President Trump has vowed that there will be no more development of wind energy infrastructure under his administration, calling huge windmills blighting the landscape “garbage” and “bullshit.”
“We’re not going to let windmills get built because we’re not going to destroy our country any further than it’s already been destroyed,” Trump said.
He continued, “You go and look at these beautiful plains and valleys and they’re loaded up with this garbage that gets worse and worse looking with time…What bullshit this is.”
Trump’s remarks came during a Thursday speech where he also announced that California’s phaseout of gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles by 2035 will be overturned.
Trump has regularly denounced wind energy, blaming monstrous turbines for mass deaths of birds and pointing out that turbines in the oceans are also potentially harmful to whales and other marine life.
🚨 NEW: Trump absolutely roasts windmills. Get this man a Netflix special 😂
“We’re screwing around with wind. Oh boy. Wind. These people are crazy. They say it’s great for the environment. Yeah, it kills all your birds. You want to see a bird cemetery, walk under a windmill… pic.twitter.com/qDErmB223x
Wind turbines, while promoted as a clean energy source, can have significant environmental impacts. Their construction requires vast amounts of concrete, steel, and rare earth metals, the mining and processing of which generate substantial carbon emissions and ecological disruption.
Turbines also pose a threat to wildlife, particularly birds and bats, with millions killed annually due to collisions with spinning blades.
The large land footprint of wind farms often leads to habitat fragmentation, displacing local species and altering ecosystems.
Additionally, the noise and vibrations from turbines can disturb both wildlife and nearby human communities.
At the end of their lifespan, decommissioned turbines create waste management challenges, as blades are difficult to recycle and often end up in landfills.
Trump also stated in January before taking office, “We’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are being built. They don’t work without subsidy. You don’t want energy that needs subsidy.”
The President signed an executive order on the day he took office, halting approval of new wind projects until the government could study the costs and “the environmental impact of onshore and offshore wind projects upon wildlife, including, but not limited to, birds and marine mammals.”
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Old White Boomers By Day, Antifa By Night: ‘No Kings’ Color Revolution
Strikes between Israel and Iran have escalated significantly in both scale and lethality, with Tehran deploying hypersonic missiles in direct attacks against Israeli cities. In response, the Israeli Defense Forces have executed a coordinated air campaign targeting key pillars of the Iranian regime’s operational capacity—most notably the IRGC’s crude oil export infrastructure, high-value military assets, and critical command-and-control facilities (strike roadmap laid out last fall). The scope and precision of these strikes suggest a deliberate strategy to degrade the regime’s ability to function both economically and militarily, potentially placing the IRGC on a quick crash course toward systemic failure.
Simultaneously, within the U.S., a separate destabilization force unfolded this weekend.
Our preliminary assessment of the command and control structures supporting the ‘No Kings’ color revolution operation by the Democratic Party has been propped up through dark money networks that continue to finance radical left-wing NGOs engaged in what appears to be a sustained, low-grade color revolution during the day and riots at night. These NGOs, operating with logistical sophistication, have aimed to undermine societal cohesion and erode public trust in the Trump administration.
On Saturday, a coordinated series of demonstrations unfolded across major metropolitan areas, including New York, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles. The protests—supported by a network of nearly 200 entities, many of which include ideologically aligned and far-left NGOs—appear to follow a highly structured mobilizationeffort reminiscent of prior failed “Tesla Takedown” operations observed earlier this year.
Here’s a list of organizations behind the “No Kings” protests across the country pic.twitter.com/cMZvkerPSS
On Friday, Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizerpublished a report linking the rogue NGOs behind the ‘No Kings’ front operation—quarterbacking the broader color revolution effort—as receiving a “$114.8 million from the Arabella dark money network and how these professional protest organizations use tax dollars as a force multiplier.
Dark-Money Network Funneled Millions Into ‘No Kings’ Nationwide Color Revolution Operation | ZeroHedge https://t.co/gaRzUwdeG5
Notably, the demographic composition of participants was strikingly consistent across many of the protest areas: predominantly elderly, white, college-educated liberal elites with many of whom are likely regular viewers of leftist corporate media brainwashing networks, such as MSNBC, CNBC, The View, and so on.
A grown man with severe Trump Detanglement Syndrome beats a Trump doll at the Beverly Hills, California ‘No Kings’ protest. pic.twitter.com/IeVjQ9O9dh
The fact that the “No Kings” rally’s are full of old white people and the #Army250 parade crowd is full of young mulit-ethnic families really tells you which way the arrow is pointing. pic.twitter.com/Tss6J9s56o
.@TheBigBasham and I out having lunch in the historic town of Salisbury, North Carolina. We happened to wander through a little No Kings protest. Almost entirely gray heads. Don’t think we saw a person under 40.
06/14/2025 – “No Kings” Protesters were bused into Mobile, AL from out-of-state on 30 buses. Most of them are liberal Boomers who needed a paycheck 😁 pic.twitter.com/A5k3TASaIw
the local “no kings” protest is on the university campus and it’s just a sea of elderly boomers making that face they make when they can’t find their waitress pic.twitter.com/Qjgoibzmgq
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 14, 2025
NEW: Look at these flyers found at Seattle’s Cal Anderson Park during the “No Kings” protest. It calls for the assassination of President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. @realDonaldTrump@JDVancepic.twitter.com/DujIkz5XfY
This is a “No Kings” protest in Atlanta. What do you notice? In a city that is predominantly Black, I think I counted 5 black people in this video.
