Novo Nordisk’s obesity-drug franchise has surged at a remarkable pace. In just four years, revenue from its weight-management treatments ballooned roughly tenfold – from about $1.3 billion in 2021 to approximately $12.4 billion in 2025. The growth has been fueled largely by Wegovy, the company’s blockbuster weight-loss drug built around the active ingredient semaglutide and marketed as a once-weekly injection.

Semaglutide itself was originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes and continues to be sold under the brand name Ozempic for that purpose. The primary difference between the two products lies in dosage. As Statista notes, Wegovy is formulated at higher semaglutide levels for weight management, while Ozempic is designed for blood-sugar control in diabetic patients. In practice, however, Ozempic has frequently been prescribed off-label for weight loss – a practice that is restricted or prohibited in several European Union countries.

Regardless of branding, the United States has emerged as Novo Nordisk’s most important market. According to the company’s 2025 annual report, the U.S. accounts for the overwhelming share of sales for both Ozempic and Wegovy. For drugs marketed specifically for weight loss, more than 60% of global revenue comes from the American market – a reflection of both the country’s large pharmaceutical sector and its high obesity rates, which have helped make the U.S. the epicenter of the global GLP-1 boom.

Authored by Greg Hunter via usawatchdog.com,

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) predicted that by March, silver would likely suffer a failure to deliver physical metal at COMEX. In other words, demand for physical silver will swamp the existing supply. The math is scary and simple, and Holter breaks it down, “The registered inventory at COMEX in silver is 86 million ounces. On the second day of March, there are already 52 million ounces of silver standing for delivery. That leaves 30 million to 35 million ounces unspoken for. . .. This looks dicey. If they have 52 million ounces standing for delivery now, where is it going to be at the end of the month? If silver fails to deliver, then what you are going to have in the gold market is buyers stepping up that normally would not even buy and ask for delivery. . .. The bottom line is if silver fails to deliver, gold will fail to deliver in 24 hours. Once that happens, then confidence breaks. . .. You are looking at two quadrillion dollars in derivatives in a global economy with $350 trillion in debt with an underlying $100 trillion annual GDP. The math does not work. I think silver, and I have said this for many years, silver will be the spark or the fuse that lights off gold, which then lights off the derivatives time bomb. Warren Buffett calls derivatives weapons of mass financial destruction.”

Mr. Gold thinks, “When the system resets, governments will start a money print fest that will touch off global hyperinflation. . .. The pure math of debt outstanding is that it cannot be repaid in current terms. It will be hyperinflation of the things we need and hyper-deflation of the things we already have. . .. How is somebody going to buy your house if the capital is not there? If the capital is not there, then the price is going to have to come down. . .. It is highly likely that silver will kick off the demise of the financial system.”

Mr. Gold thinks this kind of global debt will go bad fast. Holter warns, “When this thing cascades and collapses, you are either in place, or you are out of place. If you are out of place, you will not be able to repair your mistake. It will be a lifetime mistake to have not gotten ready. Let me just say there is a difference in being early and being wrong. In 2000 to 2005, if you were buying gold or you were buying silver, you were an idiot, a complete idiot, and people thought you walked around with a tin foil hat on. . .. Now, we are at the point where the best place to have invested your money since January 2000 would be in gold or silver. When Noah was running around building his ark, he looked wrong. He was not wrong–he was just early.”

Watch:

Via notalotofpeopleknowthat blog,

Apparently our climate propagandists are not bothered about the Mad Mullahs!

War makes climate change worse in many ways, and vice versa.

The US-Israel attacks on Iran that began over the weekend have killed hundreds of civilians and sent oil prices soaring, but this war also promises to unleash massive amounts of planet-warming gases at a time when civilization is already hurtling toward irreversible climate breakdown.

Not every story about the Iran war needs to make the climate connection, but climate change is essential context if the public and policymakers are to understand the full dimensions of this conflict.

Join Covering Climate Now and a panel of experts for a discussion about the geopolitical and climate implications of the war on Iran, which has one of the world’s largest oil reserves.

Their only concern is that a war might put a bit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere!

They would no doubt be much happier with a nuclear winter!

