic output, including a $14 million grant last year to a Canadian firm producing germanium substrates for defense satellites and a $400 million stake in MP Materials, which operates the largest rare-earth mine in the Americas. On an earnings call, Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet described the MP Materials deal as “groundbreaking” for securing magnets needed in F-35 fighters and cruise missiles.

Nicholas Myers, CEO of Massachusetts-based Phoenix Tailings, said large defense companies are now moving aggressively to secure their own mineral supplies. “They recognize that they’re just not going to get the magnets… unless they get involved,” he said.

Beijing’s hard line is also affecting shipments in transit. Earlier this year, United States Antimony Corporation attempted to route 55 metric tons of Australian-mined antimony to its Mexican smelter via the Chinese port of Ningbo, a process it had used before without incident. In April, Chinese customs officials held the cargo for three months, eventually releasing it only on the condition it be returned to Australia. When it arrived, company CEO Gary Evans said the seals had been broken. “The shipping company, everyone who was involved, they’d never seen this happen before,” he said.

Authored by Rex Wilderstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

While countering Beijing’s influence in the Pacific was chief among the reasons given by FBI Director Kash Patel when he opened the agency’s new office in Wellington last week, both he and New Zealand’s security ministers also spoke of rising transnational crime affecting the region.

In a statement, the U.S. Embassy in Wellington described the purpose of the new office as working “to investigate and disrupt a wide range of threats and criminal activities, including terrorism, cybercrime and fraud, organised crime and money laundering, child exploitation, and foreign intelligence threats.”

The latest seizure of drugs and weapons in the region bears out the reality of that threat. Comgend Polynésie Française—the national police force of French Polynesia—has announced that it has seized a “historic” quantity of drugs with a total street value of €331 million (US$382.66 million) from a yacht caught in the Marquesas Islands, about 1,400 kilometres north of Tahiti.

After towing it to Pape’ete, the capital of Tahiti, and dismantling it, over 700 kilograms of drugs were found concealed in the boat’s structure. In total, 1,646.8 kilograms of cocaine and 232.4 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized from the boat.

They also discovered 11 Glock semi‑automatic pistols and 24 magazines.

Shipment Believed to be Bound For Australia

The yacht was believed to have left Mexico and to be headed to Australia via Tonga. The three men onboard, a German skipper and two Dutch nationals, remain in custody, local Public Prosecutor Solène Belaouar said in a statement on Aug. 2.

The head of French Polynesia’s Customs Department, Serge Puccetti, told local media the shipment was not destined for French Polynesia.

He said French authorities regularly share intelligence with law enforcement agencies in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

Echoing Patel’s warning, he said the Pacific is now a major transit area between narcotic production in South America and users in Australia, which has emerged as a major market, as well as to New Zealand and Asia.

Organised crime syndicates from Southeast Asia are also using the Pacific Islands, including Papua New Guinea, as transit points to ship opium-based drugs and methamphetamines to the U.S. market.

Smugglers were now using all kinds of transport modes: air, sea, onboard containers, and sailboats, Puccetti said. “On each of these vectors, we are vigilant,” he said.

New Caledonia’s Divisional Head of Customs, Hervé Matho, told local media, “In terms of cocaine consumption, the U.S. market is now saturated. That’s why traffickers are searching for new markets, [in] Europe and, in the Pacific region, Australia and New Zealand.”

Representative John James, a Republican from Michigan, penned a blistering letter to Canadian leaders, warning their out-of-control wildfires are “poisoning the air and threatening the health of millions across Michigan and the Midwest.”

Now, that toxic smoke is pouring into the Northeast, and soon, into New York City. Just when many thought Justin Trudeau’s leadership was disastrous, the beginning of the globalist Mark Carney era suggests things can and will likely get even worse.

Canada is experiencing its second-worst wildfire season on record. Government data shows 4,00 wildfires have been recorded so far this year.

“Despite the clear public health crisis, Canadian officials have shown alarming disregard,” Rep. James wrote in a press release, informing his constituents about the letter he fired off to Canadian leaders, urging immediate action to contain the growing wildfire crisis that is poisoning America’s air. 