Democrats flooded Black communities across the country with illegal aliens. And now they are protesting Trump removing them???… pic.twitter.com/KNQDqo1PCw
As the evening unfolded and the retirement homes called back their revolutionary Boomer protesters for dinner, medication, and the nightly MSNBC shows, isolated urban unrest began to materialize in several cities. Notably, Portland and Los Angeles saw leftist groups with younger foot soldiers on the streets escalate from protest to riot in a short fashion.
Breaking: Federal and local police deploy tear gas, crowd control munitions on Antifa anti-ICE rioters outside ICE Seattle field office in Tukwila.
The capacity at which the Democratic Party and their corporate overclass of The Blob’s (deep state) ability to replicate (again) Black Lives Matter-like color revolution against President Trump via their network of rogue NGOs (funded by…) appears to be waning and may be an inflection point for the party that has chosen to escalate out of judicial warfare to kinetic action in the streets.
Terrible optics for the No Kings movement came early Saturday when a former appointee of Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, with No Kings literature in his vehicle, allegedly assassinated a Minnesota state representative and wounded a state senator.
‘No Kings’ Terror? Fake Cop Assassinates Minnesota Democrat Who Blocked Health Care for Illegals https://t.co/L4uRIixVnM
Homer Simpson, Ray Romano, Randy Marsh, and Hal Wilkerson—all idiots. Good natured, bumbling, and well-intentioned, but idiots nonetheless. The clear implication is that these media-created dads are buffoons at best, and detriments to their own families at worst. Considering Peter Griffin of Family Guy has a stated IQ of 70, these near-neanderthals are certainly unnecessary in family life—except as an easy punchline used to cue the laugh tracks. Of course, the aforementioned half-wits are offset in media portrayals, not with wholesome, discerning, and forthright fathers. Rather, they are counterbalanced with “toxic” characters like Reese Bobby, Royal Tenenbaum, and Lucious Lyon. As cultural commentators have pointed out, fathers are either “comically inept” or “cruelly dominant.” Either way, paternalism is “reduced to extremes” and they are certainly not fit as husbands or fathers. They are all, in a word: useless.
For Terry Schilling—one of the speakers of NatalCon 25—these dumb-dad tropes are evidence that fathers and fatherhood are severely undervalued in our current culture. He reasons that if fatherhood is unattractive, then this prevailing attitude would naturally contribute to the ongoing decline in fertility rates. These caricatures and devaluing portrayals are, for Schilling, a clear message that men are neither needed or desired in domestic life.
One of the outcomes of this set of cultural mindsets is that men are demoralized into what he calls the “destruction-distraction industrial complex,” characterizing it as a set of “predatory industries.” He further explains that this nexus of addictive tech, free porn, online gambling, and gaming fixations couple with broader messaging on masculinity in the culture that combine to form a negative feedback loop. Men who engage in these self-destructive patterns are indeed less fit for marriage than those who don’t. They become the very caricatures that the media portray them as, and they indeed are undesirable as family men. Unable to find a suitable spouse, they are further demoralized into this doom loop as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Schilling’s address to those gathered at NatalCon proposed a sort of third way approach to releasing men from this cultural quagmire that combines both policymaking and cultural transformation. However, in his admittedly brief presentation, he is short on specifics as to how to carry this out. He bemoans the influence of the corporate side of the destruction-distraction industrial complex, while giving less emphasis to the government’s role in the complex. Citing the rise of smartphones, massive advertising budgets for sportsbooks, corporate digital targeting, and other elements, he implies that the solution for what’s ailing young men is for more robust regulatory measures to reign in these technologies and the firms that develop them. Furthermore, as with many pro-natalists, he calls for increased state intervention to marriage rates as a means to boost baby production. He calls on government to provide “extreme levels of support for families.” More specifically, he asserts that policymakers should spend at least as much on incentivizing marriage and fertility as is spent on corporate subsidies.
Unsurprisingly, there is a positive relationship between marriage and fertility rates. In fact, Lyman Stone of the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) has estimated that 75 percent of the global fertility decline is attributable to the reduced marriage rate as its proximal cause. Further, the probability of childless marriages reached a peak at the tail end of the stagflation of the 1970s in the US, only to be reached again in the era of covid hysteria. In short, more young men—enslaved to the destruction-distraction industrial complex—lead to fewer marriages and fewer births. But even those who do get married are more likely to have childless marriages than at any time in American history, save the Carter years. As a result, both Schilling and Stone call for pro-natalist interventions in light of these statistics. Schilling bluntly concludes that, “the United States also needs a serious pro-marriage agenda that will dramatically improve the economic and social supports and opportunities for young people to pair off and start families.”
However, the idea that any sort of intervention—itself generated by threats and coercion—would somehow generate love within a household, from fathers to children specifically, is a non-sequitur. There isn’t any such thing as coerced love. Rather, what both Lyman and Schilling are identifying is that the value of fatherhood, which is by definition a non-compensatory form of work—call it a labor of love—is devalued through the mechanisms that emerge in the inflation culture.