At least it will lower global warming.

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The Russian-Polish security dilemma will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy.

RT drew attention in late January to a report by Izvestia about the West’s alleged plans to launch a “Defense, Security, and Resilience Bank” (DSRB) by 2027. Their article relies on in-depth research by the Atlantic Council, which came up with the idea of what was at first called the “NATO Bank”. The purpose is to provide “low-interest loans for defense modernization”, thus facilitating the goal of NATO members spending 5% of GDP on defense without significantly curtailing social and infrastructure spending.

Instead of slashing such programs to redirect funds to defense at the risk of helping populist-nationalists during the next elections and/or provoking unrest, they’d only spend a fraction of the principal each year servicing their DSRB loan instead of paying the cost upfront as if it was part of their annual expenditures. The Executive Summary of the Atlantic Council’s in-depth research hyperlinked to above also notes that “An additional critical function of the DSR bank would be to underwrite the risk for commercial banks”.

This would then “enabl[e] them to extend financing to defense companies across the supply chain.” The supplementary purpose is to finance large-scale orders that these companies themselves are unable to afford on their own and most member states can’t finance either without potential populist pushback. Defense companies can then expand production, pump out the requested military-technical equipment at scale, and then sell it at a much more affordable price for accelerating NATO’s planned militarization.

The bloc’s Eastern Flank, which largely overlaps with the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative”, is expected to benefit the most. Poland is already poised to receive €44 billion in loans from the EU’s €150 billion “Security Action For Europe” program (SAFE, which is part of the €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan”). This should help modernize its embarrassingly underdeveloped military-industrial complex and thus enable Poland to serve as the regional core of associated processes across the rest of the Eastern Flank.

The aforesaid role would become much more likely if it and Lithuania succeed in creating a defense-centric cross-border economic zone across the Suwalki Corridor/Gap like the latter just proposed. The US National Defense Strategy assessed that “European NATO dwarfs Russia in economic scale, population, and, thus, latent military power.” This potential just needs to be fully unleashed and properly managed. Poland could pioneer the way if it allows the US to advise it on the optimal use of SAFE and DSRB loans.

It was already assessed that “Poland Will Play A Central Role In Advancing The US’ National Security Strategy In Europe” so it therefore naturally follows that it’ll play a central role in the National Defense Strategy too. Poland already spends more of its GDP on defense than any other NATO member at 4.8%, however, so anything much more might result in curtailing social and infrastructure spending, but therein lies the importance of the DSRB for enabling Poland to avert that trade-off as was explained.

Poland’s debt-to-GDP is 55.1%, which is far below the EU’s 80.7%, so it could take on more debt through these means without too much socio-political discomfort. This is feasible after Poland just became a $1 trillion economy. Any additional military spending fueled by the DSRB would further accelerate Poland’s unprecedented militarization, which has led to it having the EU’s largest army at over 215,000 troops, with plans to reach 300,000 by 2030 and half a million by 2039 (200,000 of which would be reservists).

From Russia’s perspective, this poses a serious threat to Kaliningrad and allied Belarus, ergo why it’s expected to correspondingly bolster its forces there in response. That could also include the deployment of more strategic arms to Belarus like tactical nukes, hypersonic Oreshniks, and/or whatever else it might develop by then. Such responses are in turn expected to be portrayed by Poland as the reason for its unprecedented militarization that policymakers might then demand to be sped up even further.

The Russian-Polish security dilemma, which is due to their millennium-old rivalry and the US’ empowering of Poland as an anti-Russian proxy, will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy. Any progress in this direction would compel Russia to keep pace with this hostile bloc’s Polish-led militarization, therefore resulting in its own continued militarization and consequently an arms race.

Unlike European NATO members which will have to take out loans to finance this, hence the purpose of the DSRB, Russia can finance everything on its own. This places Russia in a much better financial position than its adversaries, some of whom are expected to struggle with balancing their perceived military priorities with their objective socio-economic ones.

Accordingly, Russia has the edge in this impending arms race with Europe, but the EU’s potential federalization could narrow the gap if it ever happens.

What did Ancient Rome look like at its peak in 117 AD? 