If Canada’s globalist ‘green’ leaders actually cared about the planet, they would have practiced proper forest management. But they didn’t, and they failed miserably. Rep. James noted that the 2023 wildfire season in Canada was equivalent to “running over 500 million cars for a full year.”

At the moment, smoke from 740 Canadian wildfires is spreading south and degrading air quality over a massive stretch of North America. New York City is under air-quality alerts…

“This lack of urgency undermines decades of cross-border cooperation and damages the U.S.—Canada relationship,” Rep. James said. 

The bigger question is whether these forest fires are truly natural … or part of a broader form of hybrid warfare.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Donald Trump’s far-ranging counter-revolution, to quote the old Star Trek mission statement, seeks “To boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Because no conservative president has dared to question the last 70 years of progressive cultural, social, economic, and political dominance, all traditional wisdom, all our renowned “experts,” and all the self-described “authorities” have no real credibility in their mostly flawed analyses and wrong prognoses.

Read what our legacy media predicted in March for this summer’s economy, or in January for the future of the border, or what would happen should the U.S. Air Force enter Iranian airspace.

Take the border.

“Comprehensive immigration reform” (a euphemism for rolling amnesties and a still-open border) was the establishment’s answer to 10,000 foreign nationals storming the border during peak surges of the Biden administration.

But no president had ever simultaneously:

1) pressured Mexico to close its borders and patrol ours,

2) announced a plan to complete a border wall along the entire US-Mexico boundary,

3) stopped catch-and-release,

4) ceased refugee applications after illegally entering the U.S.,

5) introduced policies encouraging voluntary self-deportation, and

6) prevented all illegal entries at the border.

The result is that we do not know the full effects of these combined border policies.

So far, one million foreign nationals have lost jobs, and 2 million Americans have gained them since Trump’s inauguration. How much money will be saved in local, state, and federal entitlements if illegal immigrants return home?

How much trauma and costs will be avoided if 500,000 criminal aliens are deported?

How many serious and lethal hit-and-run accidents will be prevented?

To what degree will the idea of citizenship be reenergized once it is not reduced to the equivalency of mere residence?

How many emergency rooms will have more space for U.S. citizens?

No one knows, but the consequences could be enormous.

The U.S. has never applied so many tariffs in so many ways upon so many goods from so many countries. As a result, economists have sworn since March that we are headed to a recession, stock collapse, stagflation, and high unemployment.

But do they really know the profit margins of our mercantile importers, who tariff our goods but expect easy entry for their exports to the U.S.?

Can importers pay a 15% tariff, still make a handsome profit, and not raise costs excessively on the U.S. consumer? If trade surpluses do not matter and tariffs hurt those who implement them, why do sophisticated Europeans, adroit Japanese, and smart Chinese prefer surpluses and tariffs to our deficits and zero or low tariffs? Are they on to something?

Do moderate tariffs encourage rather than retard American enterprise, on the theory that it will not be undercut by dumping and exchange manipulation and can also compete with far cheaper energy and transportation costs?

No one really knows these answers because the U.S. has never tried the current policy in quite the present way before.

We do know that the radical free trade and asymmetrical tariffs of the last half-century empowered China to world power status with a dangerous military and hollowed out the U.S. industrial interior.

Is the $2 trillion budget deficit, as predicted, set in stone? Will the national debt only grow to unsustainable levels? However, federal agencies have never announced annual cuts of nearly $200 billion—along with a ten percent reduction in the budget deficit.

Never has the government promised to deregulate and fast-track permits for construction, energy development, and manufacturing from 2-3 years to mere months. What will the financial results be?

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggests that $15 trillion in new foreign investments are now promised. If accurate, what will such influxes do to employment? To federal revenues? To the economy in general?

Is it possible that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could be right that $300 billion in federal income will come from new tariffs—if true, that might reduce the deficit by another 15 percent?

What is the effect on the economy of cheaper energy costs when production is slated to rise without draining the strategic petroleum reserve on the eve of elections?

No one has ever questioned universities before so systematically.