It’s been pointed out that, in such a culture, the value placed upon both paid labor activities in the market and in unpaid ones in the home are discounted. This is true for both the unpaid roles of motherhood and fatherhood alike. When coupled with the welfare state, the absence of fathers becomes a household income premium, while driving more and more mothers into the paid labor force. This indeed offers an explanation for the so-called “Feminization ‘U’” offered up by Nobel laureate, Claudia Golden, and those who’ve followed her research agenda. Rather than female labor force participation rates being deterministically driven by industrialization, the rapid rise in this metric began with its nadir in—you guessed it—the early 1910s, at the birth of the Federal Reserve. In fact, all household and unpaid labor has been devalued by the financialization of the economy, spurred by the central bank.
For all their merits, the speakers and topics at NatalCon 25 have been long on details bemoaning fertility decline and state interventions to address the problem, but it has come up short in recognizing the underlying causes of the demoralization and devaluation of fathers and mothers alike. Striking at the root of financialization, and the discounting of these bedrock relationships, will go much farther in maintaining a civilized society than any form of intervention ever could.
Trump Hints At ‘Possible’ US Entry Into War Amid Stepped-Up Israeli Daytime Attacks On Tehran
After Saturday reports widely said that Israel requested direct US military assistance in attacking Iranian nuclear sites, President Trump in fresh comments to ABC News has begun to change the White House tune a little, as he now says it’s ‘possible’ the US ‘could get involved’ in the Israel-Iran conflict.
He told ABC’s Rachel Scott that “it’s possible we could get involved” – however he emphasized that the US military is “not at this moment involved” in the conflict. He pivoted to calling for peaceful resolution, saying the US would be “open” to Russian President Vladimir Putin being a mediator in. “He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it,” Trump said. Of course, he campaigned against new wars starting and said these major conflicts would not have happened if he was president.
Regional sources are reporting on Sunday the highest number of observed strikes in daylight in an around Tehran. Israel’s military says that over 80 sites were hit overnight, and has vowed to “hunt down” ballistic missile launchers in western Iran. Radar and anti-air defense batteries were also struck “as part of the IDF’s aerial superiority in Iranian airspace.”
The densely populated capital of around 15 million has seen hundreds of thousands leave the city for safety. At least three different areas of Tehran have been heavily targeted in this latest wave, includin Niavaran to the north, and the Valiasr and Hafte Tir squares in the center of the city. Below is a partial list of Israeli attacks on Tehran today so far:
Ministry of Oil
Ministry of Intelligence
Police HQ
IRGC Intelligence HQ
Supreme Court
Heavy daylight strikes over Tehran after Israel’s air force has claimed total air superiority:
— fireofGod1978(فایراف گاد سابق) چهارمین اکانت (@A94132868103641) June 15, 2025
Iran’s emergency authorities have announced the opening of metro stations and mosques to serve as bomb shelters for the public starting Sunday night.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) issued a Persian-language message directed at Iranian civilians as follows: “All individuals currently present or expected to be present in or around military weapons manufacturing facilities and their supporting institutions must immediately evacuate these areas and not return until further notice,” it said.
Key oil sites have continued to get lit up by major Israeli airstrikes…
Huge flames and billowing smoke were seen at the Shahran oil depot in Tehran, following an Israeli attack. pic.twitter.com/MEYU6ognHV
There has been no death toll update since Iran’s UN Ambassador had announced that 78 were killed and more than 320 wounded since the start of early Friday strikes.
As for Israel, its growing casualty count includes at least eleven dead and 200 injured following overnight attacks, which saw whole neighborhoods destroyed in Tel Aviv, and a residential high rise building decimated.
Things in Tehran have gone from bad to worse amid indications of civic infrastructure failure in several places:
Additionally, an assassination campaign continues to be underway, via targeted aerial attacks, but also apparent sabotage utilizing intelligence assets on the ground, as car bombs in Tehran has been reported. According to Times of Israel:
At least 14 Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in Israeli attacks since Friday, including in car bombs, two sources in the Gulf say.
The names of nine of the scientists were published by the IDF yesterday, and it said many of them were successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the “father of the Iranian nuclear project,” who was allegedly assassinated by Israel in 2020.
But overnight Iran scored many devastating hits after launching waves of ballistic – and some reports say even hypersonic – missiles on Israel.
In one notable instance, a residential building in the Israeli city of Bat Yam was severely badly damaged in an Iranian strike. At least six were killed in that single attack another seven have been reported trapped under the rubble, amid ongoing difficult rescue operations.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recently back from Greece, toured the area of the Bat Yam attack. Videos of the scene show that the whole street lies in rubble, and that crews are still searching for survivors.
The danger is that both sides are clearly unleashing full firepower on civilian areas, and some reports say Iran is now targeting Netanyahu’s own residential neighborhood with attacks.
At this point US-Iran nuclear negotiations definitely appear off, though Trump is still seeking to leverage the attacks to urge Iran to quickly make a deal before it gets further destroyed.
President Trump just delivered a powerful tribute to the U.S. Army on its 250th anniversary—and it was nothing short of a spectacle.