The map below from Visual Capitalist shows the maximum territorial extent ever achieved by the Roman Empire, just after their successful wars in the east, where Emperor Trajan captured Dacia (Romania), Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon (in modern-day Iraq).

Click on the map to expand…

As Visual Capitalist explains further, although Trajan is rated as one of the best Roman Emperors by historians and was considered one of the strongest military leaders in Roman history, the reality is that the peak he achieved was very short-lived.

We’ll dig into that and more as we explain this map, which covers one of the most interesting periods in history, leveraging classical and modern sources including Cassius Dio, Plutarch, Cambridge Ancient History, Walter Scheidel, Fergus Millar, Adrian Goldsworthy, Anthony Everitt, and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Trajan: The First Emperor Born Outside of Italy

Trajan was born in Italica, Spain, near modern-day Seville. He was a career soldier and became an extremely competent and respected general. He was adopted as the heir to the childless Nerva, and became emperor after Nerva’s passing in 98 AD.

Once emperor, Trajan was famous for his civic investment and military expansion. He built roads, harbors, aqueducts, and the Forum of Trajan in Rome—but he also conquered distant lands decisively.

The Roman Empire at its Overextended Peak

Various limits—cultural, geographical, logistical, and administrative—seem to prevent historical empires from achieving infinite expansion.

Trajan tested these limits and eventually came upon the breaking point. Dacia (Romania) was arguably his greatest military achievement and remained a Roman province for almost two centuries after. His experiments to the East, however, were less of a slam dunk.

His battles with Parthia (the other Mediterranean superpower at the time) led to quick expansion into Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. However, these vast territorial gains were fragile:

• Supply lines were long, exposed, and costly.
• Massive revolts broke out in Judea and across the Jewish diaspora, in Libya, Egypt, and Cyprus.
• Parthia remained intact as a power, despite symbolic defeats.

In hindsight, the map captures not just Rome’s greatest triumph—but the moment it became overextended.

Could Trajan hold it together as the empire came under strain?

The End of Trajan’s Reign, and a New Imperial Strategy

Conquering territory and holding it are two very different challenges.

With troops diverted across multiple fronts, the new gains quickly started unraveling for Trajan. At the same time, now in his early 60s, his health also began to fail. As he was returning to Rome, he stopped in Cilicia (modern-day southern Türkiye), where he passed away.

Hadrian, the following emperor, immediately recognized that the empire had tested its limits and now needed to consolidate. He built Hadrian’s Wall in the UK, and abandoned most of Trajan’s eastern conquests to focus on stabilization.

Via Remix News,

The Russian government, along with domestic energy companies, is examining whether or not to immediately withdraw from the European market, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a statement to Rossiya 1 television on Wednesday evening.

Putin appears to be reacting to the indication from Brussels that Russian energy may, after all, be needed in the short term, due to the war in Iran and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

However, Putin may just decide to pull the plug now and start transitioning to other countries and regions that are not threatening a ban, reports Hirado.

“They (…) plan to introduce restrictions on the purchase of Russian gas, including liquefied gas, starting in a month, (March) 25. A year later, in (20)27, further restrictions will come into effect, up to a complete ban.

Now other markets are opening up. And perhaps it would be more beneficial for us to stop deliveries to the European market now.

To move to those markets that are opening up and gain a foothold there,” he said.

The move comes at time when gas prices are surging across Europe, leaving the EU vulnerable to a further supply shock.

Putin made clear that no decision has been made in the case.

“We will see what will happen in this area,” he said, “but this is a very dangerous game, especially today.”

 “According to the data available to our services, just as they once blew up the Nord Streams, now in Kyiv, with the support of some Western services, they are preparing to blow up the Blue Stream and the Turkish Stream. We have informed our Turkish friends about this matter,” he said.

The Russian president also called the attack on a Russian gas tanker in the Mediterranean Sea an act of terrorism.

Putin additionally called Russia a reliable supplier, explaining that the increase in European gas prices is not directly related to supplies, because they have not decreased overall, but rather the result of the general situation on the world market.

Read more here…

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Before I begin this analysis of the situation in the Middle East and its consequences, I want to warn people that this examination is going to be largely secular and nuanced; which means people on both sides of the divide are going to piss and moan about it. Frankly, I don’t care.