We do know that student loan debt has spiraled to $1.7 trillion. Graduation rates have dropped to about 50-60 percent of those who enroll. The average student now takes six—not four—years to graduate. Today’s graduates, by all accounts, leave universities with fewer analytical skills, less language fluency, and reduced general knowledge than in past decades. Faculties have never been more weaponized, with 90-95 percent reportedly holding progressive views.

If universities are taxed on their endowments, will that not force them to reconsider their efforts to maintain their non-profit status?

Will 15 percent limits on overhead charges on federal grants force researchers to watch their budgets and universities to curb their bloated administrative legions?

What is so wrong with curbing the tuition gouging and profiteering off foreign students, and limiting their numbers to ensure access to underserved, deserving Americans?

Will the end of segregated dorms, safe spaces, and “affinity” graduations lead to more integration and assimilation than do the current tribal fixations on race and ethnicity? Historically, does tribalism or assimilation best serve a nation?

Will meritocratic admissions improve student skills, rewarding those who study hard and encouraging those who do not to emulate those who do? Will minorities who are admitted under meritocratic criteria be seen as more or less qualified?

Are far fewer administrators, more emphasis on instruction and less on politics, and more students from the heartland and fewer from communist China or the illiberal Middle East such bad things?

In the last 50 years, affirmative action transmogrified into DEI racial separatism, chauvinism, and a system of reparatory spoils, played and manipulated by grifters, opportunists, and fakers, from Elizabeth Warren-style phonies and Jussie Smollett-like con artists to opportunists like Zohran Mamdani who game the system.

Has any chauvinistic multiracial democracy—like Brazil or India—or any multiethnic or multireligious confederation—such as Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq—ever succeeded by prioritizing caste, race, religious sectarianism, or ethnic tribalism?

Can any top-down imposed policy ever be successful when 70 percent of the electorate opposes it?

Can any government that institutionalizes bias and preferences succeed while ignoring class in favor of race—without ever clearly defining which racial criteria justify the entire spoils system, or why?

In our postmodern 21st-century system, no one knows exactly what will happen when race becomes incidental rather than essential. But we do know from history where we were headed under the current aberrant system.

Abroad, in the last 30 years, NATO was voluntarily hollowed out—largely praised in the abstract by European grandees and shorted and ignored in the concrete by Euro budget technocrats. Yet since the days of the Cold War, NATO members had not met their defense expenditure promises.

Now, most NATO members have met those commitments. Frontline NATO states like Sweden, Finland, and Poland are far better armed and prepared than legacy Western members like Belgium, Spain, or Italy. If there follows a rearmed and recommitted NATO, will not the world become a safer place?

We were told for a half-century to steer clear of Iran, the supposed unhinged, lethal bully of the Middle East. Their henchmen blew up barracks and embassies, took and executed hostages, and sowed terror throughout the Middle East with their killer surrogates Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

But Iran had never really fought, much less won a war, since it pleaded with Saddam Hussein for an armistice from the catastrophic Iran-Iraq conflict.

What will be the effect on the Middle East with a currently impotent Iran, an inert Hezbollah, and a subterranean Hamas in hiding? More importantly, what is the current regional role of Iran without a nuclear program, air defenses, a navy, or expeditionary terrorist forces? Again, no one knows.

Finally, we have never seen anything quite so radical as the new Democratic Party, at least not since the McGovern blowout of 1972. In its 24/7, 360-degree fixation on hating Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda, rarely has a party embraced signature policies that are so despised by the American people. As a result, we have no idea what the result will be other than a national implosion at the polls.

Why would any political party embrace open borders, the influx of 12 million illegal aliens, 600 sanctuary cities, biological men dominating women’s sports, dismantling the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries, prosecutors who release rather than indict and convict violent criminals, defunding the police, tribal fixations and racial spoils systems in defiance of the Supreme Court, the terrorists of Hamas over democratic Israel, and overt campus anti-Semitism?

We are in the middle of a counter-revolution, whose fate will likely be decided in 15 months by the midterm elections and the status of the late 2026 economy.

Structural changes across the economy, culture, and politics of the country are underway. Our bicoastal experts and authorities are mostly predicting a multifaceted systems failure—without explaining why or how.

Yet the only constant in their predictions is that when and if they prove wrong, they will not pivot, correct, or apologize, but simply move on to their next flawed prognosis, fortified by their titles and letters after their names—but otherwise little else.