The parade reportedly cost $45 million, and every second sent a message.
This is what honoring our troops is supposed to look like.
The celebration opened with a moment of unmistakable patriotism.
Standing tall beside First Lady Melania and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, President Trump held a firm salute during a stirring rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner as the national military parade began rolling through Washington.
It was a moment to remember and also a fitting way to mark President Trump’s 79th birthday.
The celebration opened with a moment of unmistakable patriotism.
Standing tall beside First Lady Melania and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, President Trump held a firm salute during a stirring rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner as the national military parade began rolling… pic.twitter.com/rovP5AxbKl
To kick off the ceremony, the parade honored the original gangsters of the U.S. Army, The Old Guard.
In 1775, the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord, setting off a revolution that changed the course of history.
Thirteen colonies rose up, as farmers and frontiersmen became soldiers. They formed the Continental Army, won at Trenton, endured the harsh winter at Valley Forge, and ultimately forced the British surrender at Yorktown.
That was the birth of the United States of America 🇺🇸
To kick off the ceremony, the parade honored the original gangsters of the U.S. Army, The Old Guard.
In 1775, the “shot heard round the world” was fired at Lexington and Concord, setting off a revolution that changed the course of history.
The parade also paid tribute to generations of American soldiers, from the Revolution to modern day.
In the Civil War, nearly 2 million soldiers fought to preserve the Union. Among them were five future presidents and the first-ever recipients of the Medal of Honor.
The parade also paid tribute to generations of American soldiers, from the Revolution to modern day.
In the Civil War, nearly 2 million soldiers fought to preserve the Union.
Among them were five future presidents and the first-ever recipients of the Medal of Honor. pic.twitter.com/g30ZFciFA3
Trump delivered multiple salutes throughout the parade, including one to Fort Bragg’s finest when the 82nd Airborne Ceremonial Band took the spotlight.
The 82nd earned the nickname “All Americans” because its soldiers came from every U.S. state. That unity is still represented today through their iconic AA patch.
Trump delivered multiple salutes throughout the parade, including one to Fort Bragg’s finest when the 82nd Airborne Ceremonial Band took the spotlight.
The 82nd earned the nickname “All Americans” because its soldiers came from every U.S. state. That unity is still represented… pic.twitter.com/b5JJ6UPxrd
Later, President Trump rose to his feet to salute the U.S. Army Rangers.
The U.S. Army Rangers trace their roots back before the Revolution, emerging from colonial-era conflicts in the 1600s and 1700s.
After 9/11, they were among the first deployed in the global war on terror, leading missions under U.S. Army Special Operations Command. Today, they remain the Army’s premier direct-action raid force.
Later, President Trump rose to his feet to salute the U.S. Army Rangers.
The U.S. Army Rangers trace their roots back before the Revolution, emerging from colonial-era conflicts in the 1600s and 1700s.
A blast from the past stole the show as the iconic Sherman tank just rolled in.
The M4 Sherman was the cornerstone of U.S. military power in World War II. It was named by the British after Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman and went on to become one of the most influential tank designs of the 20th century. Nearly 50,000 units were produced during the war, and the Sherman remained in active service all the way until 1957.
An unstoppable force—then and now.
A blast from the past stole the show as the iconic Sherman tank just rolled in.
The M4 Sherman was the cornerstone of U.S. military power in World War II. It was named by the British after Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman and went on to become one of the most… pic.twitter.com/vdYrBl0c9z
Trump’s celebration then put a spotlight on next-gen firepower, starting with the Army’s newest weapons.
Soldiers marched with the XM7 rifle and XM250 automatic rifle, both equipped with the XM157 optic. These advanced systems give troops greater accuracy, speed, and adaptability on the battlefield, designed to perform in high-pressure, fast-changing combat environments.
Next came the Infantry Squad Vehicle, a lightweight transport built for speed and agility across harsh terrain.
Rolling behind was the S-MET trailer, a robotic hauler built to carry heavy loads through difficult terrain without slowing soldiers down.
And overhead, a trio of small unmanned aerial systems—Ghost X, C-100, and X-10D—flew above the formation. These drones provide real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, giving soldiers eyes in the sky and the upper hand in complex environments.
Together, these tools reflect a military that’s not just keeping up, but staying ahead.
Trump’s celebration then put a spotlight on next-gen firepower, starting with the Army’s newest weapons.
Soldiers marched with the XM7 rifle and XM250 automatic rifle, both equipped with the XM157 optic. These advanced systems give troops greater accuracy, speed, and… pic.twitter.com/Nr9Bpg6eOO
The crowd watched in awe as a futuristic “ghost robot dog” rolled into view, straight out of a sci-fi film.
The robotic canine is one of the Army’s latest innovations. It’s used for reconnaissance and bomb detection missions in high-risk environments.
These robots are built for danger. They help reduce the risk to human and animal life in combat zones, with the ability to walk at 2 mph and sprint at nearly 7 mph.
Pretty cool, right?
And then came the jaw-dropper.
The crowd watched in awe as a futuristic “ghost robot dog” rolled into view, straight out of a sci-fi film.