To be clear, I’m not interested in the “plight” of the Palestinians, the Islamic regime in Iran or the conspiracy theories of “groypers.” I find appeals of empathy and compassion for Islamic societies to be naive – They are perfectly indifferent and hostile to the west, they always have been. They have also formed political alliances with far-left organizations in the US and Europe with the intent to burn the west to the ground. I do not waste my time worrying about them.

In fairness, I also don’t care about the Israeli government and I have no vested interest in whether or not they survive. In the past, Israeli supported organizations have helped in the formation of militant leftist groups and anti-conservative sentiments in the US. The fact that leftist activists have turned on Israel in recent years is rather poetic.

I recognize many Christians would disagree with this position in the belief that Israel is the only western ally keeping watch over the Holy Land. I argue that it should be western Christians (not Israelis) in charge of the region, given it was ours (through the Holy Roman Empire) for centuries, until the Muslim hordes invaded.

I’m also aware that there are numerous disinformation agents online who are paid by both sides. Israel as well as Islamic governments run these digital operations constantly. They expend vast amounts of money to employ armies of social media shills. Their singular job is to disrupt sincere discussion and sway American opinion to support one side or the other.

This tells me a lot about how important the US population is to the geopolitical future of the world. Everyone wants us to pick their team or hate their opponent.

What I care about first and foremost is how geopolitical events and our involvement will affect America and American interests. What I have learned in recent years, though, is that it’s easy enough to predict events but not necessarily outcomes. There are people out there that think every international conflict or crisis is going to end in global doom.

None of them have so far. Of course, all it takes is the right crisis to trigger a Black Swan. This is where I think many of us in the alternative media build lighthouses, warding ships away from the rocky shores of any incident that might become a world-ending singularity.

It’s important to understand that dramatic geopolitical shifts have the potential to act as “linchpins”, impacting our lives through a chain of dominoes that is not immediately apparent until years later. Potential does not mean certainty. As I’ve been pointing out for many years now – collapse is a process, not an event.

In spring of 2024 in my article “Iran vs Israel: What Happens Next Now That Shots Have Been Fired?” I predicted the development of an unavoidable war footing between Iran and the US (with Israel as instigator or convenient rationale) and I argued that this would escalate in the spring of 2025. I was one year off.

In that article I predicted initial air strikes of primary targets. I predicted Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz (which has now happened). I predicted a ground invasion into Lebanon by Israel (which has not happened yet), followed by the eventual ground invasion by US and Israeli forces into Iran.

Immediate consequences could include a spike in oil and gas prices (over 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz). Then there’s elevated possibility of planned and autonomous terror attacks (the recent mass shooting in Austin, TX appears to be the first). There’s the danger of a potential military draft should the war carry on for more than a couple years or if it turns into an occupation dealing with a large insurgency.

Finally, there is the growing chance of increasing hostility with Russia and China leading to an eventual catalyst that causes world war. This is a worst-case scenario viewpoint of the conflict, and not necessarily the most likely outcome.

For example, in Venezuela, black pillers wailed and raged over Donald Trump’s black-bag operation that resulted in the capture of illegitimate dictator Nicolas Maduro. They claimed with certainty that this action would initiate Vietnam Part II. They were entirely wrong.

Millions of Venezuelans around the world rejoiced and the Venezuelan population has done nothing in the name of bringing Maduro back. Trump’s critics ignored the applause from Venezuelan nationals and argued that their opinions don’t matter.

Why? Because their support of Trump’s invasion is inconvenient to the narrative that he’s a “mindless warmonger” and that he is “betraying his voter base.” This is a childish response to complex geopolitical dynamics.

Many dictatorships deserve to die. The libertarian methodology of sitting around and doing nothing while bitching about the people who take action is growing stale. The American public is not inspired by passivity. This does not mean we should go to war with Iran, per se, but I think US patriots are done with ego-stroking debates on constitutional and ideological theory. They want to see results.

