A jump in power prices in Europe has made the case for Norway’s ruling party to limit power exports, according to a new Bloomberg report. 

The Labor Party plans to prioritize ending Denmark’s power link in its 2026 renewal in its election manifesto for next September, according to insiders cited in the report.

Power prices in Oslo hit their highest since December 2022 on Thursday but dropped 65% by Friday.

Lawmaker Ingvild Kjerkol commented: “In spite of full water reservoirs, power prices are sky high. It’s very hard to explain to people in Norway why a country with a large power surplus should have high electricity prices.”

This aligns with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store’s Labor Party and its coalition partner, the Center Party, which previously advocated curbing power exports during the energy crisis. While not an EU member, Norway is part of the single energy market, which restricts prolonged export limitations.

Norway’s stance on electricity contrasts with its pivotal role as the EU’s top natural gas supplier, providing a third of the bloc’s needs. Analyst Bjorn Inge Vik attributed recent price spikes to cold weather and low wind output, which pressured Europe’s gas reserves and electricity costs.

According to the Bloomberg report, Norwegians, long accustomed to low, stable hydroelectric power prices, now face higher rates due to increased market integration and volatility. With 17 international power cables, Kjerkol noted that Norway will remain tied to the global power trade.

Volue analyst Bjorn Inge Vik commented: “It’s been cold and with very little wind, so those are the fundamentals that have eaten into gas storage in Europe and underpin electricity prices as well.”

Norwegians have traditionally enjoyed low power prices thanks to over 1,000 hydroelectric plants, but growing market integration has brought continental price volatility to the Nordic region.

Norway’s grid connects to Sweden and several countries via subsea cables, including Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Last year, Norway rejected a proposal for a second UK electricity cable to retain more power for its own growing electrification needs.

Though Norway typically exports power to the UK, Thursday saw fluctuating power flows as northwest Europe faced soaring prices. An industry leader cautioned that severing market connections could lead to future supply challenges.

Bard Standal, deputy leader of renewables lobby Fornybar Norge concluded: “The trend is that there is very little renewable energy being built in Norway, while there is a lot being built around us. In a few years time, the cooperation with these countries may be what ensures energy security and low power prices.”

Authored by Rachel Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Lack of available healthy food in cities combined with junk food advertising is setting children up to live “shorter and unhealthier” lives, England’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Chris Whitty has said in his annual report, which suggests a tax on junk food to improve the health of the urban poor.

The wide-ranging report into the urban landscape and public health, released on Thursday, urges the government to do more to tackle what Whitty terms “healthy food deserts” in cities, which the report finds is a major cause of unhealthy eating.

Whitty, who became a well-known and controversial figure during the COVID-19 lockdown era, also points to the cost of food as a key factor impacting poorer people the most, finding that per calorie, healthy food “is almost twice as expensive as unhealthy food.”

Children and families in inner city areas are less likely to have access to healthy, affordable food choices in local shops, restaurants, and takeaways, and are “disproportionately exposed to unhealthy food advertising,” the 430-page report finds.

Four out of five outdoor billboards in England and Wales are in poorer areas, with many advertising junk food, while poorer regions are often “saturated with fast-food outlets,” both physically and online, the study found.

Targeted Food Taxes

Whitty said that businesses must be made to play a part in encouraging healthier eating habits, with proposed solutions including healthy food sales targets, specific taxes on unhealthy foods, and making it mandatory rather than voluntary for firms to report on what types and volumes of food they sell.

“Such measures could level the playing field for large industry actors, pave the way for progressive business and improve accountability for those who hold huge influence over children’s health,” the report said, finding that “meaningful change to food environments is possible.”

Research highlighted in the study shows that, for seven of the 10 biggest global food and drink businesses operating in the UK, more than two-thirds of their packaged food and drink sales came from products classed as high in fat, sugar, or salt.

While “past and present governments have recognised the importance of reformulating the recipes of food and drink options to reduce the amount of fat, salt and sugar in products,” the “failure to mandate this approach” and instead leave it up to industry has led to a lack of meaningful progress, Whitty said.

A number of different groups are quoted in the report, with solutions including an “excess profits” tax on retailers or producers of products with high sugar and salt content.

Supermarkets and shops, especially those where families on lower incomes shop, are often “saturated” with unhealthy food choices, which the report found was exacerbating health inequalities.

