Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss told the audience at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that her country is “failing,” and needs a MAGA-type movement to save it.

“We now have a major problem in Britain that judges are making decisions that should be made by politicians,” said Truss, speaking from National Harbor, Maryland, and adding that the British judiciary is “no longer accountable” due to reforms by her predecessor, Tony Blair, who handed power over to an “unelected bureaucracy.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind that until those changes are reversed, we do not have a functioning country. The British state is now failing, is not working. The decisions are not being made by politicians,” Truss continued.

Truss also said that UK voters have grown increasingly angry because they keep voting for change – only to be let down over and over, including by current PM Keir Starmer.

“The same people are still making the decisions. It’s the deep state, it’s the unelected bureaucrats, it’s the judiciary,” Truss said. “And I think what ultimately will happen, what I hope to see, is a movement like you have in the US with Maga [‘Make America great again’], with CPAC, with all these organisations, that ultimately pushes change we all want. We want to have a British CPAC.”

Truss then said “We want Elon and his nerd army of muskrats examining the British Deep State!”

FMR. UK PM LIZ TRUSS: “We look across the Atlantic with envy.”

“We want illegal immigrants deported!”

“We want taxes to be cut!”

“We want a Trump revolution in Britain!”

“We want Elon & his nerd army of muskrats examining the British deep state!” pic.twitter.com/BkK7Mwut4O

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 20, 2025

Truss’s comments are emblematic of a growing right-wing movement across Europe – as voters in Germany, Austria, France and the Netherlands have been gravitating towards populism amid failed ‘green’ policies, unchecked immigration, and censorship policies that violate basic human rights.

According to the NY Times, which spoke with Europeans who voted for right-wing candidates, people cast their ballots “in fury, in frustration, in protest and perhaps most of all in a bid to bring change to a system they believe has failed to fulfill the contract between their democratically elected governments and the people.”

They talked openly about nationalism, immigration, stagnant economies, the cost of living, housing shortages, anger at the elite and their countries’ perceived buckling to what many consider politically correct views.

Their voices offer a window into the choices Europeans may make in the year ahead. The main event will be a Feb. 23 snap federal election after the collapse of the governing coalition in Germany, where the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has made tremendous gains. Voters in Italy, Poland, Norway, Ireland, Romania and the Czech Republic — all countries where populist movements are either well established or on the rise — are also expected to choose leaders on the local or national level.

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is on track to win the next election.

Farage has notably slammed the impact of Net Zero on the British Economy, and says he’s on a mission to “reindustrialize” Britain and achieve a “180 shift” in the country’s policies.

There’s reason for cheer at Reform HQ this morning: Nigel Farage’s party is leading Labour in a YouGov voting intention poll for the first time. According to the poll, Reform UK leads on 25 points with Labour in second place on 24 per cent and the Conservatives in third on 21 per cent. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are on 14 per cent and the Greens on 9 per cent. While there have been a handful of polls to date putting Reform in the lead, they have so far been regarded as outliers. In response to the poll, Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform, said: ‘Much more to come as common sense policies welcomed to save Britain and make us better off’. –Spectator.co.uk

h/t Watts Up With That

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

A Modern Monetary Theory “Superbonus” trial is underway in Italy. The state pays 110 percent of home renovations…

In an effort to stimulate the economy during Covid, MMT proponent and then Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte came up with a not so brilliant idea that is now so popular no politician has been able to completely turn it off.

Contractors are going door-to-door offering to renovate homes for free.

The cost of scaffolding is up 400 percent, And the cost of the program, estimated at 35 billion Euros is now 220 billion euros and rising.

How to Torch 220 Billion Euros

Please consider How to Torch 220 Billion Euros

In the depths of the COVID pandemic, with the ECB committed to keeping sovereign spreads low and the EU fiscal rules suspended, Italy launched what would become one of the costliest fiscal experiments in history. Prime Minister Conte announced that the government would subsidize 110% of the cost of housing renovations. The “SuperBonus,” as the policy was called, would improve energy efficiency and stimulate an economy that had barely grown in over two decades. Consumers would face neither economic nor liquidity constraints:

Rather than direct cash grants, the government issued tax credits that could be transferred. A homeowner could claim these credits directly against their taxes, have contractors claim them against invoices, or sell them to banks. These credits became a kind of fiscal currency – a parallel financial instrument that functioned as off-the-books debt. The setup purposefully created the illusion of a free lunch: it hid the cost to the government, as for European accounting purposes the credits would show up only as lost tax revenue rather than new spending.

Contractors often inflated renovation costs; for instance, a €50,000 project might be reported as €100,000. The bank would purchase the €110,000 tax credit at near face value, enabling the contractor to pocket the difference, sometimes sharing it with the homeowner. At times, no work at all was carried out, in which case, invoices for non-existent work on fake buildings were a perfect tool for organized financial crime.

Builders were going around offering to pay people money to renovate their houses. A scheme initially budgeted at €35 billion will end up costing Italian taxpayers €220 billion — about 12% of GDP. Annual costs ballooned from 1% of GDP in 2021, to 3% in 2022, and 4% in 2023. Only 495,717 dwellings would end up being renovated – meaning the average cost of the program was around €320,000 per home.

Riccardo Fraccaro – a lawyer, Five Star Movement politician, Modern Monetary Theory adherent and architect of the SuperBonus – saw the program as a way to push a fiscal expansion while complying with EU rules. By designing the Superbonus as a system of transferable tax credits, Fraccaro and his advisors sought to create a parallel financial instrument that did not immediately register as public debt.

The [European] Commission approved the inclusion of the Superbonus in Italy’s NRRP after its design, with full knowledge of the fact this program included a 110% subsidy.

When Italy’s deficit shot up in 2023 due to the Superbonus, rising from a projected 5.5% to 8% of GDP, there was no market panic. Italian bond spreads remained contained, thanks to the ECB’s Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI), which reassured investors without the ECB even needing to intervene. By removing the constraint of market discipline, the ECB allowed the Superbonus to persist far longer than it otherwise would have.