If moral justification is the issue, then there is a fair case to be made for the decapitation of the Islamic regime in Iran. The Iranian government engages in the same brutal theocratic oppression we have seen with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but on an industrial scale. If you are a woman, a political dissident or a religious minority in Iran, you have no rights and can be arrested or murdered for any reason at any given moment.

Just because Muslims happen to agree with conservatives that transgender activists are predatory lunatics does not mean we have anything else in common.

Most critics will argue that regime change in Iran is only meant to benefit Israel and not the Iranian people. It actually benefits MANY countries, not just Israel. I would also argue that Trump’s REAL goal is probably to further isolate China from its international oil sources, while Israel is a secondary concern (or a useful excuse).

Trump’s decapitation strategy against Venezuela, his policies on the Panama Canal and his Iran strikes conveniently cut China off from around 20% of its oil resources. This is significant and could change China’s military development efforts dramatically. That said, just because Trump was right on Venezuela does not mean he will be right on Iran.

The US is very good at taking out enemy leadership and blowing stuff up. We are completely inept when it comes to occupation and this is where we always lose. Occupation requires majority support of the foreign population. Without it, there is no point.

In Iran, Trump MIGHT have it. We have to wait and see what the Iranian population does in reaction to the decapitation strikes. If too large a percentage of the populace throws support behind the Islamists, then the limited strikes will have to evolve into a ground war, and a ground war without domestic alliances would turn into a quagmire.

Then there’s the question of the Strait of Hormuz. Clearing the strait and keeping it operational will be difficult. Iran can run interference on oil shipping for months merely by targeting tankers with thousand of drones. I don’t have to explain what one Shahed drone can do to a ship loaded with combustible oil.

If it was my operation, I would target the strait with long range artillery or ballistic missiles supported by drone spotters. All it takes is one large sunken ship to close the Hormuz for weeks. This is a problem IF Trump’s strikes on top officials do not inspire a popular revolution.

The Hormuz closure will mean higher gas prices (though, I suspect part of Trump’s strategy is to use Venezuelan oil exports to offset the Hormuz bottleneck). If Trump can’t keep prices relatively low, then the American public will be very unhappy. We already spent four years suffering under Biden’s inflation. We can’t absorb any more.

Russian and Chinese involvement in the region appears to be limited to weapon sales and logistics. Russia does have a Strategic Partnership Treaty with Iran, but it does not contain a mutual defense clause. I worry far more that elitists in Europe are doing everything in their power to start a world war with Russia by interfering in Ukraine.

Speaking of the OTHER conflict in the east, it’s interesting to me that, under the Biden Administration, Democrats avidly and rabidly demanded direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Like Iran, it’s just another country that has little to do with us, yet they were happy to risk nuclear conflagration over that foreign entanglement. This is why I don’t take leftists seriously at all when it comes to their anti-war rhetoric.

As far as Israel is concerned, yeah, they make off like bandits in this situation. They know they do. I’m sure they are secretly proud of that fact. They would never be able to fight this war alone. But I’m not going to cry over the destruction of a Muslim theocracy just because Israel gains something from it.

The issue is America, and whether or not this war will escalate out of control and turn into a global crisis that harms us. I will admit that Trump has displayed a knack for executing limited military operations with far-reaching effects at limited cost. He has proven the blackpillers wrong on several occasions.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth asserts that there will be no quagmire. If this is possible to pull off, then it will be the Trump Administration’s greatest magic trick yet.

If it’s not possible, then the outcome will be chaos and civil breakdown in Iran followed by balkanization, tribal warfare and widespread insurgency far outside the boundaries of the country. Trying to clean up the mess would likely result in the same kind of failed occupation the US experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s a gamble that risks a sharp division within the conservative base. It also risks the extremist left coming back into power. Any major disaster on Trump’s watch could serve the interests of globalists seeking to exploit a crisis to further demonize the concepts of nationalism and conservatism.

At that point, the only solution would have to be a total and unrelenting crusade, with or without the Trump Admin.

If we want to protect our children and the future in general, the leftist cult can never be allowed to take power again. Third world migrants cannot be allowed to stay in the US. And, globalists can’t be allowed to remain as social engineers influencing world events.

