Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The markets have been rocked by news of a possible intervention to control the Japanese yen slump, after it reached a forty-year low relative to the US dollar. Fixing the yen and any other fiat currency is simple: Implement an Austrian approach; eliminate constant deficit spending and monetization of government outlays; and implement clear, sound money policies that support the purchasing power of the currency.

Letting rates float and having zero deficit would help.

However, no government seems to want to control spending and eliminate constant artificial currency creation, even knowing that, by doing so, they would limit the risk of financial crises, excessive risk-taking, and erosion of citizens’ wage purchasing power.

The best a citizen can expect today is a mild form of Keynesianism that aims for lower taxes, relatively lower spending, and a constant expansion of money supply as the driver of economic growth. Even this “lesser evil” approach ends with malinvestment, financial crises, and more politicians demanding “public investment” as the solution.

Governments avoid sound money and controlling spending because these choices can hurt them politically right away, while using inflation and interventionist methods allows them to take a lot of wealth from citizens and give it to themselves and their favored industries.

Governments refer to the constant issuance of new currency that exceeds private sector demand as the “social use of money.” Inflationism is a tool to create dependency and limit individuals’ financial freedom.

Inflation is not an accident; it is a policy. The erosion of the purchasing power of the currency makes governments more powerful; they present themselves as the solution to the problems their policies create, and citizens have fewer tools to gain financial independence.

Governments and their “experts” constantly try to blame inflation on anything except what really creates it: monetary excess preceded by fiscal irresponsibility and uncontrolled deficit spending. Politicians point to “greedy companies,” “supply shocks,” or “external factors,” even to wage growth, as causes of inflation to hide the simple fact that issuing more currency than the private sector demands inevitably destroys its purchasing power.

Inflation is a de facto slow default and signals a constant loss of fiscal credibility for governments. High taxes and inflation become two sides of the same policy: controlling citizens and making them servants to an ever-rising bureaucratic power that rewards a few private enablers in the process.

This erosion is not neutral. It is a permanent, silent tax on real wages and savings that benefits the state, the most indebted agent in the economy, which can spend more than it receives. When governments double down on spending and central banks accommodate with quantitative easing and artificially low rates, there is a simple calculated transfer of wealth from the middle class to the public sector.

Central banks have become tools to maintain the government debt bubble rather than defenders of price stability, especially when they view such stability in an annual inflation increase based on a carefully selected basket that masks the true extent of currency debasement. The Fed’s panic in 2020-2024 is a clear signal of a monetary authority subordinating its mandate to the needs of the Treasury.

The ECB has followed a similar path, maintaining its anti-fragmentation tools, rolling over massive holdings of sovereign bonds and giving permanent support for highly indebted states such as France and Spain. Central banks will not oppose the government; instead, they will transfer the burden to consumers.

Governments never end inflation because they benefit from it.

High nominal growth, fueled by money printing and deficit spending, inflates tax revenues and masks the deterioration of real wages, while the real value of outstanding public debt is gradually dissolved.

Sound money, balanced budgets, and structural reforms require the elimination of clientelist spending, politically protected programs, and subsidy‑dependent sectors.

Sound money benefits the private sector and citizens. Inflationism makes the state larger and more powerful at the expense of families and businesses. Politicians consistently pledge “free” benefits, which ultimately result in increased inflation, reduced growth, and diminished productivity.

This is why, even as headline inflation moderates, citizens feel poorer and angrier. Governments created the inflation shock with massive stimulus at the peak of the cycle, then forced central banks to tighten late and aggressively, placing the full burden of adjustment on families, small businesses, and productive investment while public sectors remained largely untouched. The result is stagnation with high taxation and persistent inflation expectations—a slow‑motion confiscation of the middle class.

Refusing to adopt sound money is not an intellectual mistake but a political choice. Governments and central banks have built a framework that systematically sacrifices citizens’ real wages, savings, and freedom to preserve an ever‑larger, ever‑more‑indebted state. You pay.

In a development which sounds reminiscent of the most dangerous moments of the Cold War, a Russian military cargo plane has been observed landing in Cuba, just as Havana is in Washington’s regime change crosshairs.

The Ilyushin Il-76, operated by the government-linked airline Aviacon Zitotrans, is reportedly under US sanctions as it has a well-documented history of ferrying military gear to Latin America. It touched down late Sunday at a Cuban military airfield.

The same aircraft – registered RA-78765 – logged flights to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba in October amid rising tensions between Washington and Caracas.