The very mechanisms designed to protect the euro may now be undermining it. When the ECB steps in to prevent market pressure on sovereign bonds, it removes a crucial disciplining force on national fiscal policies, creating perverse incentives for politicians to expand spending without regard for long-term sustainability.

New Rules Scale Back Program

The above article, written February 14 2025, is amusing but dated. The program is still in place, but at a reduced rate.

In 2023, Italy Scaled Back the Program to 90 Percent Free rather than 110 percent free.

With state expenses rising, the new government has announced — through the “Decreto Aiuti Quater” (Amendment to the Subsidies Decree) and the Budget Law 2023 — that it’s immediately scaling back the subsidy to 90%, and then will be gradually reducing it over the next few years (to 70% in 2024 and 65% in 2025). In a nutshell, the main changes to the 2023 Superbonus are:

• The Superbonus deduction has been lowered from 110% to 90% as of January 1, 2023.
• Credit transfers no longer apply, except for work already in progress and with applications submitted by February 16, 2023.

Only 65 Percent Free

This year, renovations are only 65 percent free.

But making repairs free is easy enough via a scheme of fraudulent kickbacks stating with 35 percent fictional markups.

Italy’s Public Debt Tops 3 trillion Euros

Reuters reports Italy’s Public Debt Tops 3 trillion Euros, Highest on Record

Italy’s public debt rose further in November, exceeding 3 trillion euros ($3.1 trillion) and hitting a record high, the central bank of the euro zone’s third-largest economy said on Wednesday.

The sustainability of Rome’s huge public debt has long been seen as a crucial factor for the survival of the euro zone, and Italy has been the most sluggish economy in the bloc since the launch of the single currency around 25 years ago.

The country’s public debt – already the euro zone’s second-largest after Greece in relation to gross domestic product (GDP) – is forecast by the government to rise to around 138% of GDP in 2026, from 135% in 2023.

If economic growth in 2025 comes in significantly below the government’s 1.2% target, as most forecasters expect, the debt-to-GDP ratio is due to increase further.

Rome, which was put under the European Union’s excessive deficit procedure last year, hopes to bring its deficit below the EU’s 3% of GDP ceiling in 2026, from 3.8% targeted last year and 7.2% in 2023.

European Union’s Excessive Deficit Procedure

France and Italy are both under excessive deficit procedures.

France is ungovernable as a result. Germany is up next.

Not to worry, MMT assures us that government debt does not matter.

Related Posts

March 27, 2024: Expect a Financial Crisis in Europe With France at the Epicenter

The EU never enforced its Growth and Stability Pact or Maastricht Treaty rules. The crisis is coming to a head with France and Italy in the spotlight. The first casualty will be Green policy.

December 1, 2024: French Government May Collapse, France Bond Yields Higher than Greece

A fiscal and political crisis is brewing in France over mandated debt brakes. Marine le Pen threatens to collapse the government.

January 9, 2025: Trump Demands Defense Spending 5 Percent of Europe GDP, No Chance of That

Much of the EU is struggling to get defense spending up to 2 percent of GDP. 5 percent of GDP has zero chance. Let’s discuss the math.

This month has seen a series of provocative incidents between the Australian and Chinese militaries. Last week a Chinese fighter jet and an Australian military plane had a close encounter, with each side condemning the other.

Canberra rebuked Beijing for “unsafe” military conduct after the Chinese jet released flares near an Australian air force plane patrolling the South China Sea. However, the Chinese government accused the Australian plane of “violating Chinese sovereignty and endangering Chinese national security.”

Following this, China sent warships down the eastern Australian coast, sailing just 150 nautical miles east of Sydney in a recent first.

The Australian navy has responded by sending its own warships to shadow and monitor the Chinese PLA Navy ships. They include three ships total: a Chinese frigate, a cruiser and a supply tanker.

“We are keeping a close watch on them, and we will make sure we are watching every move,” Australia’s Defense Minister Richard Marles said.

“It’s not unprecedented. But it is an unusual event,” Marles said, but still stipulated that the vessels are “not a threat” at this point as they are “engaging in accordance with international law.”

“And just as they have a right to be in international waters, which is what they are doing, we have a right to be prudent and to make sure that we are surveilling them, which is what we are doing,” he added.

Additionally, New Zealand’s Defense Minister Judith Collins confirmed that NZ’s military is closely monitoring the ships’ progress.

She told a national broadcaster, “We have not been informed by the Chinese government why this task group has been deployed into our region, and we have not been informed what its future plans are,” and that “We will continue to monitor these vessels.”

Australia is shadowing three Chinese warships north east of Queensland just days after an “unsafe” encounter in the South China Sea. In the “unsafe” encounter, a Beijing fighter jet dropped flares on an Australian military plane, a P-8A Poseidon. SEE MORE: https://t.co/XZyUWcN0Cm… pic.twitter.com/JedKBupujH

— The Daily Telegraph (@dailytelegraph) February 14, 2025

Maritime analyst Bec Strating La Trobe University has questioned, “What is the Chinese navy doing this far south?”

She was quoted in the NY Times as describing, “That would be the thing that is causing anxiety. Is this intelligence gathering, is this really just signaling to Australia that the Chinese are also able to have naval presence in these areas?”

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Its self-exclusion from the proposed “army of Europe” coupled with creeping informal concerns about Germany and Ukraine’s territorial intentions make Poland the perfect US partner for dividing-and-ruling Europe after NATO’s proxy war with Russia finally ends.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski came out against Zelensky’s proposal for an “army of Europe” by flatly declaring that “it will not happen” despite many of his peers wanting to prioritize such plans in light of the US’ impending disengagement from the continent that JD Vance hinted at in his historic speech. Casual observers assumed that this lifelong Europhile would have jumped at the opportunity, as would former President of the European Council-turned-Prime Minister Donald Tusk, but that didn’t happen.