There are many people who oppose the elites who also see a substantial failure by Trump as an opportunity to “kick off the boogaloo.” They see chaos as a chance to finally put the greater underlying war against the globalists and multiculturalists to rest. I’m not sure I disagree. What I do know is that this would cost a considerable number of innocent lives, but maybe it can’t be avoided.

The success or failure of the Trump Presidency changes little in terms of our ultimate responsibility to ensure that the globalists face justice.

For now, I am erring on the side of an Iranian government collapse and a win for Trump after a couple months of limited strikes and covert ops. In the meantime I expect a wave of attempted terror attacks, even more NGO paid riots by leftists activists and probably an emergency effort by DHS to deport most Muslim immigrants from the country. The cynics say “nothing ever happens”, except when something happens. Keep your head on a swivel.

As the AI and data center explosion threatens to overwhelm the grid, the Trump administration organized a commitment from the hyperscalers driving that demand: pay your own way, or don’t build here.

*TRUMP: TELLING BIG TECH THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN POWER

*TRUMP: NEGOTIATED NEW RATE PAYER PLEDGE ON DATA CENTER ENERGY

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 25, 2026

On March 4, the White House rolled out the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, signed by Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI. The deal is simple and overdue: these companies must build, bring, or buy every new megawatt they need, and then some. No more socializing the costs onto ordinary ratepayers already hammered by years of green-mandate fallout.

The five core commitments are straightforward:

•  Full funding of new generation: Companies cover 100% of new power plants or purchases, with extra capacity added where possible to actually benefit the broader grid.

•  Infrastructure upgrades: All transmission and delivery upgrades required for their facilities get paid by them.

•  Take-or-pay rates: New, separate utility contracts mean they pay the full freight for the power and pipes whether they use every watt or not.

•  Local jobs and training: Hiring and skill programs in host communities.

•  Grid resilience backup: Backup generation available to utilities during shortages to prevent blackouts.

As we’ve long documented, from the growing revolt against data centers in political races, where affordability crushed every other issue, to our piece on Democrats still blaming tech while ignoring Biden-Harris green policies that sent Northeast bills soaring to national highs. 

Households and small businesses love nothing more than staring down double-digit rate hikes and skipping rent payments just so Silicon Valley can train the next LLM models.

between exploding electricity bills and lack of jobs for grads, a new luddite revolution is coming – they will be burning down data centers within a year

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 25, 2025

Trump framed it bluntly in the accompanying proclamation: Americans shouldn’t subsidize private AI infrastructure. The pledge explicitly aims to leverage the boom for lower long-term costs and stronger reliability, not higher bills.

It should be noted this is just a “pledge”, and voluntary pledges from trillion-dollar tech giants have a habit of evolving. If enforced, the pledge could mark the first time the AI revolution actually lowers costs for the rest of us instead of raising them.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Much of politics today seems to be driven by the source of policies.

If President Donald Trump or his administration is for it, Democrats are against it. Democrats have pulled 180-degree turns from past support for unilateral military operations by Democratic Presidents to opposing government shutdowns. However, one of the most intriguing has been the opposition to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has launched moves against unhealthy food additives and products.

That was evident yesterday when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) virtually declared war over his effort to press Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks over high-sugar drinks.

Dunkin’ Donuts is clearly an iconic brand, but the lack of support for Kennedy’s food policies is striking in light of the general support of Democrats for Big Gulp laws like the one in New York put forward by former mayor Michael Bloomberg (R).

For the record, I have long opposed efforts to ban unhealthy foods. While I strongly support educational campaigns by the government about such unhealthy choices, I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. I also previously wrote how I believe the Big Gulp law was unlawful. It was later struck down.

In this country and other countries, such as Great Britain, similar measures targeting unhealthy foods have been rallying points for the left.

Yet, Kennedy received pushback after announcing that “We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it.’ I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”

Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.

Kennedy is not necessarily calling for a ban. He has been pushing to improve the food-ingredient approval system by implementing reforms long called for by nutrition advocates. Much of this effort focuses on improving the Generally Recognized as Safe policy. He has been attacking an exemption allowing food companies to independently verify the safety of food additives without the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight.