According to details in Fox News:

Flight-tracking records show the aircraft stopped in St. Petersburg and Sochi in Russia; Mauritania, Africa; and the Dominican Republic. Each landing would have required approval from host governments, offering a window into which countries are continuing to permit Russian military-linked aviation activity despite Western sanctions.

The large, long range aircraft can carry up to 50 tons of cargo or roughly 200 personnel.

The US Treasury first added the company to its sanctions list in January 2023. The statement said, “Aviacon Zitotrans has shipped military equipment such as rockets, warheads, and helicopter parts all over the world,. Aviacon Zitotrans has shipped defense materiel to Venezuela, Africa, and other locations.”

Whether this latest delivery involved weapons, equipment or infrastructure parts remains unclear. What is clear is that sanctioned Russian military logistics are once again operating in the Caribbean’s airspace.

However, from Havana’s viewpoint, it should be allowed to maintain alliances and routing business and transactions – even if on the military front, with a large power like Russia.

Days ago, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia vowed that there will be no repeat of the Venezuelan scenario in Cuba.

An Aviacon Zitotrans IL-76 cargo plane that has previously been used to deliver military related cargoes from Russia to Venezuela crossed the Atlantic for the first time this year, but this time its destination was Cuba. pic.twitter.com/74lxpJLOKa

— CNW (@ConflictsW) February 2, 2026

“There has undoubtedly been betrayal in Venezuela, this is being said quite openly. Some high-ranking officials have, in fact, betrayed the president. This scenario will not work in Cuba. I think that the Americans, despite the rhetoric they have been using against Cuba lately, are still just rhetoric. Because there will be no easy ride in Cuba if they want to repeat something like what happened in Venezuela,” Nebenzia told a Russian TV channel.

China has also lately called out the US over its threats against Cuba, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Friday stating, “China stands firmly against inhumane practices and moves that deprive the Cuban people of their rights to subsistence and development.”

Via Remix News,

Polish President Karol Nawrocki is prioritizing nuclear power in the Polish energy mix, avoiding the transitional inclusion of gas, with the government focused on building the first nuclear power plant in Lubiatów-Kopalin.

Before his trip to Davos, Nawrocki had met with entrepreneurs to discuss Poland’s accession to the G20. In his speech, he presented his vision for Poland’s future energy mix. At the beginning of the year, the Sejm (lower house of parliament) almost unanimously passed a law to support the construction of the first nuclear power plant in Lubiatów-Kopalin, Pomerania, with over PLN 60 billion (€14 billion).

Negotiations on the contract for the construction of Poland’s first nuclear power plant (EPC) are expected to be completed by mid-year. Preliminary work on the plant’s construction site and the preparation of associated infrastructure are also scheduled for this year.

Furthermore, in the first quarter, PEJ will soon submit an application to the National Atomic Energy Agency for a permit to build a nuclear power facility, Deputy Minister of Energy Wojciech Wrochna told Business Insider.

Experts confirm the long-term energy efficiency of nuclear power compared to other sources, such as renewables or coal.

Marcin Izdebski, an expert at the Center for Development Strategies, told the portal: “Renewable energy installations operate for 15-25 years. Nuclear power has a much longer lifespan, lasting 60-80 years. Furthermore, nuclear power doesn’t require balancing like renewable energy, which increases its economic efficiency. It’s most justified to build nuclear power plants where coal-fired units currently operate. Otherwise, these locations face economic collapse.”

“The government has a very rational and pragmatic approach to energy. We are by no means ideological about any source—neither coal, renewable energy, nor nuclear power. We are pursuing a policy aimed at achieving three goals: energy security, reducing CO2 emissions, and economic competitiveness. We view Poland’s future energy mix solely through the prism of these three issues,” Wrochna explained.

Construction of the first reactor of the Lubiatowo-Kopalino nuclear power plant is set to begin in 2028, while the plant is scheduled to become operational in 2036.

One source close to President Nawrocki also told Business Insider that he hopes to avoid natural gas altogether.

“The president’s goal is for us not to make a hasty transition by replacing coal with gas, but to immediately switch from coal to nuclear power. For the head of state, stability is paramount, as it is not just an economic issue but also a component of national security.” 

Wojciech Dąbrowski, former president of the Polish Energy Group under PiS, pointed to the risks of gas reliance.

“Some point to gas, but it’s a fuel highly susceptible to various geopolitical turmoils. This must not be forgotten, as we don’t have sufficient gas resources of our own and must import about 80 percent of it. Therefore, gas can only be a useful supplement.”