Health Inequalities

“Food-related ill health is not experienced equally by children, families and communities across the country, with children and families living in more deprived areas more acutely affected by a food system where the unhealthy options are often the most available,” it said.

The report added that the most deprived fifth of the population would need to spend half of their disposable income on food to meet the cost of the government-recommended healthy diet, compared with just 11 percent for the wealthiest fifth.

It said: “The food environment in parts of cities entrenches inequalities in health and promotes obesity.

“Healthy food deserts combine with junk food advertising to set children and adults up to live a shorter and unhealthier life through obesity and the diseases it causes, particularly in the more deprived areas of our cities.”

Chief Medical Officer Sir Chris Whitty photographed giving a media briefing during the COVID-19 lockdown era. Jack Hill/The Times/PA

The report also looks at how food is produced in the UK, finding that almost as much land is dedicated to growing sugar (110,000 hectares) as to growing all of the nation’s vegetables combined (116,000 hectares).

Humans are “genetically wired to crave calorie-rich food,“ Whitty said, so it is “unwise to think we can rely on education and willpower alone to curb our appetites and to prevent the many diet-related diseases that constitute some of the biggest threats to public health.”

Advertising Ban

Other measures suggested to improve the nation’s health include promoting “active travel” in cities so people use cars less, as well as tackling air pollution and reforming local health services to better serve communities.

Whitty said: “Cities provide great opportunities for a healthier life but many, especially in areas of deprivation, have poor access to healthy food choices, exercise and are exposed to air pollution. These are soluble problems.”

The government announced a pre-watershed ban on TV advertising of junk food earlier this month, with restrictions due to come into effect in October 2025.

The legislation will also impose a 24-hour restriction on paid-for online advertising for the same products, with the aim of removing 7.2 billion calories annually from children’s diets.

The latest survey by the NHS found that around one in eight children aged 2 to 10 in England are obese.

As well as looking at diet and obesity levels, Whitty’s report looks at other public health issues, such as problems with housing, disease, the threat of epidemics, and declining vaccination rates in cities.

The annual report is designed to give recommendations to the government, and although it is not binding it has led to policies such as the sugar tax on soft drinks in 2018, brought in by the Conservatives with the support of Labour.

Critics argue that that such taxes disproportionately impact the poor, because the higher price of healthier food and other factors mean poorer people are likely to consume more junk food.

In a recent article, published in PLOS Medicine, two academics argued that less affluent people could be negatively impacted by blanket health warnings about so-called “ultra-processed foods” without more scientific evidence.

Professor Eric Robinson of the University of Liverpool, one of the authors, said: “Foods classed as ultra-processed which are high in fat, salt and/or sugar should be avoided, but a number of ultra-processed foods are not.

“We should be thinking very carefully about what advice is being given to the public, as opposed to providing simplified and potentially misleading messages that grab headlines.”

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via RealClearWire,

The climate movement’s annual showpiece, the United Nation’s Conference of Parties (COP), held this year in Baku, Azerbaijan, has been exposed to an unprecedented level of disinterest—even dissent—from developing nations.

Leaders of some of the world’s most resource-rich, economically aspiring countries have opted to sit this one out, sending only low-level delegates, if any. This is the latest signal of a growing resistance to an anti-fossil fuel “gospel” advanced by the United Nations.

Last year’s COP28 in the Middle East, where oil wealth underpins entire economies, forced the climate community to confront its contradictions. Today, COP29 in central Asia continues this reckoning and presages the demise of an unscientific and anti-developmental policy framework wrecking global economies.

Host of COP29 Educates Climate Woke Delegates

The tone of COP29 itself is a marked departure from prior gatherings. In Azerbaijan, where oil and gas production are integral to the national economy, the summit’s host, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, called fossil fuels “a gift from God,” lauding their contribution to global prosperity and stability.

Fossil fuels have moved from being a taboo “elephant in the room” to a subject of open discussion at COPs. The leaders of countries in Africa and Latin America are freely questioning the premise of banning their use of fossil fuels while much of the developed world continues to consume record amounts of coal, oil and natural gas. The notion that high-income nations can dictate the energy agenda is seen as a remnant of a power structure that primarily serves the interests of the world’s most privileged.