Even though they’re more of an Anglophile and Germanophile respectively than they are Europhiles, and their corresponding foreign patrons support Zelensky’s proposal, Sikorski and Tusk’s half of Poland’s ruling duopoly must most immediately appeal to public opinion ahead of May’s presidential election. They need to replace outgoing President Andrzej Duda with their fellow “Civic Platform” (PO) member Rafal Trzaskowski instead of allowing his fellow “Law & Justice” (PiS) member Karol Nawrocki to do so.

Tusk’s PO-led liberal-globalist coalition came to power in fall 2023 but have been unable to implement their radical socio-cultural agenda at home due to the (very imperfect) conservative president’s veto rights. Replacing him with Trzaskowski would enable PO to fulfill their plans while his replacement by Nawrocki would lead to a continued impasse until fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. On the foreign policy front, both PO and PiS are pro-American, albeit to different degrees.

PO can’t be described as anti-American by any stretch, but it’s traditionally been considered more pro-German than pro-American, while PiS has evolved into an openly anti-German party that’s rabidly pro-American. Accordingly, PO might hypothetically want to participate in an “army of Europe”, but they have to play it cool for now ahead of May’s presidential elections. At the same time, however, they’ve also evolved since fall 2023 and have begun to promote some policies in support of the national interest.

These have taken the form of fortifying PiS’ border wall with Belarus that was built to stop illegal immigrant invasions, which that neighboring country’s leader at the very least turns a blind eye to as an asymmetrical response to Poland’s regime change campaign against him, and standing up to Ukraine. The latter has seen Poland revive the Volhynia Genocide dispute in recent months and declare that it’ll only provide arms to Ukraine on credit instead of continuing to give them everything for free like before.

With these policies in mind, which might be sincere and not just a charade to win over some so-called “moderate nationalists” from PiS, PO might also be serious about its opposition to the “army of Europe”. In that case, it actually wouldn’t matter whether Trzaskowski or Nawrocki replaces Duda in several months’ time since Poland might still exclude itself from this regional process in pursuit of what its ruling duopoly would have apparently agreed to be the national interest.

To elaborate, Poland has consistently sought to carve out a “sphere of influence” for itself in Central & Eastern Europe, whether overlapping with parts of its former Commonwealth or expanding beyond those borders into new domains like the Balkans. These ambitions have taken the form of the 2009 “Eastern Partnership” that it co-founded with Sweden, the 2016 “Three Seas Initiative” that it co-founded with Croatia, and the 2020 “Lublin Triangle” that it co-founded with Lithuania and Ukraine.

Prior to PO’s pivot back to the gist of these plans late last year, the early months of its most recent rule essentially saw it subordinating Poland to Germany’s “Fortress Europe” concept, which refers to the Biden Administration’s plans to have the EU’s de facto leader take control of the continent as its proxy. Germany’s incomparable economic strength and ruling coalition’s liberal-globalist ideology paired with Olaf Scholz’s December 2022 hegemonic manifesto to make this a very attractive scenario for the US.

Everything changed since then after Trump’s unprecedented political comeback over the past year, which is revolutionizing the US’ foreign policy and led to Vance’s historic speech last week where he hinted at his country’s impending disengagement from Europe. Vance’s speech also importantly coincided with new Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s praise of Poland as “the model ally on the continent”, however, thus suggesting that the US will once again favor Poland over Germany.

That wouldn’t be surprising since it’s the same policy that Trump applied during his first term, but it would be greatly helped along if PiS remained in the presidency and Poland didn’t descend into the sort of liberal-globalist dystopia that Vance just railed against should Trzaskowski win. Even if he does, however, PO might exercise self-restraint and control some of its most extreme liberal-globalist impulses so as to not get on Trump’s bad side and risk being made an example out of like others already have.

The strengthening of Polish-US military ties throughout the US’ impending disengagement from Europe as it “Pivots (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China would advance both of their interests. From the American side, Poland can once again be wielded as a wedge for keeping German-Russia ties in check if they improve after the Ukrainian Conflict ends and the AfD plays a role in the next ruling coalition to help bring that about, which segues directly into what Poland stands to gain from this.

Simply put, its ruling duopoly’s dreams of restoring their country’s lost geopolitical glory could once again be entertained if the US returns to openly favoring Poland as its top European ally, which can lead to American backing for the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” and “Lublin Triangle” in pursuit of this. Poland would become the natural magnet for regionally disaffected states like the Baltics, Romania, and even Ukraine if the NATO-Russian proxy war ends in a compromise as expected so this is very plausible.

Depending on the outcome of the US’ reportedly planned rapprochement with Belarus, Poland might be encouraged to step up and repair relations with Russia’s top ally too, all in an attempt to lure Lukashenko away from Moscow and back towards his pre-summer 2020 “balancing act” to keep Putin on edge. None of this would be possible if Poland ceded even more of its sovereignty to the German-led EU by joining the “army of Europe” that Zelensky just proposed and thus weakened its military alliance with the US.

Some Poles also fear that the AfD’s possible role in Germany’s next ruling coalition could lead to the revival of at least informal claims to what Warsaw calls the “Recovered Territories” that were obtained after World War II. These were Polish for centuries before becoming German but it’s beyond the scope of this analysis to detail. Likewise, there’s also a risk that post-conflict Ukraine redirects some of its hyper-nationalism away from Russia to Poland, whose southeastern regions are claimed by some radicals.

Consequently, the US’ impending disengagement from Europe could embolden a partially AfD-ruled Germany and an irredeemably hyper-nationalist Ukraine to one day advance their claims to Poland (perhaps even jointly), which could only possibly be deterred by Poland’s close military ties with the US. Of relevance, Ukraine claims to already have almost 1 million troops while Poland and Germany are actively competing to build the EU’s largest army, with Poland already having the third-largest in NATO.

The preceding two paragraphs weren’t written to imply a prediction about Germany and/or Ukraine invading Poland, but simply to describe how Poland’s ruling duopoly might perceive the fast-moving processes in Europe right now and what they think they could possibly lead to. This interpretation would account for why the pro-German half of this duopoly that’s currently in power broke with Berlin over this issue and shows how easily the US can exploit this perception to continue dividing-and-ruling Europe.