Read more here…

At this point it it seems clear that President Trump is not quite ready to order a major attack on Iran, after last week threatening to do so, and weighing military options. Instead, Washington and Tehran could be inching back toward direct contact.

US envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet on Friday in Istanbul to discuss a possible nuclear deal, Axios reports.

If it actually happens (and the two sides don’t escalate the rhetoric before then), it would mark the first face-to-face engagement between American and Iranian officials since talks collapsed amid the 12-day June war.

Still a lot could happen between now and the end of the week, as Axios also concedes:

A fourth source familiar with the planning said a meeting on Friday was “the best case scenario” but cautioned that nothing is final until it happens.

Iranian foreign Miniser Araghchi has stressed that “Iran is ready for diplomacy” but has also spelled out that “diplomacy is incompatible with pressure, intimidation, and force.” The Iranians are hopeful about potential renewed direct contacts with Washington, however.

There’s been reports of a lot of behind the scenes diplomatic scrambling in order to head off war, especially by Egypt, and Qatar.

But Washington’s demands have remain unchanged. This reportedly includes Trump insisting on zero uranium enrichment, and restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Tehran has expressed that it is willing to dialogue on the nuclear issue, but that it will not limit or reduce its ballistic missile capabilities, given especially that Israel is not willing to do the same, and the Islamic Republic has already come under unprovoked Israeli attack. Such would be tantamount to national self-destruction and handing Israel an easy, cost-free victory.

Trump:

Qasem Soleimani was the military leader of Iran.

If he lived, that attack we made on Iran would not have been the same thing. He was a great general.

They don’t have that now.

Source: The Dan Bongino Show pic.twitter.com/xxL4u6fAsk

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 2, 2026

In a recent interview with CNN, Araghchi said indirect contacts with Washington via regional intermediaries had been “fruitful” while at the same time warning that a wider war would be “a disaster for everybody.”

“Trump has yet to say whether and how he might use force,” the WSJ wrote over the weekend. “But American airstrikes on Iran aren’t imminent, U.S. officials say, because the Pentagon is moving in additional air defenses to better protect Israel, Arab allies and American forces in the event of a retaliation by Iran and a potential prolonged conflict.”

Via Remix News,

Irene Montero, a politician from the far-left, pro-immigration Podemos party, is arguing that after granting amnesty to 500,000 illegal immigrants, the Sanchez government should now make them Spanish citizens and amend the law to allow them to participate in elections. She specifically calls to replace the “fascists and racists with immigrants.” Now, she has faced backlash from a wide range of critics, including Elon Musk and a range of European politicians.

“I hope for replacement theory, I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants. Whatever their skin color, whether Chinese, Black, or Brown,” Montero said, as quoted by the daily El Mundo. In her speech, she strongly criticized right-wing parties, including Vox and its leader Santiago Abascal, describing their rhetoric as “racist” and “anti-migration.”

🇪🇸 The leader of the Spanish far-left basically turns conspiracy theory into fact.

“I hope for replacement theory, I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants. Whatever their skin color, whether Chinese, Black, or Brown.” pic.twitter.com/HzLvc9TJOP

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) January 31, 2026

Montero spoke on Saturday at a rally in Zaragoza, organised ahead of the regional elections in Aragon on Feb. 8.

The decision by Spain’s socialist government to legalize the stay of 500,000 illegal immigrants in the country has brought a fury of backlash.

Not only are many Spaniards furious at her remarks, but her remark also garnered international attention, including from Elon Musk, who said: “She is advocating genocide. Utterly contemptible.”

She is advocating genocide. Utterly contemptible.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 1, 2026

Polish politicians also provided their view on her remarks.

“This is exactly the goal of the left and the liberals ruling the EU. This is why they pushed through the migration pact. As many new citizens as possible, imported from outside Europe – this is their hope for additional votes in the elections and maintaining power,” commented PiS MP Paweł Jabłoński, according to Polish newspaper Do Rzezcy.

“Podemos is your ally in Europe, the Razem party, Adrian Zandberg? Do you also support the implementation of the ‘great replacement theory’?” asked MP Kacper Płażyński, also from PiS.

“Immediately exclude Spain from the Schengen Area!” called Piotr Czak Żukowski of the National Movement. “Granting citizenship to hordes of illegal immigrants from Africa is a threat to all of Europe,” emphasized the Confederation activist.