The International Energy Agency projects that developing countries will see substantial growth in energy demand over the next decade, an expansion that cannot be met by renewables. Leaders in these regions understand that hydrocarbons are critical to achieving their development goals.

Unprecedented Pullout From COP Conference and Resistance From Global South

In a surprising move, Argentina’s newly elected president, Javier Gerardo Milei, withdrew his country’s 80-person delegation from Baku less than a third of the way into this year’s 11-day COP. He cited the need for pragmatic energy policies that encourage development rather than stymie it.

For Milei, whose presidential campaign was based on a pro-business, anti-bureaucracy platform, the message is clear: Policy must serve the economic needs of his country first. Argentina’s ongoing energy crisis, its untapped shale gas reserves and a crippling economic situation demand a level-headed approach that prioritizes national interests over global climate ideals that are both batty and corrupt.

Milei’s political philosophy resonates with a growing number of leaders in the Global South who view economic growth as paramount and recognize that access to energy is fundamental to achieving it.

Argentina’s departure from COP29 is a turning point that should serve as a wake-up call to the U.N. and its allies. The time for one-size-fits-all mandates is over. The rigid orthodoxy of fossil fuel divestment pushed by the U.N. and wealthy nations is losing ground, challenged by leaders who refuse to sacrifice their national interests to a destructive agenda.

For much of the Global South, the idea of an immediate energy transition remains, at best, aspirational and, at worst, profoundly out of touch. The reality is that fossil fuels still power 80 percent of global energy consumption. This isn’t just an inconvenient truth; it’s an inescapable basis of modern civilization that developing nations understand viscerally.

As the COP29 circus concludes in Baku, the world is seeing the crumbling of the long-held illusion that a global transition to green energyis feasible, much less fair and desirable. Developing nations are proclaiming that they will not be deprived of necessary energy sources by nations that continue to feast on the very fossil fuels they frown upon. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality is stark, and developing countries are calling attention to it.

Fossil fuels are not a relic of the past; for many countries, they are the key to a prosperous future—truly “a gift from God.”

The key logistical hub of Ukraine’s eastern front, Pokrovsk has been under steady contention for the past three months. Russian forces have spent the better part of that time pushing westward to flank just south of the city.  They have now taken Kurakhove and cut off supply routes coming from Pokrovsk to a large portion of the front line.  Some reports indicate that Ukrainian troops trying to leave Kurakhove may be cut off.  The slow motion flanking maneuver has set the stage for Pokrovsk to be enveloped from the south.  

Since the beginning of the war the area has been the primary staging ground for resupply of Ukrainian troops across the east.  After Pokrovsk is cut off or taken, it is expected that Russia will then be able to gain significant ground across the entire front and move closer to controlling all of Donetsk.  

Losses for Ukraine have been stacking up in 2024 and lack of manpower has been the overarching theme.  Though numerous western officials and think-tanks (including The Institute For The Study of War) claim that Russian gains have been paid for with “massive casualties”, they’ve provided no concrete proof so far to support their stats.  The “Russian meat grinder” narrative is beginning to sound like a coping mechanism or propaganda as it becomes clear that Russia is gaining troop strength instead of losing momentum.

(There has been similar propaganda surrounding mass casualties of North Korean troops in Kursk – There are still no verified reports or video footage of actual DPRK troops in combat against Ukraine.  Rumors abound, like the “Ghost of Kyiv”)

What we do know is that Ukraine is desperate for new soldiers to refresh their defensive lines.  NATO leaders and the Biden White House have been putting pressure on Vladimir Zelensky to draft men from the 18-25 age bracket; a move Zelensky has avoided to prevent the complete loss of a generation.  The average age of conscripts is now well over 40 years old.  

This may be why Joe Biden recently gave the green light for Ukraine to use long range missiles (ATACMs and Storm Shadows) within Russian territory.  Every time Ukraine faces a strategic failure, NATO offers up new weaponry as a public distraction.  They said Abrams tanks would be a game changer for Ukraine, then they said the F-16s would be a game changer.  Now they claim the long range strikes using smart weapons will be a game changer.

Most military analysts agree that these weapons have had little effect on the course of the war.   