The robotic canine is one of the Army’s latest innovations. It’s used for reconnaissance and bomb detection missions in high-risk… pic.twitter.com/B9y4Qr7TrU
As the parade came to a close, one thing was clear: this wasn’t just about history. It was about pride, power, and progress.
The event reportedly cost around $45 million, but it was money well spent—a strong reminder of who we are, what we’ve fought for, and where we’re headed.
As the parade came to a close, one thing was clear: this wasn’t just about history. It was about pride, power, and progress.
The event reportedly cost around $45 million, but it was money well spent—a strong reminder of who we are, what we’ve fought for, and where we’re headed. pic.twitter.com/WqcqqTTPFA
In a time when patriotism is too often taken for granted, this parade brought it front and center.
And for a couple of unforgettable hours in Washington, the country stood united, saluting those who serve, and those who still carry the mission forward.
Following California Democrat Senator Alex Padilla’s unhinged meltdown where he aggressively confronted DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, Democrats all apparently received a firmware update with a fresh talking point.
Padilla lurched unannounced toward Noem, ranting and raving about mass deportations, before security quickly intervened.
Padilla’s behaviour was so insane that even CNN denounced it, praising the security officials who confronted him and took him down.
This analysis is exactly right. He wasn’t forced out for just ‘asking a question’ pic.twitter.com/zzG3bzqcMP
NEW: Sen. ALEX PADILLA, along with fellow California Sen. ADAM SCHIFF and the DNC are fundraising off of Padilla being removed from yesterday’s DHS press conference in Los Angeles pic.twitter.com/FJLVjySntf
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Watch: Shots Fired At Utah ‘No Kings’ Protest: Two Wounded, Three In Custody
In an incident captured in dramatic bystander videos, gunfired erupted at Salt Lake City’s “No Kings” protest march on Saturday evening, sending participants running for cover and sending a victim to the hospital in critical condition, as well as a suspect who himself has a serious gunshot wound.Three people are in policy custody, yet the precise circumstances and motive for the shooting are far from clear as the story develops.
In one of many demonstrations against the Trump administration’s immigration and other policies held across the nation on Saturday, some 10,000 people were marching in Salt Lake City when a series of shots rang out on South State Street at 7:56 pm local time. In the first clip in this mash-up video, a woman quickly recognizes the sound and rushes her companions to cover down a side street:
🚨#BREAKING: No Kings protesters scatter in panic, running for cover after multiple shots are fired into the crowd.
Watch as thousands of protesters flood the streets of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the nationwide ‘No Kings’ demonstration only for panic to… pic.twitter.com/YvzgidQU98
Witness Kris Pendleton told the Salt Lake City Tribune he and his wife were hurrying to catch up with the back of the march when he heard gunfire. At the second shot, he turned to see “a guy about 10 to 15 feet away from me in a yellow vest, and he was shooting somebody…[they] seemed like someone who knew what they were doing. Maybe it was an armed security guard or a police officer…I was kind of deer in the headlights and my wife grabbed my arm and said, ‘We need to run’.” Another marcher saw the critically-wounded victim“drop to his knees and then face-plant.”
“Officers responded to the scene and found one person with a critical gunshot wound. Those injuries are considered life-threatening,” said Salt Lake City police in a statement. “Preliminarily, the SLCPD believes the shooting involved four people.” SLCPD left unclear what was meant by “involved,” but assured residents there are no remaining suspects at large, and there are no continuing threats to the city.
Another dramatic video shows bystanders guiding responding officers to the alleged shooter, who appeared to be trying to blend in with the crowd. A bystander yells to police, “HE’S RIGHT THERE!!” The suspect immediately finds himself looking at the business end of a policeman’s AR-15 and being ordered to “GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND!”
Crazy video shows Salt Lake City, Utah suspect hiding in plain sight among protesters. Someone spotted a rifle in his backpack and alerted law enforcement. pic.twitter.com/fFvzcETDNA
Taken a few moments after police closed in, another video shows a pair of frightened lady-leftists gathering themselves off the sidewalk as cops cuff and search the black-clad suspect:
🚨 BREAKING: Hearing the “No Kings” shooter now in custody in Salt Lake City is an ANTIFA militant.
If that’s confirmed, this wasn’t protest—it was an ideological hit job.
The media won’t admit it.
But the pattern is getting impossible to ignore.
“The violence we’ve seen today in Salt Lake City and elsewhere in the country is horrific—it’s just not who we are,” said Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall. “We deserve to feel safe, especially when exercising our First Amendment rights.” Her “elsewhere” reference no doubt related to the Saturday-morning assassination of a Minnesota state legislator, the murder of her husband, and the shooting of another legislator and his wife. The alleged perpetrator of that incident, Vance Luther Boelter, is still at large.
WASHINGTON—When President Donald Trump joins world leaders at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada on June 15, he’ll find a different agenda awaiting him. In a significant departure from recent years, the host nation is sidelining climate action and gender equality, issues that were once central to the summit’s mission.
This year’s gathering will prioritize issues such as energy security, artificial intelligence (AI), critical mineral supply chains, and global economic stability, reflecting a shift in priorities driven by Trump’s return to the White House and a renewed focus on the G7’s original mission, according to experts.