Read more here…

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

In July of 1917 as the fires of WWI raged across Europe, the Russian city of Petrograd was facing its own special turmoil in the form of a large scale Bolshevik insurgency. Up to 500,000 protesters, agitators and provocateurs had entered the city from across the country, many of them armed. They took over large swaths of the metropolis, hijacked private vehicles and confiscated private buildings.

Some soviet leaders including Vladimir Lenin called the event “premature” and did not publicly endorse it, which may have been a calculated attempt to avoid direct blowback. The official historical explanation is that the insurrection had taken on a life of its own, but the stage had been set and the communist agitators got exactly what they wanted, what their strategy demanded:

Human sacrifice.

Clashes with government authorities led to hundreds of protester deaths and a handful of police casualties. The Russian government surged military forces into the region to arrest Bolshevik captains and the movement had to pull back. In the end, though, the primary goal of the insurgents had been achieved. Whether spontaneous or planned, the point of the communist methodology is always to trigger government violence which can then be used to create public sympathy and bolster the revolution.

The majority of “normies” don’t need to join the revolution, they just have to be convinced to stay out of the way. And that’s largely what happened a few months later in October of 1917 when the Red Terror began. What followed was five years of civil war.

The communists, who had long claimed to be innocent victims of the Tsarist “imperialism”, went on a murder spree as soon as they solidified their political power. Their ideological opponents were systematically rounded up and eliminated. There are no exact numbers on how many killings occurred because records were destroyed, but estimates suggest the revolutionaries and secret police arrested and executed around 1 million political dissidents in the first few years of communist rule.

This genocide, though, would pale in comparison to the 10 million deaths caused by the Russian Civil War. Not to mention the imprisonment and mass murder of millions of Christians by the atheist regime over the course of the next couple decades.

History rarely “repeats” but our modern political dynamic rings rather familiar. Many of the tactics used by the leftists in Russia in the early 20th Century are being used today in the US. In fact, I would argue they are almost exactly the same and that a Bolshevik-style revolution is happening right now.

Interestingly, the Bolsheviks were a tiny minority within the Russian population. At their peak in 1917 they had only 400,000 “official” members. They were supported politically by an estimated 23% of the population, but that is still a small movement compared to the 150 million Russian citizens trying to live their lives from day to day.

Had Russian conservatives (nationalists, Christians and defenders of private property rights) stood up and acted en masse to stop the Bolsheviks early in 1917, their society could have avoided the full scale murder that would befall them from 1918 onward. They might not have aligned perfectly with their existing government, but the communist alternative was so much worse.

Instead, the conservatives waited until agents of the Cheka were at their doorstep, and by that time it was too late to effectively fight back. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn depressingly noted in his book “The Gulag Archipelago”, the majority of Russians stood against Soviet rule but they did not have the courage to take up arms when it mattered most. And so, a minority of militant communists were able to dominate a nation of hundreds of millions. As Solzhenitsyn warned:

“We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

The communists, of course, did not achieve such success alone. As scholar Antony Sutton outlined with ample evidence in his book “Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution”, they enjoyed the financial and logistical backing of various global elites (from the Rockefellers to the Morgans to the Harrimans) through the course of the revolution and after their rise to power.

The purpose? To create the model for an atheist and relativistic authoritarian state. A system that the globalists intend to one day use to take over the entire world.

Their plan relies heavily on a lack of action by patriots. It could be a weakness, but the leftists have good reason to feel emboldened lately.

Civil War 2.0 has, in fact, already kicked off in the form of a well funded far-left insurrection much like what happened in 1917 Russia.

The lack of conservative organization in response has been less than impressive, and I’m here to give a warning: We are approaching the point of no return.

Activists are funded by a massive shell game of NGOs hidden behind other NGOs. They are coordinated by hidden online discord servers. They receive their orders and share information in the field through encrypted Signal chats. They are trained in agitation and disruption by anonymous online meet-ups run by covert activist coordinators.  They have engaged in violent attacks on ICE agents on hundreds if not thousands of occasions and few of them are ever prosecuted. This is not the behavior of a grassroots protest movement, this is the behavior of an army of covert operatives with special protections.

It’s important to understand that the “protests” are actually a highly coordinated guerrilla campaign – These are not sincere citizens exercising their civil rights.  For now their stated motivation is to stop deportations of illegal migrants, but this is just an excuse for their insurgency.  If ICE stopped operations tomorrow, the paid activists would simply fabricate another rationale for tearing the country apart.  Placating them will accomplish nothing.

They are hostile combatants trying to assert dominance and grow their numbers through posturing. Their goal is the destruction of the western world. This cannot be allowed.