Russia’s typical methodology for dealing with urban centers has been to surround and then bombard with artillery and FABs until the majority of buildings and defenses are rubble.  A renowned Ukrainian military officer, Serhii Filimonov, commander of the Da Vinci Wolves battalion of the 59th Motorised Brigade, described Pokrovsk’s defense as a “disaster”.  Senior officers are placing “unrealistic” demands on units and are unfamiliar with circumstances on the front line, Filimonov wrote on his Telegram channel this week.   

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Amazon said Thursday it will donate $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration fund and an additional $1 million in-kind donation by live-streaming the historical event on Prime Video.

Amazon’s announcement, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, coincided with news that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, also contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.

The move marks a shift for tech leaders who appear to want to improve the previously rocky relations with Trump, who will take office next month.

Trump has previously criticized the Amazon- and Jeff Bezos-owned The Washington Post over political coverage. Bezos has publicly condemned some of Trump’s rhetoric and accused him of bias in a 2019 lawsuit over a $10 billion Pentagon contract.

Bezos has recently softened his stance, expressing optimism about Trump’s second term and endorsing proposed regulatory reforms while at a business summit last week.

Bezos and Trump are set to meet next week, potentially marking a turning point in their relationship.

Amazon’s donation and live-streaming offer, as well as Meta’s donation, signal a strategic effort to improve relations with Trump and his incoming administration after years of tension.

Trump’s relationship with Meta was strained by the suspension of his Facebook and Instagram accounts in January 2021, following the breach of the Capitol. The company attributed the deplatforming to what they said was Trump’s “praise for people engaged in violence at the Capitol on January 6.”

The company restored his accounts in early 2023 and announced stiffer penalties for public figures who repeatedly violate its policies “in ways that incite or celebrate ongoing violent events or civil unrest.”

This heightened scrutiny was later revoked on July 12, one day before the attempted assassination of Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

Zuckerberg expressed praise for Trump following his brush with death, and called him.

“Seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most bad-[expletive] things I’ve ever seen in my life,” Zuckerberg told Bloomberg days after the shooting.

Trump’s stance on Zuckerberg has also softened since the call, he revealed on the “Bussin’ With the Boys” podcast. Trump said during the interview that he appreciated the tech leader’s call and praised him for “staying out of the election.”

This was a reference to the $400 million Zuckerberg and his wife donated $400 million to election offices around the country during the 2020 elections, with 90 percent directed toward Democrat-leaning counties in key swing states.

In recent months, Zuckerberg has publicly supported some of Trump’s economic plans.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s incoming deputy chief of staff for policy, has said Zuckerberg wants to support and assist the president-elect in implementing national reforms. The donation marks a turning point in the billionaires’ previously rocky relationship.

The Associated Press and Samantha Flom contributed to this report.

By Catherine Yang of The Epoch Times

A federal appeals court on Dec. 13 denied TikTok’s request to delay the Jan. 19, 2025, deadline for it to cut ties with the Chinese communist regime, shortly after the app filed its final argument for a delay.

In an unsigned, expedited order, the three-judge panel denied the request and found there was no precedent for granting this type of request.

TikTok, its parent company ByteDance, and a group of TikTok users had challenged the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) that went into effect in April, arguing the law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. PAFACA forbids apps that operate in the United States from being owned by a foreign adversary. ByteDance argues that it is effectively a ban because the Chinese regime will not allow the sale of TikTok and its proprietary algorithm.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week denied the petitioners’ challenge, finding the law did not violate the First Amendment. The Justice Department, representing the government, argued that the law targeted ownership of an entity by a foreign adversary, not content on the app.

When President Joe Biden signed the law in April, it started a 270-day countdown for ByteDance to either divest of TikTok by Jan. 19, 2025, or cease operations in the United States.

TikTok then requested the court pause the countdown while it seeks appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court. The DOJ had opposed the delay, arguing three branches of government had already affirmed that TikTok presented a national security risk.

“The petitioners have not identified any case in which a court, after rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Act of Congress, has enjoined the Act from going into effect while review is sought in the Supreme Court,” the order reads.

The judges found that TikTok and the petitioners relied on First Amendment arguments that the court had already rejected in order to make their case for an extension.

“As to those claims, this court has already unanimously concluded the Act satisfies the requirements of the First Amendment under heightened scrutiny,” the order reads.