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are spearheading New America Acquisition I Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) targeting a $300 million initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange, according to a securities filing reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The SPAC seeks to acquire businesses with a combined enterprise value of at least $700 million, prioritizing the revitalization of U.S. manufacturing and the strengthening of domestic supply chains.

The filing highlights New America’s strategy to target companies that “play a pivotal role in rejuvenating domestic manufacturing, fostering innovation ecosystems, and securing critical supply chains.” The venture will be led by Kevin McGurn, a seasoned technology executive, with Kyle Wool serving as an adviser. The offering is underwritten by investment banks D. Boral Capital and Dominari Securities, the latter a subsidiary of the firm where Wool holds a leadership role.

This marks the Trump brothers’ latest foray into the SPAC market, building on prior ventures. Last year, Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, went public via a SPAC merger. More recently, GrabAGun, an online firearms retailer backed by 1789 Capital—where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner—also completed a SPAC deal.

The move aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies, which emphasize reshoring critical supply chains from China to enhance U.S. economic and national security. The administration has implemented sweeping tariffs, including a 10% baseline on imports from all countries and rates up to 125% on Chinese goods, to make foreign products costlier and encourage domestic production. These measures, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, aim to address trade imbalances and bolster U.S. manufacturing.

In May, U.S. and Chinese negotiators reached a 90-day tariff truce in Geneva, easing trade tensions. The agreement reduced U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% and China’s duties from 125% to 10%, providing temporary relief to businesses navigating global trade disruptions.

The tariff policies have drawn support from U.S. industries, particularly steel. Nucor Corp., a leading steel producer, endorsed the measures.

“Nucor strongly commends the actions taken today by President Trump to reimpose tariffs on all steel imports,” said Leon Topalian, president and CEO of Nucor Corp. “America’s national security depends on a robust and healthy American steel industry, which continues to be harmed by massive global steel overcapacity and the resulting surge of illegally dumped and subsidized imports from around the world.

“Many of our trading partners have taken advantage of our open market for far too long and have intentionally circumvented our trade laws or allowed other bad actors to transship illegally dumped and subsidized steel,” Topalian added. “The President’s actions will help level the playing field for American steel producers and the more than 24,000 men and women who work in our industry.”

Last week’s widely reported underwater earthquake off the coast of Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula (on July 30) resulted in a tsunami which appears to have impacted the Rybachiy naval base, newly published satellite images show.

Crucially the Rybachiy base is Russia’s primary hub for nuclear submarines in the Pacific, and so was bound to feel some level of impact from an earthquake measuring 8.8 in magnitude which erupted just 140km away.

International reports say that when the earthquake struck, two Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarines were observed docked at the base – and in the path of the tsunami; however, there’s as yet no evidence of damage to the vessels themselves. Watch the visual comparison below:

Instead, some of the base infrastructure has been observed as suffering damage, according to satellite imagery analysis featured in The Telegraph.

“A section of one pier has bent away from its original position, possibly indicating that it was detached from its moorings, images taken by the Umbra Space satellite on Thursday morning have revealed,” the report says.

“It does not appear that a submarine was moored alongside at the time of impact and experts said damage to the structure alone would have little military significance,” it adds, before concluding: “However, questions were raised about whether the tsunami caused any further harm to the base, which was thought to have been hit within 15 minutes of the earthquake.”

The before and after satellite images featured by The Telegraph:

In the aftermath last week, pictures and videos widely circulated online showing significant damage to buildings and other infrastructure, amid flooding, at various locations in Kamchatka, particularly at Pacific ports and harbors.

Adding to worries about the area, the Klyuchevskaya Sopka volcano on the peninsula had also erupted.

Images showed that tsunami waves flooded an area in Severo-Kurilsk, Sakhalin Region, Russia:

According to The War Zone, “Russia has been moving in recent years to replace all of its remaining Soviet-era Delta class SSBNs with Borei types. The Delta III class submarine Ryazan, also known by its hull number K-44, appears to still be present at Rybachiy based on available satellite imagery, but whether it is actually operational or not is unclear.”