Trade tensions, heightened by recent U.S. tariffs, along with geopolitical crises like the Israel–Iran escalation, the Russia–Ukraine war, and the Gaza conflict, will also be key topics in the leaders’ discussions.
Many believe Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, as the host of this year’s summit, is adopting a pragmatic approach to ensure the meeting addresses the most pressing challenges that resonate with all member countries.
If topics such as climate change or gender are raised, leaders are unlikely to go beyond existing agreements or make new commitments, Paul Samson, head of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a Canada-based think tank, told The Epoch Times.
Many organizations and even some countries are hoping for new commitments on gender and climate, he noted, “but it’s not going to happen at this table.”
“They wouldn’t even be able to get it in the communiqué with President Trump there,” he said.
The upcoming meeting, which marks the 50th anniversary of the G7, will be held in Kananaskis, Alberta, from June 15 to 17.
The group—which comprises the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union—represents more than half of global GDP.
“We applaud the back-to-basics approach the Canadians have taken on the G7, focusing on core economic issues and actionable issues where the G7 can have a meaningful, measurable impact,” a U.S. official told The Epoch Times.
Summit Agenda
Canada’s priorities for this year’s summit focus on three main areas. The first one is protecting communities and the world by addressing issues such as “foreign interference and transnational crime,” according to the agenda, and improving joint responses to wildfires.
The second priority is enhancing energy security and accelerating the use of AI and quantum technologies. This involves strengthening critical mineral supply chains.
Lastly, Canada aims to discuss future partnerships by increasing private investment in infrastructure, creating high-paying jobs, and opening dynamic markets.
“The G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis is a moment for Canada to work with reliable partners to meet challenges with unity, purpose, and force,” Carney said in a statement. “Canada is ready to lead.”
The leaders will focus on areas where common ground is possible, according to Samon, particularly around energy supply chains and how to power the AI and data revolution. Discussions may include joint projects, shared data centers, and ways to strengthen supply chains, possibly through partners like India.
The first Trump administration believed the G7 had strayed from its original mission by focusing too much on controversial issues, according to Caitlin Welsh, director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Welsh previously served on the National Security Council and National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.
Speaking at a recent CSIS press briefing, she said that this year’s agenda appears to align with the G7’s original mission of promoting global economic stability and growth.
“You can note the absence of terms like ‘climate change’ and ‘gender’ and other things from this leaders’ summit agenda,” she said. “This list of priorities conveys to me that Canada knows its audience.”
Trump’s First Canada Summit
The last time Canada hosted the G7 summit in 2018, during Trump’s first term, relations between then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump were notably strained. The summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, ended with heightened tensions over trade. Trump left early and declined to endorse the joint communiqué. It was the first time in G7 history that the final statement was not unanimously backed by all leaders.
A widely circulated photo from the 2018 summit captured the tension of the moment with Germany’s then-Chancellor Angela Merkel leaning over a table, speaking to Trump, who sat with his arms crossed, looking up at her.
CSIS experts believe such drama is unlikely in 2025.
“For most European leaders, the political incentives really aren’t there to sort of manufacture a confrontation with Trump,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the CSIS, said during the briefing.
As seen in recent months, most leaders are expected to take a cordial approach similar to their one-on-one meetings with Trump at the White House, he said.
China Looms Large
China will be a central focus at the summit.
Leaders are expected to express concerns over rising tensions in the East and South China Seas and China’s ongoing military build-up. As in past years, they will likely emphasize what the G7 has said is the need for “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”
According to Samon, China will be an underlying theme across the summit’s discussions, even if not named in the final communiqué. He noted that key agenda items like transnational crime, critical minerals, and advanced technologies are designed to counter the Chinese regime’s growing global influence.
Meanwhile, Carney’s interactions with Trump will draw close attention, particularly amid trade tensions. The United States recently doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, citing the flood of low-cost Chinese metals into global markets.
Trump has also pressed Canada and Mexico on fentanyl trafficking and suggested Canada should become the 51st U.S. state to get free “golden dome” protection—a proposed multilayered defense system.
In contrast to the retaliatory measures of previous years, Carney has adopted a measured approach, exempting certain products from counter-tariffs to protect Canadian businesses and consumers from rising costs. He is also engaged in direct talks with Trump to finalize a trade agreement, according to the Canadian media.
While no deal has been finalized, it remains to be seen whether an agreement will be reached before Carney and Trump meet one-on-one on the summit’s sidelines.
Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.
Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”
Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.
But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.
Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.
They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.
AfD
The AfD, an anti-mass immigration party, which came second in Germany’s national parliamentary elections, earning nearly 21 percent of the vote, was recently denied allotted committee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships.
The party is locked in a legal battle with the state to avoid being branded an “extremist” right-wing movement by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency.
AfD’s policies include strong support for traditional marriage between a man and woman and the nuclear family, the preservation of national independence in the face of the European Union’s increasing power, the preservation of German culture amid “European integration” and Islamization, and border security, including the expulsion of illegal immigrants.
But this doesn’t seem to have dented the party’s popularity in the polls. According to a recent INSA survey, the AfD is at 24.5 percent, hot on the heels of the CDU at 26 percent.
A similar pattern is being seen in other countries.