TikTok may ask the Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction, effectively stopping the countdown, while the high court considers its petition. There is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will take any case.

In its emergency request for relief, TikTok said delaying enforcement of the law would “simply create breathing room for the Supreme Court to conduct an orderly review and for the incoming Administration to evaluate this matter—before one of this country’s most important speech platforms is shuttered.”

The platform said that a temporary shutdown would “have devastating effects on TikTok Inc.’s business” while halting the law would “impose no material harm on the Government.”

A separate filing showed TikTok creators declaring that the law would cause them harm. For example, Brian Firebaugh, a cattle rancher who has the “cattleguy” account on TikTok, told the D.C. circuit court that he earns most of his income through selling ranch products promoted on the platform.

“Not only would a TikTok ban quickly dismantle my business and my family’s way of life, it would also immediately eliminate the most effective tool for me to communicate with and support the agricultural community in Texas,” he said.

DOJ’s response said that TikTok and others were downplaying national security concerns.

“TikTok’s continued operation in the United States under its current ownership poses substantial harms to national security by virtue of TikTok’s data-collection practices and the covert intelligence and surveillance efforts of the Chinese government,” DOJ’s response read.

Continue reading at Epoch Times

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

President-elect Donald Trump has said that he “vehemently” disagrees with the US supporting long-range missile strikes inside Russian territory, which President Biden authorized last month.

“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?” Trump said in an interview with Time Magazine for an issue that named him Person of the Year.

“We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done,” Trump added.

Biden took the step to support Ukrainian strikes on Russia using US ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles even after Moscow made clear it would risk a nuclear escalation.

Russia responded to Ukraine’s initial ATACMS and Storm Shadow strikes by firing a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile known as the Oreshnik.

Ukrainian forces fired more ATACMS into Russia this week, and the Russian Defense Ministry has vowed there will be another response:

“This attack by Western long-range weapons won’t be left unanswered, and corresponding measures will be taken,” the ministry said.

Trump campaigned on ending the proxy war in Ukraine but has not articulated how exactly he plans to do that. He was asked in the Time interview if he would “abandon” Ukraine and responded:

“I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon. You understand what that means, right?”

The president-elect stressed in the interview that he was concerned with the death toll in the conflict, saying it was much higher than what’s been reported. He said the “numbers of dead young soldiers lying on fields all over the place are staggering. It’s crazy what’s taking place.”

A 20-year-old woman has filed suit against California hospitals and doctors, saying they rushed to conclude she suffered from gender dysphoria and then “fast-tracked [her] onto the conveyor belt of irreversibly damaging” medical interventions that included puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and a double-mastectomy at age 14.  

According to the complaint filed in Los Angeles, Kaya Clementine Breen says she was sexually abused as a young child and that, around age 11 or 12, “began struggling with the thought of developing into a woman and began to believe that life would be easier if she were a boy.” When she shared those feelings with a school counselor, the counselor told Breen that she must be transgender, and then called her parents to push the same assumption as a fact. 

Breen’s parents sought out “experts” at the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles, including Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, one of the world’s most vocal advocates for the gender-transitioning of children. “At her very first visit, after mere minutes, Dr. Olson-Kennedy diagnosed Clementine with gender dysphoria and recommended surgical implantation of puberty blockers,” according to the complaint, which also alleges that Olson-Kennedy neglected to perform a mental-health assessment or inquire about past trauma or abuse. 

Echoing a grievance that commonly surfaces in the gender-transition realm, the complaint alleges Olson-Kennedy told Breen’s parents that their daughter would “commit suicide if she did not begin taking testosterone…At that time, Clementine had never had any thoughts of suicide, and she certainly had never expressed anything along those lines to Dr Olson-Kennedy.” According to The Economist, Olson-Kennedy’s own notes made no mention of suicidal ideation. Ironically, it was only after enduring transition procedures and “therapies” that Breen would later attempt suicide as her mental health declined and she contended with extreme depression and anger. 

This is how it ends 🙏

“I wish I could have told myself that there is no right way to be female, and if I hate myself for being female that doesn’t mean there is something physically wrong with me that I need to buy a cure for.”