Kennedy has stated that this “loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply. In Europe there’s only 400 legal ingredients. This agency does not know how many ingredients there are in American food.”

That would seem precisely what many liberals once heralded.

Yet, no democratic administration was ever willing to go head-to-head with these companies.

Kennedy is doing what administrations like the Obama and Biden administrations failed to do.

However, he remains persona non grata on the left, viewed as a traitor as a member of a famous Democratic family who supported Trump. They would rather defend unhealthy food than a party turncoat.

Once again, I generally oppose limits on consumer choices, preferring educational campaigns and healthy guidelines. However, the latest controversy only highlights the flipping of the magnetic poles in American politics.

As things continue to pop off in the Middle East, the United States is still focused on Venezuela – and has brokered a multimillion-dollar gold deal. 

The agreement, first reported by Axios, involves the sale of between 650 and 1,000 kilograms of gold doré bars – which are semi-refined with approximately 98% gold content – from Venezuela’s state-owned mining company, Minerven, to the global commodities trader Trafigura. The gold is destined for refineries in the United States, marking a shift in Venezuela’s resource exports toward American markets.

The deal, valued at roughly $163,000 per kilogram based on current gold prices amid global economic uncertainty, marks the third extraction contract overseen by the Trump administration since U.S. forces captured Maduro on January 3. It’s part of a broader effort to stabilize and reconstruct Venezuela’s economy under U.S. influence, with the White House asserting de facto control over the country’s vast oil reserves – the world’s largest known.

The Role of Key Players in Facilitating the Agreement

According to the report, U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum played a pivotal role in shepherding the contract – traveling to Venezuela to discuss opportunities in oil and minerals, while leveraging his position to bridge the gap between Minerven and Trafigura. Under a separate arrangement with the U.S. government, Trafigura will handle the delivery of the gold to American refineries, ensuring compliance and oversight.

This gold transaction is intertwined with larger oil deals, including contracts worth over $1 billion also involving Trafigura. President Trump highlighted the progress in a post on Truth Social, stating, “The oil is beginning to flow, and the professionalism and dedication between both countries is a very nice thing to see!” He also praised Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, for her cooperation.

Rodríguez, in turn, announced plans to reform Venezuela’s mining laws following her meeting with Burgum, aiming to attract more foreign investment and modernize the sector.

Context: From Sanctions and Conflict to Economic Partnership

The agreement unfolds against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Venezuela tensions that culminated in Maduro’s capture, which the Trump administration justified as a strike against “narco-terrorism.” Prior to this, U.S. sanctions had severely restricted Venezuela’s access to global markets, forcing the Maduro regime to rely on black-market smugglers and allies like Turkey, Iran, Russia, and China for exporting resources such as gold and oil.

A source familiar with the deals emphasized the benefits for Venezuela to Axios: “There was so much corruption before in Venezuela involving black-market smugglers who skimmed money off the top. Now the money for Venezuela’s resources will go to Venezuela’s government and people. And instead of the gold going overseas to Turkey or Iran, that resource is coming to the U.S.”

This shift redirects revenues back to Venezuela’s coffers, providing access to stable U.S. markets and financial systems. It also aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of using Venezuelan oil proceeds—estimated at billions from sales of 30 to 50 million barrels—to fund purchases of American products, including agricultural goods, medicine, and energy infrastructure equipment.

Economic Implications and Broader Geopolitical Ramifications

Economically, the deal could inject much-needed stability into Venezuela’s beleaguered mining industry, which has suffered from years of mismanagement, illegal operations, and environmental degradation. For the U.S., it secures a supply of high-quality gold amid rising global prices, which have surged due to geopolitical uncertainties, including recent U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran.

However, the arrangement has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and liberal groups, who accuse the Trump administration of imperialism and potential corruption. They argue that U.S. oversight of Venezuelan resources prioritizes American interests over genuine aid for the Venezuelan people, potentially exacerbating inequalities in the region.

On a larger scale, this gold deal is part of Trump’s vision to “reimburse” the U.S. for its interventions, as he has stated regarding oil investments. Major U.S. oil companies are reportedly eager to invest billions to repair Venezuela’s infrastructure, though experts caution that political instability could hinder long-term progress.