Early in June, the Dutch government collapsed after Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders said his party would pull out of the governing coalition.
Wilders asked coalition partners to sign up to a plan to cut illegal immigration, which included using the army to protect Dutch borders, rejecting all illegal immigrants, sending Syrian refugees back to their country, and closing asylum shelters.
At the time, he said that if the country’s immigration policy was not strengthened, the PVV would be “out of the Cabinet.” He followed through on the threat.
In Austria, conservatives, Social Democrats, and liberals formed a coalition in March to block the anti-immigration and euro-skeptic Freedom Party from taking power, even after it won an electoral victory with 29 percent of the vote last September.
The party was founded in 1956 by Anton Reinthaller, a former SS officer and member of the Reichstag.
Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron called a surprise snap election on June 9, following his centrist Renaissance party’s poor performance in European Parliament elections when the populist and nationalist party National Rally (RN) performed very strongly.
But RN has increased its voter share ahead of the French presidential elections, which are scheduled to be held in or around April 2027, and is currently polling at 35 percent.
In 2023, Socialist Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called a snap national election after his party was beaten in local government polls by the conservative People’s Party (PP) and the nationalist Vox.
Sanchez managed to retain power but only after months of wrangling with regional parties and a controversial power deal with Catalan separatists.
Vox, founded in 2013, is now the third-largest force in the Spanish Parliament.
‘We Were Excluded’
Explaining the AfD situation in Germany, Richard Schenk, research fellow at MCC Brussels, told The Epoch Times that freezing out the AfD will have “certain consequences.”
“AfD can now just exactly claim: ‘We were excluded from the decisions that led to this chaos. You excluded us. We wanted to participate, to put forward proposals, to take responsibility, but you excluded us. So we really do not have to do anything with the mess that’s currently going on,’” said Schenk.
“This is, in the long run, making the AfD more powerful than any committee chairmanships.”
Efforts in the European Parliament have also seen the Greens and liberal Renew Europe groups join forces with the pro-European EPP (European People’s Party) to enforce the cordon sanitaire.
Members of Patriots for Europe, which includes the parties of France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and the ESN (Europe of Sovereign Nations), in which the AfD plays a leading role, were sidelined last year without gaining any senior committee posts, according to The Parliament magazine.
‘Militant Democracy’
Some analysts say the cordon sanitaire is rooted in democracy’s built-in safeguards.
The think tank German Marshall Fund said in a report last year that it believes mainstreaming such parties will further legitimize “the far right and normalize previously marginal or unacceptable policy positions, including ones contrary to European values.”
David Ucko, nonresident senior fellow at the Global and National Security Institute (GNSI) at the University of South Florida, told The Epoch Times that it is a long-running tradition “to set out certain rules of the game” within democratic institutions.
“If you don’t follow [the rules], you don’t get to play the game,” he said.
“What you’re seeing with the various efforts, sometimes called ‘militant democracy,’ is simply an attempt by the state, albeit through the serving government, to ensure that the constitutional rules of democracy are being followed.”
He said the targeted party could be “left wing or right wing,” but if they abrogate the rules of the game, then they “break the constitutional entry requirement to be a democratic contender. “
“The notion of shutting a party out or sanctioning a party for values or speech or for actions that go against a constitutional setup of that democratic system is neither unprecedented nor, I think, inherently wrong,” he said.
‘No Potential for Peaceful Political Change’
Others say that such a high-stakes tactic could encourage a drift toward confrontation.
David Betz, professor of war in the modern world in the department of war studies at King’s College London, has discussed in his studies that forces are driving the West toward civil war.
“I’m not going to say it leads; I’d say it is part of the overall picture,” he told The Epoch Times.
He said that governments are “closing off other political voices.”
“We’re not doing natural politics anymore, and all it does is it convinces people that the system itself is invidious, and that there is no potential for peaceful political change.”
Betz has noted in his work that approximately 75 percent of post-Cold War civil conflicts have been fought by ethnic factions, and that immigration is a central bone of contention for the populist parties.
“The two things are deeply interrelated,” he said.
“These are movements which are almost completely animated by people’s sense of frustrated nationalism, essentially frustrated patriotism.
“They are movements which are animated by a perception of being displaced in their own lands, but also at the same time of having been betrayed by their own political elite. So you have both an ethnic conflict and a conservative revolt or a nationalist revolt at the same time.”
Demetrius Floudas, a former policy and geopolitical adviser to cabinet-level decision-makers for several governments, including the British Foreign Office, warned of a potential backlash.
Floudas told The Epoch Times by email that “historically, political exclusion has often led to increased radicalisation and occasionally to a surge in popularity for the excluded parties. Besides, such tactics may backfire by eroding public trust in democratic systems.”
“For God’s sake, fire!” A return volley of musket and rifle fire boomed across the Concord River near the North Bridge. “The shot heard round the world” had just been unleashed upon the 220 British soldiers by the colonial militia and minutemen. The volley sent the British retreating to Concord and then to Lexington, where they had earlier fired upon and dispersed the 70 local militia, killing eight and wounding 10. Their return to Lexington would be the start of a 12-mile scramble back to Boston.