The clear solution would be for the government to shut down hostile NGOs, however, these institutions are protected by corporate personhood and have the same constitutional rights as individual citizens. The process of investigating them and prosecuting them takes time – time we don’t have.

Even if Trump utilized the Insurrection Act and deployed the military, there are not enough troops to lock down more than a handful of US cities. Those people hoping that martial law will resolve the issue are kidding themselves. By extension, leftists stand to gain greater support: Martial law would represent proof to the rest of the world that the administration is indeed “fascist.”

The course of the war will not depend on government intervention, so don’t hold your breath waiting for effective enforcement. The reality is, most activist arrests end with them right back out on the street anyway. Their support apparatus has to be permanently removed, or THEY have to be permanently removed from the equation.

Everything will be decided by regular conservatives. If they organize in large numbers, if they create a funding apparatus to move people and supplies around the country quickly, and if they form proper leadership and training guidelines, then there might be a chance for peace simply by presenting a formidable deterrent. If not, at least the means to put down the insurgency will be available.

If conservatives stay at home and refuse to protect any piece of territory beyond their front gate, they will lose everything. It’s inevitable. The side that wants to win will always have an edge over the side that “just wants to be left alone.”

Protests will continue to spread to other cities using the same model we have seen recently in Minneapolis. NGOs will try to provoke more activist deaths at the hands of federal agents. The more the activists go unchecked by the general public the more emboldened they will become and the more their numbers will grow in the assumption that they are the majority.

In the event that the protests are stalled but the organizations are not crushed, activists will revert to assassinations and Weather Underground-style terror attacks until they demoralize the populace and gather strength again. The bottom line? If the political left is not made to truly FEAR consequences, they will not stop until they get their own Red Terror purge.

The end result is not going to be “balkanization.” That idea might have worked during the pandemic, but at this stage it’s far too late for a national divorce. The leftists will never allow conservatives to live in peace in red states. Letting blue cities rule over entire states of mostly red counties would only legitimize progressive extremists and hurt the conservative cause. This fight is for the entire country, not pieces of it.

It’s also not going to be a war of “factions”. This is prepper SHTF theory nonsense. The lines could not be more defined. The “false left/right paradigm” is a dead remnant of the Ron Paul era. It no longer exists, at least not where the bottom of the pyramid is concerned. The vast majority of progressives and Democrats are onboard with woke extremism. They’re onboard with the purge. They are loyal soldiers of globalism. Unity with them means enslavement.

Leftists, globalists and their allies are not going to discern between MAGA, libertarians and centrists. They will ultimately treat everyone as an enemy worthy of elimination.

They’re also not going to divide and in-fight the way some conservatives predict, at least not until they’ve gotten rid of us first.

In the end, the fate of the US and western civilization stands on the precarious shoulders of a conservative movement that has the means to fight, but not necessarily the will. They are forever waiting for the perfect Hollywood scenario in which they can defend themselves in good conscience in a fair fight where they are the clear and undeniable “good guy.” They are forever waiting for the perfect moment to rise up – A moment that will never come.

Patriots have also planned and trained for decades under the pretenses that conservatives would be the insurgents, not the counter-insurgency. Counter-insurgency is much more difficult and requires far more resources. But guess what? You don’t always get to choose the wars you fight. Sometimes the war chooses you and you have to adapt.

There are certainly individuals who will do what they can. I will be among them as will many of the people I know.

But the great question, the great unknown, the unpredictable factor is whether or not average Americans will step off their porches in large numbers and send a clear message that they will no longer tolerate the chaos.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Video footage circulating on X from the Ukrainian front shows a Droid TW-7.62 ground robotic system, roughly half the size of a Mini Cooper, forcing the surrender of three Russian troops during an active military operation. The incident suggests that war robots are rapidly maturing, moving beyond support and logistics into offensive roles.

Futurism reports that Ukrainian defense robotics firm DevDroid’s armed unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) forced the surrender of three Russian soldiers.

“The footage shows three Russian soldiers approaching one by one, removing their equipment, and lying down next to the UGV,” the tech outlet wrote in a note, adding the UGV has a ballistic computer and artificial intelligence for autonomous detection, capture, and tracking of targets.

What is clear is that wheeled combat robots on the modern battlefield in Ukraine, used for offensive operations, could soon transition into humanoid robotic platforms.

California-based robotics startup Foundation is developing the Phantom humanoid robot for both commercial and military use.

The firm has stated ambitions to build tens of thousands of these humanoids, capable of carrying payloads and various weapon platforms, for use in dangerous missions, such as breaching buildings, and has secured defense contracts and interest from U.S. military programs.