Neither half of Poland’s ruling duopoly is expected to replace their fearmongering about a Russian invasion with fearmongering about a German and/or Ukrainian one, but they’re evidently concerned about the last two scenarios as proven by PO’s new approach towards the EU and the US. Refusing to cede more military sovereignty to the German-led EU while strengthening military ties with the US shows that even the most Europhilic half of this duopoly is hedging against the aforesaid threats.

Looking forward, PO will either expose the abovementioned approach as an electioneering charade after May’s presidential vote or it’ll continue along this trajectory by having Poland once again serve as the US’ top ally on the continent, following which its ruling duopoly would seek to derive some benefits. These could take the form of the US helping Poland restore its lost geopolitical glory in contemporary conditions via the “Three Seas Initiative” while deterring perceived German and/or Ukrainian threats.

The US’ impending disengagement from Europe would remain incomplete in that case since its continental focus would shift to Poland and its envisaged “sphere of influence”. The total amount of troops there would be less than what it now has in Europe, but it would still suffice for supervising them all after the Ukrainian Conflict ends. Everything depends on PO, however, and they might ultimately prefer keeping Poland subordinated to Germany instead of once again trying to rise as a regional power.

Authored by Gregory T. Kiley via RealClearDefense,

Interesting times.  Just one month into President Donald Trump’s second term in office and one would be forgiven for feeling a little whiplashed.  From invoking and revoking Federal Government-wide Office and Management and Budget policy memoranda to announcing wide-reaching tariffs and then staying implementation those same tariffs, Trump’s second tour White House has started eventfully.   

Hopefully, at least as far as Trade Policy is concerned, once personnel are in place, deliberate, rational, and thoughtful trade and trade negotiations will continue that seeks the long-term goals established by the president, while also helping American businesses in the short term to better fight back, level the playing field, and win here in the U.S. market with American consumers.   

On President Trump’s first working Monday in office his Office of Management and Budget released a memorandum freezing all federal financial assistance and grants.  This might have been a well-meaning attempt for the new Administration to review federal spending priorities, but such a blanket call to freeze funds was unprecedented and confusing to those not consulted – including the other branches of government. Within hours, OMB rescinded the far reaching, over broad memo, but will continue their review of funding – as they rightfully should.

On Tariffs, the Presidential-candidate Trump ran on his plan to utilize tariffs as a tool of foreign policy, economic policy, and to Make America Great Again.  It should have come to no surprise that one of the first acts now President Trump did was to threaten the country of Columbia with tariffs if they did not accept back illegal aliens that our government plans to return. Columbia caved on the threat and accepted the returnees.  

Next has come a broad 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico announced January 31st, 2025. Purportedly tied to the excessive funneling of illegal fentanyl drugs into the United States, within hours of implementation, Mexico has agreed to send troops to the border to stop illegal immigration, resulting in at least a month delay in imposing the 25 percent tariff on Mexico goods. Canada similarly agreed to work with the Trump Administration to stem the flow of illegal drugs in exchange for a halt to implementation of tariffs.

Bold actions, some positive results, however, a better model could be found in the careful, deliberate negotiated approach of 2017-2020 Trump White House and Team.  

Still, with the confirmation of Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and nomination of Jamieson Greer to serve as the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), President Trump has an experienced team coming to hopefully make judicious use of Tariff policy. 

Another thing the first Trump Administration got right was a laser focus on China and its predatory practices.  Trump’s team needs to continue pushing the goals and intentions of China tariffs – to increase domestic production and jobs across America over Chinese government-assisted and enabled entities.  The tariffs are designed to encourage more domestic production, making it at least as expensive to import from abroad over manufacturing domestically.

The tariff regime is broken if it can advantage Chinese companies while disadvantaging American companies. This is an inequity about the current tariff system that President Trump can fix.  One example is Milwaukee Tool, which contrary to popular belief is actually a Chinese company.  The Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity in 2024 alleged the Chinese firm (like others) may not be paying its fair tariff share, taking advantage of America and hurting American competitors in the process.

Moving forward, this second Trump Administration should ensure the system doesn’t disadvantage American companies over their Chinese competitors that benefit from government subsidies. Trump should use his tariff authority judiciously, including the use of exemptions to help American companies battle back and, ultimately, invest more in the U.S. and create new manufacturing career opportunities in the process.  The same way the threat of tariffs gives the president leverage with world leaders; the use of targeted tariff exemptions can do the same to help American businesses grow strong again. 

These are indeed interesting times, and as the old English Phrase connotated, may we live up to their challenges.  The second Trump Administration has started with a bang, now the hard work of detailed negotiation and focused policy needs to follow.

Gregory T. Kiley, former senior professional staff member, Senate Armed Services Committee; and U.S. Air Force Officer

Pope Francis has at this point spent over a week in the hospital in Rome, battling pneumonia in both lungs, and in the last 24-hours there have been reports that his condition is stable and has seen slight improvement.

The 88-year old Pontiff entered the hospital on Feb. 14 with worsening bronchitis, leading doctors to eventually diagnose pneumonia, and reports in the initial days were dire.

Archbishop Giuseppe Satriano of Bari gave an update on Francis’ condition Thursday, saying “He’s a fighter, and I believe he’ll win this battle.”

Satriano described that he is awake, eating, and doing some work from his hospital bed, and that blood tests show slight improvements in his inflammation levels. The official Vatican assessment as of Thursday night is that Francis’ condition is “slightly improving” that he’s free of fever.

Still, the severity of the episode has led to speculation over possible resignation:

In a memoir, Life: My Story Through History, published last year, Francis wrote, “I think that the Petrine ministry is ‘ad vitam’ [‘for life’] and therefore I see no conditions for a resignation”, only to add in the next sentence, “things would change if a serious physical impediment were to arise”.

As the pontiff enters his eighth day in hospital on Friday, suffering from pneumonia in both lungs, Vatican watchers are wondering just how serious Francis, 88, thinks that physical impediment has to be.

On Thursday evening, the Vatican said that Francis’s condition was “slightly improving”, adding that his heart and circulation were in good shape and that he was free of fever and able to work.

However, in an interview on Italian radio, the senior Vatican cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi broached the topic on everyone’s mind and claimed: “I think he could [resign] because he is a person who, from this point of view, is quite decisive in his choices.”

This is the first time in his pontificate that the issue of resignation has been raised by a senior Cardinal. However, if he exits the hospital soon this is unlikely, as Pope’s traditionally serve till death. It is extremely rare for a Pope to step down, with his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI having been one of the exceptions to the historic rule.

As talk of a potential conclave in the near future heats up I thought it would be helpful to make a diagram of the current ideological makeup of the College of Cardinals pic.twitter.com/FHXgoRyYR0

— Al Carbo (@carbo_al) February 18, 2025

Newsweek commented, “The possibility of resignation resurfaced when Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi noted that if Francis’ ability to engage directly with people was compromised, he might consider stepping down.”

Conservative and traditional Roman Catholics have been critics of Francis’ leadership, saying he represents a liberalizing trend in church life. Liberals have tended to hail him as being open to the world and a voice of ‘progress’.

Via American Greatness,

Vice President J.D. Vance drew criticism from European leaders and press following his speech last week at the Munich Security Conference in Germany where he openly chastised  European authorities over their suppression of free speech.

Now, just days after Vance’s warning to European official about censorship, a woman has been confronted by police and arrested for holding a sign that read “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want” outside of a Scottish abortion clinic.

Unbelievable – just days after Vance warns Europe about censorship

The Scottish police arrest a woman for offering a conversation near an abortion facilitypic.twitter.com/SKp5IWgZnm

— Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) February 20, 2025

In his remarks in Munich, Vance gave examples of Germany arresting people criticizing feminism, Sweden arresting individuals for criticizing religion and Scottish police arresting a man for silently praying for his aborted son outside of an abortion clinic.

European leaders were called to task by Vance for abandoning what he called their “most fundamental values” while insisting that the U.S. should continue helping defend Europe.

Vance told the assembled leaders, “If you are afraid of the voices, the opinions and the conscience that guide your very own people … If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people.”

JD Vance attended the Munich Security Conference where he criticized European leaders, accusing them of being petty tyrants for restricting freedom of speech. He specifically mentioned the case of a British man who was arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic. pic.twitter.com/GR35DVKK1O

— Catch Up (@CatchUpFeed) February 14, 2025

Vance’s remarks prompted shock and condemnation among many European politicians and various state media.

U.K. news outlets had some of the harshest criticism for the Vice President over his condemnation of so-called “buffer zones” around abortion clinics in Scotland where police arrested a man for silently standing outside a clinic, praying for his unborn son.

The BBC accused Vance of making “dangerous” claims about Scottish laws during his remarks when he spoke of people living within so-called safe access zones receiving a letter from the Scottish government, “warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law.”

According to the BBC, a Scottish government spokesperson said, “no letters had been sent out saying people couldn’t pray in their homes, and only “intentional or reckless behaviour” was covered by the act.”

However, a copy of the letter received by homeowners within the “safe access zones” reveals ambiguous language that appears to bear out Vance’s warning of the growing danger to peaceful free speech.

The misinformation is from Mackay, the liar.
Simply read the letter. Vance is correct. https://t.co/VgtPJ1dWl7 pic.twitter.com/ZlWzoY56RJ

— @Sea_and_Sand0 (@SeaandSand0) February 14, 2025

Should we believe what European politicians and state media are telling us or what can be clearly seen with our own eyes?

Days after Elon Musk and his xAI team unveiled Grok-3—touted as the “smartest AI on Earth“—the chatbot, which outperforms all commercially available models, has surged to the top of the Apple App Store list. 

Data from the App Store shows that xAI’s Grok app sits number one on the “Top Free App” page, beating OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Meta’s Threads, and TikTok.

This surge in demand for Grok likely began around the release of the new model on Monday night. 

Musk and xAI staff showed how the new model outperformed Alphabet’s Google Gemini, DeepSeek’s V3 model, Anthropic’s Claude, and OpenAI’s GPT-4o across math, science, and coding benchmarks.

Momentum was reignited on Wednesday night after Musk announced that Grok-3 would be “free to all” for a limited time.

For a short time, Grok 3 is available for free to all! https://t.co/r5iLXi2pBm

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 20, 2025

By Thursday morning, Musk and xAI had encountered a good problem: “We’re seeing some heavy traffic, so we’ve opted for an alternate model to get your answer to you faster.” 

This was the message generated while asking the model to produce an image. 

We asked Grok… It responded:

XAI noted overnight: “This is it: The world’s smartest AI, Grok 3, now available for free (until our servers melt).”

This is it: The world’s smartest AI, Grok 3, now available for free (until our servers melt).

Try Grok 3 now: https://t.co/Tj0afLoxEz

X Premium+ and SuperGrok users will have increased access to Grok 3, in addition to early access to advanced features like Voice Mode pic.twitter.com/YgKavSCiWr

— xAI (@xai) February 20, 2025

That time may have arrived. 

Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

In the plummy world of alumni relations, where distinguished graduates are awarded honorary degrees and major donors are fêted at the president’s mansion, it is virtually unheard of for former students to set up shop as a political counterweight to the university, challenging its modes of governance and day-to-day operations

Alarmed by academia’s dominant ideological ethos of social justice activism – particularly the holy trinity of race, sex, and gender – more than two dozen dissident groups have emerged seeking to rebalance the culture at leading public and private universities across the country, including Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, Williams, the University of North Carolina and the University of Virginia. 

They are expected to gain traction with Donald Trump back in the White House.

The dissident alumni organizations are not shoestring operations, but well-honed machines, some raising several hundred thousand dollars a year; a number of them have hired executive directors, professional staff, or consultants. This loose coalition of local chapters has also developed into a national movement with its own umbrella group, the Alumni Free Speech Alliance. 

Drawing on alumni resources and connections, the dissidents have curated email lists totaling thousands of recipients, diverted financial contributions from longtime university donors, attracted financial support from foundations, organized speaker series and public events, and generated critical reports and investigative articles, especially regarding policies advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. They have invited prominent conservative and contrarian thinkers such as George Will, Nadine Strossen, Jonathan Haidt, Douglas Murray, and Heather Mac Donald to deliver on-campus talks.

The Virginia Military Institute alumni group, The Cadet Foundation, is the publisher of the independent student newspaper, The Cadet, and other chapters function as aggregators, muckrakers, and news services. The Jefferson Council,the University of Virginia alumni chapter, produces original articles almost daily of consistently high informational and entertainment value, and mostly written by a retired news editor and author. 

“When you get down to it, these groups are news organizations, in a sense,” said Tom Rideout, a 1963 graduate of Washington & Lee University and a former American Banking Association president who co-founded one of the first alumni free speech associations, The Generals Redoubt, in response to the university’s move in 2018 to distance itself from its namesakes and their ties to slavery. “Essentially we’re in the communications business. Our job is to gather intelligence and distribute intelligence to supporters.”

It’s not possible to isolate the precise influence of these alumni from parallel pressure applied by Republican lawmakers, conservative trustees, and heterodox faculty, but college donations dipped nationwide last year in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests; donations at Harvard, Columbia, and Penn fell dramatically during this time amid rising alumni alarm. 

For their part, the dissident alumni say they have helped bring about significant political gains, including: 

• The resignation of Cornell president Martha Pollack, who was accused of prioritizing “DEI groupthink” that resulted in unruly campus protests and student harassment, prompting an investigation by the U.S. Education Department; 
• Princeton’s president admonishing first-year students at freshman orientation last fall that it’s not the university’s job to “validate your opinions”;
• The University of Virginia suspending student-led campus tours that angry alumni said caricatured the legacy of Thomas Jefferson as nothing but slavery, rape, and theft of Indigenous land; 
• The Virginia Press Association awarding its “top honor” to the Virginia Military Institute student newspaper, which is published by dissident alumni, for the student-journalists’ coverage of DEI controversies on campus. 

Their operating expenses go to staff salaries, marketing expenses, speaker fees, and events, which can get disruptive. In some cases, the alumni chapters pay for their speakers’ private security or reimburse the university for campus security. UVA billed The Jefferson Council $7,847 for Abigail Shrier’s appearance in 2023 to discuss her book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” Over two years, The Jefferson Council was billed about $47,000 for security expenses in connection with controversial speakers. 

The newly arisen alumni free speech associations are just one facet of a major realignment in academia that signals that a half-century era of unchallenged progressive intellectual dominance may be coming to an end. Major university systems in red states have already ended DEI policies in hiring and scholarship, and more than 120 universities have adopted policies of institutional neutrality – the idea that the university exists to foster debate and criticism, not to take sides on public controversies.

Other organizations devoted to protecting academic freedom and viewpoint diversity – such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Heterodox Academy, and the Academic Freedom Alliance – have arisen to challenge the narrow academic consensus on social and political questions. 

In parallel, heterodox faculty at leading universities have formed campus chapters, such as the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom, and kindred faculty groups at Yale, MIT, Columbia, and Duke. Last year, the University of Chicago announced an anonymous grant of $100 million to promote free speech values at the Chicago Forum for Free Speech and Expression. The Chicago Forum develops student orientation programming, supports research in academic freedom, and establishes fellowship programs for visiting scholars. 

Over the same period, conservative donors, legislators, and trustees have launched more than a dozen academic civics centers that are reviving classical liberal education, rediscovering the Great Books, and rejecting what they perceive as the vilification of Western Civilization. These well-funded programs operate autonomously like law schools or engineering schools, with their own deans, Ph.D. programs, and sometimes dedicated buildings. 

Trump’s Election a Boost

Trump’s election is expected to accelerate the reforms, particularly with his threat to cut federal funding to institutions that give weight to the racial identity and gender identity of students and faculty in admissions, hiring, teaching, and research. 

In a January essay on the Princetonians for Free Speech site, group co-founder and current secretary and general counsel Edward Yingling, a former American Banking Association president, predicted that 2025 will be a breakthrough year for free speech on campus. The major precipitating event of this predicted turnaround, Yingling wrote, was the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 that led to unruly campus protests and encampments and the resignations of Ivy League presidents at Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, all of which now have alumni free speech association chapters. 

Some observers warn the anti-woke pushback will lead to an overcorrection. The legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group, predicted, according to the New York Times, the likelihood of increased attacks on the free speech rights of progressive students and professors, including investigations, punishment, and terminations. A recent weekend essay in the Wall Street Journal issued a similar warning, saying that the ravages of wokeness and cancel culture will come in the form of political payback: “They/them who sow the censorious winds should be prepared to one day reap the whirlwind.”

These transformations point to a looming question about the future prospects for the alumni free speech alliance chapters: Will these dissident alumni organizations be able to sustain momentum and continue attracting donations when it starts looking like wokeness is moribund and DEI is DOA? 

When asked this question, not a single chapter representative hesitated to say that the fight will continue for years, possibly until the current generation of faculty and DEI hires reaches retirement age and can be replaced with a more balanced professoriate.

Carl Neuss, a California real-estate developer who co-founded the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, likened academia to a beautiful sailing ship infested with rats who are about to face an exterminator. 

“It’ll be a battle royale,” Neuss said. “It’ll be a generation-long effort to get some balance back in the universities. They’re never going to reform themselves – the only way for it to occur is from outside pressure.”

James Bacon, a co-founder of The Jefferson Council and the chapter’s former executive director, expressed similar sentiments, characterizing the prevailing DEI value system among students, faculty, and administrators as “an entrenched orthodoxy.” 

“It’s going to be a battle of a generation before we bring about substantial change,” Bacon said. “It’s going to be trench warfare, like the Battle of Verdun, fighting over inches.”

Retired federal prosecutor John Bruce, a board member of the University of Carolina at Chapel Hill’s alumni free speech association, concurs. “We see ourselves as permanent,” Bruce said. “There is a danger that people will think that the battle has been won. But the Left is relentless.”

Although the formal missions of these alumni chapters include specific proposals to promote free speech and viewpoint diversity, their ambitions are much broader: to change the intellectual climate of academia, revive classical liberal education, and curb the social justice activism that has pervaded academia for years. 

Some of the dissident groups – including chapters at UVA, Washington & Lee, Cornell, and Princeton – have been active in opposing campus efforts to  rename buildings and remove statues, plaques, and commemorations that are said to glamorize white supremacy or make African American students feel excluded. 

The Washington & Lee University alumni who formed The Generals Redoubt include among their stated goals the re-establishment of public prayer. The group defends the character of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and promotes a book, “Un-Cancel Robert E. Lee: An Open Letter to The Trustees of Washington and Lee University,” written by member Gib Kerr and published by the conservative imprint, Bombardier Books.

These alumni were furious that W&L removed Lee’s name from the campus chapel, sealed off Lee’s recumbent statue from public view, and removed the likenesses of George Washington and Robert E. Lee from diplomas awarded to graduating students. 

The Generals Redoubt is one of the most successful alumni chapters, raising $2 million in each of the past two years, according to the ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer database, and spending $1 million to purchase a historic property to serve as the organization’s headquarters and venue site. 

Among those that have taken on the cause of historic preservation, The Jefferson Council’s formal mission involves preserving “the beauty of The Lawn” – the terraced greensward and courtyard at the heart of Thomas Jefferson’s academic village that is listed on the Virginia Historic Register, the National Historic Register and among the UNESCO World Heritage Sites – from political signs that the chapter deems vulgar and offensive. 

The Jefferson Council was provoked in 2020 by a student occupant of one of the storied 19th-century rooms on The Lawn who posted on the door: “Fuck UVA,” followed by a string of accusations: “UVA operating cost, KKKops, genocide, slavery, disability, Black+Brown life.” 

Noting that the profanity was “disheartening,” the university nevertheless supported the student’s free speech rights in this instance. UVA’s decision was publicly praised by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, “illustrating why UVA is one of the relatively few institutions in the country to earn FIRE’s highest, ‘green light’ rating.”

The Jefferson Council was galvanized by UVA’s “Racial Equity Task Force” report in 2020 that recommended $950 million in DEI-related and antiracist-oriented investments, leading to the removal of a statue of George Rogers Clark (a subjugator of indigenous tribes), the renaming of the main campus library, and the promised – but as-of-yet not realized – “contextualization” of the Thomas Jefferson statue in front of the iconic Rotunda, designed by Jefferson himself and modeled on the Roman Pantheon. 

The Jefferson Council has filed more than 200 Freedom of Information Act requests to pry loose details on a range of issues, including details about UVA’s decision-making on recent name changes of campus buildings and past and potential yet-unannounced future statue removals. A faculty petition has declared The Jefferson Council to pose a threat to academic freedom. 

“We are widely detested,” said Bacon, one of the co-founders and principal writers for The Jefferson Council.

In a 2023 New York Times article about the alumni group, UVA President James Ryan expressed his doubts about The Jefferson Council’s real motives: “Whether this is an effort to focus on the aspects of D.E.I. that seem to threaten academic freedom and push toward ideological conformity, or whether it’s an effort to turn back the clock to 1965 – it’s hard to know.” 

Despite the official snub – or perhaps because of it – The Jefferson Council raised a healthy $260,000 in 2023, down from $557,044 the previous year. The group communicates with 3,200 members and has about 850 active donors, said co-founder Thomas Neale, a corporate finance professional who is also chairman of the national Alumni Free Speech Alliance. 

What rankles Neale and other alumni is what they see as a blatant double standard that trumpets free speech rights for woke obscenities on a UNESCO World Heritage site but cites the harms of misgendering and microaggressions when the insult goes the other way.

The dissident alumni have established a base of support among like-minded students and faculty on their respective campuses, but they have also made enemies along the way. 

Robert Morris Jr., the founder and president of VMI’s dissident alumni group, The Cadet Foundation, has been banned for life from the university’s official alumni association in connection with its disputed accessing of the alumni email database to recruit alumni to the dissident group, and a number of other alumni were handed 10-year suspensions for their involvement. 

Bert Ellis, a University of Virginia trustee and co-founder of The Jefferson Council, was censured by UVA’s Faculty Senate for allegedly planning to vandalize the student’s “Fuck UVA” sign; Ellis was also the target of an unsuccessful effort by Democrats in the Virginia statehouse to block his appointment to UVA’s board of visitors. 

A ‘Monster List’ of Supporters

According to The Cornell Daily Sun, then-President Martha Pollack said in 2023 – a year before she was forced to resign – that it was “incredibly frustrating” that groups like the Cornell Free Speech Alliance denounce DEI “in the guise” of defending free speech. 

The Cornell group has proven to be one of the most active and effective chapters, one born out of a university fundraising appeal gone bad. 

In 2019, Cornell officials courted Neuss, a 1976 engineering grad and successful real-estate tycoon, with an invitation to make a substantial gift – “north of $1 million,” in Neuss’s words – in exchange for a naming opportunity involving a university building, possibly a library or a laboratory. Neuss had heard rumors about intolerance and censorship on campus and delayed cutting the check as he mulled his options. In a bid to appease his concerns, university officials introduced him to political moderates on the faculty. After hearing their testimonies, Neuss resolved to use his donations to create the Cornell Free Speech Alliance in 2021.

“What he learned from these faculty members was astonishing,” the Cornell Alliance memorialized in one of its numerous reports. “They told him that they felt sidelined and humiliated by the diversity training they were required to attend and were perpetually afraid they would say something factual but impolitic that could negatively impact their job.”

The alumni organization began compiling an email distribution from various sources – web searches, references, word of mouth, unsolicited inquiries – and now communicates regularly with 23,000 regular readers and subscribers. Like other alumni groups, Cornell tapped into the university’s official alumni association contacts list – extracting thousands of emails – before Cornell shut down unlimited access. The Cornell Free Speech Alliance now disseminates news updates and other information reporting on the Cornell administration and exposing practices the group considers abusive or even illegal.

“This is one thing that absolutely freaks them out,” Neuss said. “We have compiled this monster email list of Cornell alumni, donors, trustees, former trustees, et cetera.”

A report issued in December 2023 lists a number of early achievements: creating a free speech “action plan” for Cornell leadership; media exposure in The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, New York Post, Inside Higher Ed, National Review and RealClearPolitics; and filing an amicus brief with other alumni free speech alliance chapters in a Supreme Court case involving alleged free speech abridgments at Virginia Tech University. 

Neuss said the organization has close to 1,000 donors. As of 2023, the group reported $221,000 in revenue and total assets of $186,000, according to the ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer database. It is run by an executive committee of eight Cornell alums and two dozen other volunteers, and paid professionals include an email blast specialist and a PR/communications point person.

One of the culture war controversies that drew the group’s ire was the mysterious disappearance of a bust of Abraham Lincoln that had been displayed at the Rare and Manuscript Collections section of Kroch Library, which houses the university’s Asia Collections and rare books,  manuscripts and other artifacts. A professor learned from a librarian that the bust had been removed because of a “complaint.” The bust was eventually restored after the Cornell Free Speech Alliance, The College Fix, and others drew attention to its disappearance, and concerned alumni flooded the administration with angry letters. 

This was at the height of the so-called racial reckoning in the wake of George Floyd’s 2020 murder, prompting Cornell President Pollack to announce what was cast as a series of antiracist actions: a mandatory unit on racism, bias, and equity for all Cornell students; the creation of an Anti-Racism Center to generate antiracism scholarship; and a campus-wide, racism-focused semester, during which “our campus community will focus on issues of racism in the U.S. through relevant readings and discussions.” 

In January 2024, Cornell trustee and donor Jon Lindseth wrote an open letter to Cornell trustees calling for President Pollack’s resignation, enumerating a litany of complaints, starting with Pollack’s “shameful,” milquetoast response to “terrorism and antisemitism,” compared to her swift, decisive action in response to the George Floyd tragedy. 

“A new campus ‘bias reporting system’ fosters a hostile Orwellian environment among neighbors, classmates, and colleagues reporting on one another,” Lindseth wrote. “The elimination of grades and SATs has created a system in which equal outcomes rather than proven merit has become the objective.”

Many of the examples in Lindseth’s letter, such as “whistleblower accounts” from faculty, are attributed to the muckraking work of the Cornell Free Speech Alliance. “Instances are reported of qualified candidates for faculty positions being rejected for their DEI statements alone,” Lindseth wrote. 

“Even Lincoln could be canceled under the present administration,” Lindseth lamented. “This is an absolute disgrace.” 

Less than four months later, Pollack was out. 

Two weeks later, the alumni alliance released a whistleblower report headlined: “Internal Cornell Records Provided To CFSA Show How The University Discriminates Based On Personal Beliefs & Identity Profiles Rather Than Merit.” The report warned that Cornell was illegally disqualifying job candidates based on DEI statements and based on their identity characteristics. 

In August, the group submitted an incriminating 101-page report to Cornell leaders and trustees, noting that Cornell ranks 188th out of 203 American universities in free expression, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, whose surveys indicate that 88% of Cornell’s students self-censor their speech on campus. 

The report urged Cornell leaders to get out of the business of social justice activism: “Concerns of ‘community,’ ‘belonging,’ ‘microaggressions,’ and related efforts to ‘protect students from harmful ideas’ must be clearly and emphatically subordinated to the essential principles of open inquiry, academic freedom, free expression, and viewpoint diversity.”

“We’re dealing with institutions that are steeped in the oppressor-oppressed ideology,” said Michael Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a national advocacy group that helped spin off the Alumni Free Speech Alliance. “Alumni and donors are now fed up with the idea of being tapped smoothly for money but essentially being pushed aside when they want to talk about the values of the campus.”

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

John Murawski reports on the intersection of culture and ideas for RealClearInvestigations. He previously covered artificial intelligence for the Wall Street Journal and spent 15 years as a reporter for the News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) writing about health care, energy and business. At RealClear, Murawski reports on how esoteric academic theories on race and gender have been shaping many areas of public life, from K-12 school curricula to workplace policies to the practice of medicine.

NASA awarded SpaceX a billion-dollar contract last year to deorbit the International Space Station and guide its controlled descent into the Pacific Ocean by the end of the decade. Now, Elon Musk is pushing for an accelerated timeline.

“It is time to begin preparations for deorbiting the @Space_Station . It has served its purpose. There is very little incremental utility. Let’s go to Mars,” Musk wrote on X around lunchtime. 

Eric Berger, a senior space editor at Ars Technica, commented on Musk’s post: “Are you suggesting that the ISS be deorbited prior to 2030? As you know, SpaceX currently as a contract to build the US Deorbit Vehicle to safely bring the station down in 2030.”

Musk responded to Berger: “The decision is up to the President, but my recommendation is as soon as possible. I recommend 2 years from now.”

The ISS, launched in 1998, recently extended its operational life from 2024 to 2030. Russia has indicated plans to withdraw from the ISS after 2024, while China is building its own space station called Tiangong.

The total cost of the ISS since 1998 is estimated to be around $150 billion to $160 billion, including $3-4 billion per year in costs. 

Democrats have already become angered over Musk’s proposed accelerated timeline for deorbiting the ISS on X. We’re sure they’re completely melting down on BlueSky. However, the ISS was originally set to retire in 2015, only to have its operational lifespan repeatedly extended by Congress. Over the years, numerous reports surfaced on leaks and structural concerns. It’s time to move on and save taxpayers billions of dollars per year.