Throughout the night of April 18 and the early morning hours of April 19, 1775, word had spread in the Boston area that the British were coming to confiscate or destroy the locals’ gunpowder and materiel in Concord. By the time British soldiers reached the North Bridge, hundreds of militia members were out in force. By the time the British began their retreat back to Boston, thousands descended upon them, firing from behind trees, stone walls, houses, and buildings. What began as an act of suppression by imperial troops turned into a route by a mass of colonial volunteers.
This was the beginning of arguably the greatest military upset in history. Four days later, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress attempted to organize the disjointed militias across several colonies to create the Army of Observation. It was not until June 14 that the 13 colonies agreed to combine their disparate militias into one fighting force: the Continental Army.
This decision to combine militias marked the beginning of what would become known as the United States Army. Though originating from very humble beginnings, the Army would end the Revolutionary War with quite a first feather in its cap: defeating the British—the most powerful military at the time. To witness its rise from scrappy underdog during the 18th century to becoming a peer of imperial states in the 19th century to becoming the greatest military power the world has ever witnessed by the 20th century is to witness the rise of America itself.
Indeed, just as neither could have existed without the other, the heart behind their existence was mutual. To understand that mutuality, one must recall the volunteers who arrived in Lexington and Concord and all along the 12-mile strip now known as Battle Road.
Worth Fighting For
Before the start of the American Revolution, the colonies had successfully practiced self-government for 150 years by way of Great Britain’s unofficial policy of salutary neglect. The British Americans had established a way of life in the colonies, and it was believed that, although living 3,000 miles from London, they were represented fairly in Parliament. The colonists—-despite the name and despite the distance from the mother country—believed they were English citizens, and therefore subject to all the rights and privileges thereof. These—though certainly not at the same level as we appreciate today—included freedom of movement, religion, and trade; equality before the law; and political participation. In 1765, when the colonists were informed that Parliament passed the Stamp Act, it began a decade of changing perspectives and, eventually, a change of loyalty.
This change of loyalty to Parliament, and eventually the monarchy, however, was never directed toward what the colonists believed were rightfully theirs: the rights and privileges of British subjects. The heart behind what led to the commercial boycotts and the political gatherings and pamphleteering of the late 1760s and early 1770s was the same as that which led to their taking up arms in 1775. What had been gained by their ancestors over the past 150 years was much too precious to relinquish.
A 250-Year Legacy
Undoubtedly, those who hurried toward Lexington, Concord, and the road to Boston, had their beliefs summarized precisely by Patrick Henry, less than a month before that historic day. He stated, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
This sense of urgency to protect what Americans have viewed as their most precious commodities—the right to be free in their persons, equality before the law, and the power of consent—has fueled the purpose behind the United States Army for 250 years.
The U.S. Army has long served to protect its people and the core values of this nation. It befriended the French and the Spanish to defeat the British during the Revolution. It sailed with the Navy to humble the Barbary pirates. It fought to fend off the British again during the War of 1812. For nearly a century, it protected settlers against tribal attacks. It defeated the Mexicans and opened the path across the continent. It fought, defeated, and forgave its southern compatriots in the War Between the States. It enforced the Monroe Doctrine by ousting the Spanish from the Western hemisphere. It rescued the world from militarism—twice. It bled and died in the struggle against communism, resulting in the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union. It has pursued terrorists around the globe.
The American conviction that people generally should be free and equal has led the U.S. Army across the continent and across the globe. As with America itself, there have been missteps. In step with its nation’s geostrategic goals, the Army has often followed an idealistic and, at times, wrongheaded approach in the name of freedom and equality, and at times more crudely for reasons of trade and expansion.
Even in these missteps, this now greatest military power in the world has never been subject to itself, but to the American people. Consider that during its 250 years—a year longer than its nation’s existence—it has never attempted a coup. What nation—powerful or weak—can make such a boast?
A Promise Kept
When it comes to the pride of America, what is more prominent in our minds than the military? And this pride does not simply stem from its incredible victories across two and a half centuries, from Trenton to Baghdad. Or its brilliant soldiers and commanders—certainly far too many to name. Furthermore, a third of our 45 presidents—George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower—served in the Army. The fact that none of those presidents gained the highest political office via a coup only further highlights that aforementioned shared purpose between the state and the military. Washington’s resignation from his military position at the end of the Revolutionary War set this high and noble standard.
Yes, the United States stands for freedom and equality. “All men are created equal,” wrote our famous statesman, Thomas Jefferson. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But those rights must be defended. The initial disdain the Founders, among them Jefferson, had for standing armies soon melted away. The initial understanding the militia and minutemen volunteers possessed in April 1775, that what they held most dear—the rights and privileges of English subjects—was worth fighting and dying for, matured into the Continental Army on June 14, and became, through thick and thin, the United States Army—the greatest military power on Earth and, since 1973, an all-volunteer army—endeavoring to protect, through great sacrifice, what we hold most dear—the rights and privileges of American citizens.
Throughout this 250-year existence, side-by-side with its country, has been the motto, a practical statement of faith, that encapsulates the purpose, the heart, behind the Army’s existence: “This We’ll Defend.” It is the “This”—freedom, equality, and national sovereignty—that makes such a promise worth keeping.