Unlike other robotics companies such as Boston Dynamics, Agility Robotics, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics, Unitree, and Figure AI, all of which have stated that their humanoids will not be used in military or defense applications, Foundation has stated otherwise.

Foundation’s Phantom MK1 has been trained on the 9mm pistol.

CEO Sankaet Pathak confirmed Phantom MK1 has had weapons training in a recent conversation with tech blog Humanoids Daily.

According to Forbes, Foundation deployed 40 robots in 2025, with manufacturing expanding this year to 10,000, then to 50,000 by late 2027.

Given that Foundation is one of the very few, if not only, robotics firms in the US with a DoD contract specifically for an offensive humanoid combat robot, it wouldn’t be a surprise if these bots were found on the Ukrainian battlefield for testing later this year.

Great time for a Polymarket bet on when Skynet arrives … 

Authored by Gene Pisasale, via RealClearWire,

“… a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of monarchy …. To the evil of monarchy we have added hereditary succession … the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves … the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity.”

– Thomas Paine, “Common Sense”

On Jan. 10, 1776, Robert Bell did something that could have landed him in prison for treason against King George III of England.

In his small shop on Third Street in downtown Philadelphia, Bell printed an incendiary 47-page pamphlet, published anonymously, calling for rebellion against the Crown and independence from Great Britain.

Its author was a little-known Englishman who had befriended Benjamin Franklin in London two years earlier.

Franklin was impressed with the man and recommended that he emigrate to the colonies, which he did that same year.

Arriving in America just five months before shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, Thomas Paine had a front row seat as the American Revolutionary War was unfolding.

Despite “the shot heard ’round the world” on April 19, 1775, calls for independence were relatively muted throughout the colonies, historians estimating that only about 25 percent of citizens supported the move.

That changed after “Common Sense” hit the streets, being widely read and discussed openly in taverns and coffeehouses throughout the land.

Within approximately one year, an estimated 100,000 copies were sold—a remarkable feat considering the population of America was only about 2.5 million.

After its widespread distribution, Paine’s words proved highly persuasive to tens of thousands across the colonies, nudging support for independence to well over 50 percent. Paine followed it up with an even more persuasive clarion call—“The American Crisis”—in December 1776, its words so grippingly effective that General George Washington had it read out loud to his troops in an attempt to keep his Army together:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

An Incredibly Risky Wager

As America had a miniscule Army and ineffective Navy in 1776—versus Great Britain with the most powerful Army in the western hemisphere and a colossally-equipped Navy, only the most aggressive wagerer would have made the bet that the colonies could prevail.

After the move for independence was put into writing on July 4, 1776, the die was cast.

The members of the Second Continental Congress understood that what they were hoping to achieve would be a “long shot” by any reasonable standard.

Early Losses, but Some Victories

King George III and his senior military officers had a lot to be optimistic about early on. The city of Boston was surrounded, then Crown forces took control of another major port—New York—and Washington’s troops were not only on the run—they were ragged, nearly starving, and dangerously low on supplies.

Retreating across the Delaware River to Pennsylvania, Washington knew he had to be bold to survive. With the help of financier Robert Morris and others, Washington received enough cash and materials to forge not only one, but two attacks that would change the way people viewed the war.

The Battle of Trenton on Dec. 26, 1776 and the Battle of Princeton on Jan. 3, 1777 were brilliantly conceived and stunningly successful victories at a time when the Commander knew his Army was near collapse. Being a deeply religious man who often visited local churches during the war, Washington was convinced that a “higher power” had kept his dream—what he called “the Cause”—alive.

A Leap in the Dark

Historian John Ferling captured the essence of this tumultuous era effectively in “A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic.” In the book, Ferling describes the “behind the scenes” workings of all the major players, noting their strengths, their weaknesses, and their own doubts about whether they could possibly succeed.

That Washington’s Army was desperate for a victory to end the conflict is an understatement.

Most days they were just hoping to find food and stay on their feet. Though the Continental Army had eked out a few wins, the odds still favored the British. The war would drag on until British General Cornwallis found himself in deep trouble in Virginia, getting surrounded by Washington’s as well as France’s troops and warships leading up to the climactic Battle of Yorktown in October 1781.

A World-Changing Event

Though it may be apocryphal, when Cornwallis surrendered, it has been reported that the British troops were so stunned, they played the English ballad “The World Turned Upside Down” as they relinquished the battlefield to Washington—who literally “by the grace of God” had managed to survive.