Clementine Breen is a beautiful, articulate,… pic.twitter.com/1GlnzONOlb

— Beth Bourne (@bourne_beth2345) December 12, 2024

The fateful Dec. 27, 2016 consultation with Olson-Kennedy led to years of drastic medical alterations of Breen’s body. These included puberty-blockers at age 12, cross-sex hormones starting from age 13 through 19 and a “gender-affirming” double-mastectomy at just 14 years old. She was also “urged” to have a hysterectomy at age 17, though it’s unclear from the complaint if she did so. The mastectomy surgeon is among the many defendants, and is accused of his own negligence in carrying out the drastic procedure, having only met Breen for about 30 minutes on the very morning of the life-altering surgery.  

It was only via mental health care that she started receiving near the end of high school that Breen eventually concluded she was not “trans” after all. She stopped identifying as a male named “Finn,” and has begun de-transitioning — to the extent it’s possible. Summarizing Breen’s experience as “a despicable, failed medical experiment and a knowing, deliberate, and gross breach of the standard of care,” the complaint lays out a long and disturbing list of enduring harms:

She has suffered physically, socially, neurologically, and psychologically. Her voice has permanently deepened. Her female body did not develop, and she has a very masculine body structure. Her fertility is almost certainly destroyed from the combination of years on puberty blockers and testosterone.

And even if she could conceive and deliver a child, she would not be able to breastfeed because her healthy breasts were removed when she was only 14. And she has to seethe scars from that unnecessary surgery every day. She has experienced vaginal atrophy, and her sex life has been materially impacted. She is also at risk for bone-related problems later in life.

Breen’s experience closely matches the picture Megyn Kelly painted in her searing indictment of “gender-affirming care” during her October appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”: 

Must-watch clip of Megyn Kelly on Bill Mahar discussing transgenderism and children.

How did we even get to this point? pic.twitter.com/gIXtG5fZqF

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) October 26, 2024

Olson-Kennedy came under fire earlier this year when she admitted to withholding the findings of her team’s research, which found puberty blockers did not result in mental health improvements for children, telling the New York Times, “I do not want our work to be weaponized. It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.” Earlier this year, a British study concluded that a great many children who think they may be transgender have mental health issues that spring from abuse or difficult family situations.  

Authored by J.T.Young via American Greatness,

Having lost the election, demoralized Democrats now argue their defeat wasn’t a landslide. Nice try. Their reaction is more than knee-jerk petulance; instead, it arises from fears of permanence. With Trump gaining momentum, even before his inauguration, Democrats rightfully fear that they could fare even worse in 2028 and beyond.

Before the election, the Democrats’ presidential complaint was the Electoral College. Certain they would win the popular vote, Tim Walz, speaking in October, voiced what other Democrats thought: “I think all of us know the electoral college needs to go.” On the night of November 5, their concern changed. Now Democrat apologists (CNN, NYT, LAT, and more) are all arguing to diminish Trump’s victory—and thereby his momentum.

While Democrats and their supporters’ need is understandable, Trump’s landslide gets bigger the more it is scrutinized.

Even on the surface, its particulars are impressive. Trump was the Republicans’ first presidential candidate to beat a Democrat in the popular vote in 20 years. He won more popular votes than any Republican presidential candidate in history. He won each of the contest’s seven swing states—and he came close to flipping several (NJ, VA, NM, NH, and MN) seemingly solid blue states. And he won the electoral vote 312-226.

Conversely, compared to Biden in 2020, Democrats’ popular vote percentage dropped in 50 of 51 states and the District of Columbia, going up only in Utah by a scant 0.2 percentage points.

Big as Trump’s win was on the surface, closer examination shows it was bigger still.

Trump’s victory came despite finishing behind Harris by over four million votes in California and New York combined and despite these states combining for 84 electoral votes. Dismissing the result in these two states, Trump won by five percentage points in the other 48 states and 312 to 142 in electoral votes. Take away the results of Massachusetts and Washington, and Trump won by almost seven percentage points in the popular vote and 312-121 in the electoral vote.

Basically, apart from the coasts, Trump won overwhelmingly: where 80 percent of the presidential electoral votes are, Trump won three-quarters of them.

Next, put these impressive numbers into the context of their occurrence.

Trump amassed these numbers while being enormously outraised and outspent. Harris had hundreds of millions more to fuel her campaign than Trump did. And she had to only focus on the seven swing states that everyone knew were the fulcrum of the contest. Yet, Trump still swept all seven—something that neither he nor Biden had been able to do in 2016 and 2020.

Trump also rang up his numbers despite eight years of unrelenting negativity from the establishment media. For almost a decade, there has been nothing approaching balanced coverage: regardless of his opponent—Hillary, Biden, and Harris—each received a strong establishment media tailwind. Yet despite this, Trump increased his general election popular vote percentage each time.

And that establishment media bias was never stronger than in the aftermath of Biden’s withdrawal.

For over 100 days, the establishment media gave Harris a pass: on press conferences, on interviews, on evading questions, on softball venues when she did appear, on often not answering questions in even these friendly confines, and on nonsensical responses when she did speak.

And Trump won despite having almost the entirety of America’s self-styled elite opposing him.

In academia, in Hollywood, in music, in sports, the coolest of the cool and the biggest of the big were overwhelmingly and vocally against him. Not surprisingly, in the face of all this opposition, Trump’s favorability rating was below Harris’s.

Yet, Trump still racked up his impressive numbers.

Despite every conceivable disadvantage, Trump beat not one, but two Democrat nominees to win the presidency. Outright – not only in electoral votes but by almost 2.5 million votes.

That is the definition of a landslide.

Of late, Americans have suffered a surfeit of Democrats and their apologists saying something isn’t true when it patently is—that Joe Biden was capable of being president, that the Democrat elite wasn’t deposing Joe Biden when they drove him from the ticket, that Kamala Harris was his qualified replacement, that Joe Biden wouldn’t pardon Hunter. The list is endless; it stretches back in time and extends uninterrupted into it. But nowhere is Democrat denial greater than in their attempt to deny Trump’s November presidential landslide.

Their reason is as obvious as the truth they are seeking to deny. They fear its repetition.

They worry that Republicans will continue Trump’s conservative populism, and they know that next time 2024’s overwhelming advantages will be gone. Bad as November’s landslide was, the ones Democrats potentially face going forward could be far worse.

*  *  *

J.T. Young is the author of the new book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing, and has over three decades of experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, and OMB, and representing a Fortune 20 company.

With Syria burning and no longer a threat, Israel’s military said it is currently conducting preparations for “potential strikes” on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Its air force has already been carrying out literally hundreds of raids on Syrian Army bases in the wake of Bashar al-Assad’s overthrow. Israel has complete domination of Syria’s skies, and given that Assad’s anti-air defense missile systems are no longer an issue, this would make it much easier to strike the Islamic Republic of Iran.

According to a Thursday report in The Times of Israel, the IDF “believes that following the weakening of Iranian proxy groups in the Middle East and the dramatic fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, there is an opportunity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, military officials said Thursday.”

“The Israeli Air Force has therefore continued to increase its readiness and preparations for such potential strikes in Iran,” the report states.

“The IDF also believes that Iran — isolated after the fall of the Assad regime and the weakening of its main proxy group Hezbollah in Lebanon — may push ahead further with its nuclear program and develop a bomb as it scrambles to replace its deterrence,” it adds.

Iran has long maintained it develops only peaceful nuclear energy, and there’s little doubt that after the dramatic events unfolding in Syria, and with Hezbollah top leadership largely decimated, Tehran finds itself on a back foot. 

Some Israeli and Western officials believe that all of this will make Iranian leaders more desperate to ensure they have a final and ultimate defense against any threats (as in rapidly developing a nuke).

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have said in a new statement, “The Syrian air defense array is one of the strongest in the Middle East and the blow caused to it is a significant achievement for the Air Force’s superiority in the region.”

Any potential preemptive Israeli attack directly on Iran would however unleash more immense anti-Netanyahu controversy in Israel, at a moment he’s already under fire by hostage victims’ families for his handling of Gaza.

🚨🎙️Israeli air strikes on Hafir al-Tahta and al-Qalamoun in #Syria pic.twitter.com/NJioRXtcbh

— Winnemuller (@RWinnemuller) December 9, 2024

Israel and Hezbollah just achieved a long hoped-for ceasefire in Lebanon, and any attacks on Iran could also open up that front again, at a moment Israel is trying for the safe return of its citizens to northern towns and settlements, which the ceasefire is aimed to achieve.