The soldiers who had stood by Washington from the beginning, through the defeats in New York and Philadelphia, the horrendous freezing Winters at Valley Forge and Morristown, surely felt in their veins what those assembled in downtown Philadelphia had written on July 4th: “… with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Considering the overwhelming odds against us, it is not a stretch to say that the words to the tune written decades later were true: “America! America! God shed His grace on thee …”

Looking back 250 years, it becomes clear that the sacred fire of liberty which burned in those hearty souls was not only a flame that couldn’t be extinguished—it was an idea which was destined to change the world.

As the Trump administration’s Department of Energy moves to wipe out over $83 billion in “Green New Scam” loans and conditional commitments approved in the final months of the Biden administration, a new analysis reveals that not only did the rush to spend accelerate right after Biden’s disastrous June 27, 2024 debate with now-President Donald Trump, senior Biden officials landed roles at organizations that received agency funding. In some cases, money was steered to NGOs that the officials worked for before joining the government – where they then returned following the cash bonanza. 

Following the debate where Biden revealed how cooked he is, nonprofit watchdog Democracy Restored found that billions of dollars began rushing out the door to over a dozen environmental and climate-focused NGOs, including that Alliance for Sustainable Energy, Climate United Fund, the Ocean Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy, and Rocky Mountain Institute, according to Just the News. 

Using data from USASpending.gov, Democracy Resorted found that federal agencies had obligated more than $600 million in taxpayer money to these organizations since July 1, 2024. The obligations began to drop the day after the election. Obligations to these same organizations since Nov. 5, 2024 fell to $246 million. 

While various agencies were providing millions in support to these organizations, high-level officials within the agencies either went to work for them after Trump took office, or they had previously worked for them prior to assuming key roles at the agencies under Biden. -JTN

Using data from USASpending.gov, Democracy Restored found that federal agencies obligated more than $600 million to environmental and climate-focused nonprofits beginning July 1, 2024 — including the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, Climate United Fund, Ocean Conservancy, Nature Conservancy, and Rocky Mountain Institute.

That flow of taxpayer cash slowed dramatically after the election. Since Nov. 5, 2024, obligations to the same organizations dropped to $246 million, according to the watchdog group.

At the same time, Democracy Restored identified a pattern that raised eyebrows: senior federal officials moving into roles at organizations that received agency funding — or having previously worked for them before holding key government posts.

I think the money being shoveled out after President Biden’s debate and the apparent revolving door of appointees going to recipients of these federal funds raises many questions about the timing of the money, the impact of special interests in the Biden administration and the general ethics surrounding this behavior,” said Houston Keene, director of Democracy Restored, in comments to Just the News.

Loan office under fire

Scrutiny has focused on the Department of Energy’s Loans Programs Office, now renamed the Office of Energy Dominancy Financing.

In August 2024, the DOE awarded the World Resources Institute a $1 million grant aimed at supporting school bus fleet electrification training and collaboration.

Two former senior DOE officials are now senior fellows at the institute: Jigar Shah, who served as director of the Loans Programs Office, and Jennifer Wilcox, who was principal deputy assistant secretary at the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

Shah’s tenure has drawn particular attention. The Washington Free Beacon reported in May that the Loans Programs Office approved a loan to Plug Power, a New York-based green hydrogen company, in May 2024.

According to the repoprt Shah’s private equity firm previously invested $100 million in Plug Power, and the company once described the firm as a “longstanding partner.” Shah told the Beacon that he did not work directly on Plug Power’s loan and said the company applied before he joined the office.

An Office of Inspector General audit released in December found that 20% of Loans Programs Office employees reviewed had a potential conflict of interest – or the appearance of impaired impartiality – while performing their duties.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright testified in May that the office issued roughly $40 billion in loans over the prior 15 years, but that figure ballooned to $100 billion in just the final 76 days of the Biden administration. Wright said those rushed loan agreements lacked safeguards traditionally required by the DOE.

The revolving door keeps spinning

Democracy Restored’s review identified other examples of officials cycling between government agencies and nonprofit recipients.

Renee Stone, formerly in senior leadership roles at NOAA, now serves as vice president of climate for the Audubon Society. During the Biden administration, Audubon received nearly $4 million across three grants for habitat restoration projects.

Monica Medina, another former NOAA official, is now a distinguished fellow at Conservation International, which received a $9 million grant in 2023 for an ecosystem restoration project in Hawaii.

Chetan Hebbale, once a policy adviser in the White House, later joined the Nature Conservancy as a climate and conservation finance policy adviser. The organization received more than $6 million in federal funding during Biden’s term.

Federal ethics law restricts certain post-government actions by former senior officials, but it does not prohibit them from accepting employment with private or nonprofit organizations — even those that received government funding.

Keene emphasized that there is no evidence any of these individuals directly worked on the grants in question, but said the relationships warrant closer examination.

Offshore wind ties raise questions

The Biden administration’s aggressive push for 30 gigawatts of offshore wind also drew scrutiny.

Oceans Conservancy, a vocal supporter of offshore wind expansion, received nearly $6 million in two grants from NOAA during the Biden years. The group has also received support from Orsted, a major offshore wind developer.

Susan Ruffo, who previously served as managing director of international initiatives at Oceans Conservancy, later worked for NOAA and other federal agencies.

“I think it says a lot about the stewardship of tax dollars under the Biden administration,” Keene said. “If you were an organization that agreed with the administration politically, they weren’t afraid to cut you a check. That’s a problem for the taxpayer.”

Just hours after Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) rebuffed Bill and Hillary Clinton’s attorney’s last-ditch conditional offer, the former president and former secretary of state appear to have acquiesced and agreed to key demands from the Republican-led House Oversight Committee to testify about Jeffrey Epstein in a closed-door deposition.

The initial correspondence, obtained by CNN, revealed that the Clintons’ team has been in search of an off-ramp for days.

Attorneys for Bill and Hillary have been in discussion with the Republican-led committee multiple times since lawmakers from both parties voted in January to hold the Clintons in contempt for refusing to appear for in-person depositions as part of the panel’s investigation into Epstein.

“It has been nearly six months since your clients first received the Committee’s subpoena, more than three months since the original date of their depositions, and nearly three weeks since they failed to appear for their depositions commensurate with the Committee’s lawful subpoenas,” Comer wrote.

“Your clients’ desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”

As CNN reports, according to the letter dated January 31, the Clintons’ lawyers laid out the terms under which the former president would sit for a voluntary, transcribed interview.

He would sit for four hours in New York City for an interview limited to the scope of the Epstein probe, they said.

Lawmakers from both parties and their staff could ask questions, and the lawyers said both the Clintons and the committee could have their own transcriber present, according to the letter.

Comer rejected the offer from the Clintons’ attorneys as “unreasonable” and said he could not accept such terms.

He could not agree, he said, to changing the interview from a sworn deposition to a voluntary interview, and rejected the way in which the attorneys sought to limit the interview’s scope. 

“But given that he has already failed to appear for a deposition and has refused for several months to provide the Committee with in-person testimony, the Committee cannot simply have faith that President Clinton will not refuse to answer questions at a transcribed interview, resulting in the Committee being right back where it is today,” the Kentucky Republican wrote.

By rejecting the Clintons’ initial offer, Comer had all but ensured that the House would hold a final vote this week on the contempt resolutions.

“Your clients’ desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency,” Mr. Comer wrote in a letter to the Clintons’ lawyers on Monday that was also obtained by The New York Times.

Indeed, as The NYTimes reports, after some Democrats on the panel joined Republicans in a vote to recommend charging them with criminal contempt, an extraordinary first step in referring them to the Justice Department for prosecution, the Clintons ultimately waved the white flag and agreed to fully comply with Mr. Comer’s demands.

In an email sent to Mr. Comer on Monday evening, attorneys for the Clintons said their clients would “appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates” and asked that the House not move forward with a contempt vote, which had been slated for Wednesday.

However, it was not immediately clear Monday evening whether Comer would accept the Clintons’ terms and, subsequently, whether the contempt votes would still take place.

Comer said:

“The Clintons’ counsel has said they agree to terms, but those terms lack clarity yet again and they have provided no dates for their depositions. The only reason they have said they agree to terms is because the House has moved forward with contempt.”

“I will clarify the terms they are agreeing to and then discuss next steps with my committee members,” Comer said in a statement.

For Mr. Clinton to testify in the Epstein investigation would be nearly unprecedented.

No former president has appeared before Congress since 1983, when President Gerald R. Ford did so to discuss the celebration of the 1987 bicentennial of the enactment of the Constitution.

When Mr. Trump was subpoenaed in 2022 by the select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, after he had left office, he sued the panel to try to block it. The panel ultimately withdrew the subpoena.

It was a victory for the Republican chairman, shifting the focus of his panel’s Epstein investigation onto prominent Democrats who once associated with the disgraced financier and his longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell.