Tuesday, May 20, 2025

If Biden Had a High Cancer Score While in the White House, Shouldn't He Have Had Surgery (a Biopsy) Under Anesthesia? Does Anybody Ever Remember Him Handing Over Authority to Kamala?


As if there weren't enough questions regarding Joe Biden's (lack of) transparency, and while Fox News senior health editor Melissa Rudy asks doctors to break down what it means that Biden’s prostate cancer is ‘hormone-sensitive’, our friend Duncan Hill digs up what so far seems to be an unasked question:

Last night I heard on the news that Biden's Gleason score was 9. Yikes, that's scary high. But, my next thought was a Gleason analysis required a biopsy. A biopsy from the prostate requires surgery...minor but still done with the patient under anesthesia. So, Biden was unconscious for a period of time. Doesn't he have to publicly hand over temporary authority to the Vice President? Does anybody remember that happening?

Whatever the timing of the biopsy was, there is no way in hell Biden's doctors weren't aware of elevated PSA. And if the cancer has progressed as far as they say it has, an elevated PSA would have shown up a long time ago.

Also, we're told that Biden was undergoing therapy for his cancer while he was occupying space in the Oval Office. Somewhere I heard it was hormone therapy and that was why he had poor balance and cognitive issues. When I was deciding on a therapy for my prostate cancer I did a deep dive into researching hormone therapy. Falling down and mumbling were never mentioned...never...at least in the patients and doctors that I talked to.

How come every Dem narrative falls apart with just a moment of thought applied? Forget it...I answered my own question.

As it happens, now a Former Biden medical advisor says he 'probably' had cancer at beginning of presidency (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of none other than Rahm "Never let a crisis goto waste" Emanuel).
You can count on another ol' amigo, Damian Bennett, to put 2 and 2 together, joining Joe Biden's Democrat Party and the mainstream media at the hip, and tell everybody
Never Forget, Never Forgive, J6 All Biden's Enablers:
Table setting:

Réchauffage:
  • Chuck Schumer in 2024: "His mental acuity is great. It's fine. It's as good as it's been over the years."
    Chuck Schumer in 2025: "We're looking forward. That's it."
  • Karine Jean-Pierre in 2024: "He is sharp. He is on top of things."
    Karine Jean-Pierre in 2025: "I don't want to rehash the past."
  • J.B. Pritzker in 2024: "He is on the ball. The man knows more than most of us have forgotten."
    J.B. Pritzker in 2025: "Look, all this stuff about his health or, you know, commentary that people are making in books, uh, frankly, that's very backward looking."
  • Pete Buttigieg in 2024: "The president, the boss that I work for, is a focused and disciplined leader."
    Pete Buttigieg in 2025: "Right now with the benefit of hindsight, I think most people would agree [Biden shouldn't have run]. We're also not in a position to wallow in hindsight."
  • Jim Clyburn in 2024: "I do not believe that Joe Biden has a problem leading for the next four years."
    Jim Clyburn in 2025: "I have no idea. I don't have a medical degree."
  • Elizabeth Warren in 2024: "I talk to the man. The man is sharp. The man knows what he’s talking about. He does the job."
    Elizabeth Warren in 2025: "[barely contains laughter] ... The question is, what are we gonna do now?"
As a dog returneth to his vomit...:
Enough, hundreds more like the above. For the record, ahead of the curve for years (actually since before the Bork, and Thomas hearings):

Mr. Biden has twice failed to convince his own party that he is presidential material (1988 garnering 2 delegates and most recently 2008, when he garnered none). Mr. Obama reached down and lifted him up, praising Mr. Biden as an exemplary substitute for himself.

Mr. Biden has some unusual experiences that qualify him for something, though not the presidency. [Pause.] Not even the vice presidency. For example, he managed to graduate from law school in the "top half" of his class while ranked 76th in a class of 85, scil., the bottom quintile. That's a very neat trick and valuable experience.

And there's more. There's always more with Joe. So much more that Mr. Obama has "assigned two veteran minders to travel with [Mr. Biden] — David Wilhelm, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, and David Wade, a former spokesman for Senator John Kerry." Mr. Wade follows Mr. Biden around and, when Mr. Biden misspeaks, Mr. Wade steps in. Mr. Wade explains that Mr. Biden's errors of fact, misrepresentations of campaign positions (both Mr. McCain's and Mr. Obama's), misstatements, embellishments, untruths, cheats, and wandering garrulity, all these go to prove Mr. Biden's humanity.   

•  DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot October 23, 2008
  • DGB: Joe On The Job February 27, 2009
  • DGB: The Enforcer March 21, 2009
  • DGB: Joe On The Job V May 4, 2009
  • DGB: Joe On The Job VI July2, 2009
  • DGB: Joe On The Job IX November 22, 2009
  • DGB: Joe On The Job X January 13, 2010

  • DGB: Joe Biden Is An Idiot IV -- Palace Coup! March 23, 2011
    Special Constitutional Scholar Edition
    On and on and on through 2012... 
    ...then E-Nough! shuttered in 2013, then innumerable emails. Make it stop! OK, enough.

    The lying press wants you to believe they were lied to. The lying Democrats want you to believe they were lied to. Biden's lying enablers now want you to embrace the pitiable benignity of Robert Hur's assessment of Biden, a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. It is long past due for Republicans to act like Democrats and J6 everyone complicit in Joe Biden's Potemkin presidency.

    Throughout all the lying and revealed truth and finger-pointing one thing has remained constant, immutable -- Joe Biden has always been a self-serving, self-aggrandizing, vain dishonest small man, envious and tormented by the success of others. He is undeserving of forgiveness because he is incapable of contrition. He has no soul. He is an asshole.

    •  

    Posted by at 2 comments:

    ROF President Joins I24 Debate to Discuss Donald Trump's Middle East trip and its impact on Israel


    On Thursday May 15, Randy Yaloz joined a debate team on the I24 channel to discuss Donald Trump's Middle East trip and its impact on Israel.

    After 19 minutes, and more specifically after 30 minutes, the debate about the Jewish state's solitide in the face of terrorists and other foes at Les Grandes Gueules avec David Neeman turns to the Trump trip, while the intervention by the head of Republicans Overseas France starts at the 30:30 minute mark and goes on to the 33:03 minute mark. Surprisingly, therefore, in a program that lasts almost an hour (56 minutes) — and during which at least one participant seemed to go berserk — the American was only given a very quick 2.5-minute remote slot; but Randy managed to say a lot in a short period of time. Bravo Randy! 



     

    Posted by at No comments:

    Monday, May 19, 2025

    What Nobody Tells You About Apartheid and Jim Crow: The Policies of South Africa and of the USA's Southern States Were Neither Rightist Nor (Primarily) Racist; What They Were Was "Socialism with a Racist Face"

    Lost in the ongoing brouhaha about a group of Afrikaner refugees being accepted in Donald Trump's America is the fact that Apartheid was neither a rightist nor even a primarily rac(ial)ist one. The same stands for Jim Crow, as well as slavery, in the Southern States.

    As you can't avoid having heard, the Republican Party is often demonized for being predominant in the states that used to have slavery and Jim Crow. Actually, once the Southern states stopped being socialist and discriminatory, they naturally turned towards the free market. And so the Democrat party was left behind, along with and in the wake of Jim Crow and slavery. (Dankie aan Sarah vir die InstaHiperskakel.)

    The 20th-century policies of South Africa and America's southern states were leftist policies, typical leftist policies, as it were, designed against capitalism and the free market. Indeed, as David R Henderson writes, 

    "The socialist roots of Apartheid are a secret in plain sight."

    I will never be able to thank David R Henderson enough for his eye-opening Joy of Freedom (one of my very earliest internet and Amazon purchases), which, during the year 2003, pivoted me once and for all to conservatism and contributed to starting me on my blogging career (which has now lasted for over 21 years). As I wrote in 2003 or 2004, after I opened my first website/weblog, the book

    is one of the biggest literary discoveries (philosophically speaking) in my life. … Although its subject is the "dismal science" — economics (its subtitle is "An Economist's Odyssey") — David R Henderson's book is a breath of fresh air. Directly or indirectly, it gives in-depth insight about subjects such as racism, segregation, unions, war, communism, fascism, anti-Americanism, education, ecology, and even the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. 

    The chapter on South Africa's apartheid era is especially eye-opening, and excerpts from said chapter are below, followed by Henderson's comments of America's slavery and Jim Crow era. (If you read this, David, please have the book republished — I bought a dozen copies during and after the Iraq War to hand out as gifts — or at least have it issued as an e-book.)

    The main opponents of Apartheid were not just the black people who wanted better jobs, but also the white employers who wanted to hire them.
    Before we go into the main subject of today's post, here are a couple of posts throughout the years featuring the writings of David R Henderson — who is a blogger at the EconLib blog and whose "specialty is in making economics understandable to non-economists" — both from my first couple of years of blogging, i.e., both 20 years old or more:
    • "Income Is Determined Not by Society Distributing, But by Individuals Earning"
    • Poverty and How to Reduce It 

    • Did you know? Of all the peoples on the African continent (once known as the "Dark Continent"), the only ones to describe themselves (and their language) officially as "African(s)" happen to be light-skinned, indeed white people, i.e., South Africa's Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners.

    • Did you know? The word "USA" stands, or used to stand, for two countries: the United States of America, obviously, of course, as well as the Union of South Africa (before the Unie van Suid-Afrika was renamed the Republic of South Africa).

    • Did you know? One of the most amazing things I remember learning in college, and that I will never forget, was that the worst animosity between communities in South Africa was in fact not between whites and blacks, but between blacks and blacks (the Xhosa versus the Zulus) on the one hand and between whites and whites (the farming descendants of the Dutch versus the business-oriented descendants of the British) on the other.

    More: • Mandela and the ANC: A Look Back
    • Fans of Mandela Like to Forget That One of the ANC's Biggest Supporters Was Muammar Gaddafi

    Without further ado: here are excerpts from The Joy of Freedom's Chapter 7, which starts out by describing South Africa and segues into America's slavery and Jim Crow eras. (I have avoided using ellipses [i.e., "…"s], but each paragraph below is from a different part of the chapter between pages 102 and 131…)

    Free Markets Versus Discrimination

    By far the most common, vicious, and destructive use of force against racial and ethnic groups is by governments themselves.                                

    Government use of force against ethnic groups is far more effective than private use of force.   

    Interestingly, Apartheid and its precursor, the Colour Bar, resulted from the South African government's desire to help white workers avoid having to compete with black workers.  Apartheid was, in essence, an extreme form of affirmative action for whites.  "Workers of the world unite, and fight for a white South Africa."

    Apartheid was, in the words of socialist Thomas Hazlett (in Henderson's "The Fortune Encyclopoedia of Economics"), "socialism with a racist face".  The socialist roots of Apartheid are a secret in plain sight.  Although these roots are well-known to scholars who have studied Apartheid, they have received little publicity in the West.  That so few Western intellectuals have been unwilling to look seriously at Apartheid's socialist roots is not surprising.  After all, a serious examination of those roots could easily lead to doubts about the goodness of socialism.   And, as most of us know, questioning the strongly held beliefs in which we have a lot invested is usually painful.

    But avoiding pain is never a good enough reason to avoid thinking and understanding, especially when the issue is so crucial.        

    Let's examine the roots of Apartheid.

    Who pushed for the Colour Bar?   Not employers.  Indeed, employers wanted the many black workers who were as qualified as the white workers and who were often willing to work for lower wages.  The main people who pushed for laws enforcing racial discrimination in workplaces were the white union workers.  Their reason was simple:  they did not want to compete with black workers.  By passing laws that to make work by blacks illegal, the white union workers could restrict the supply of labor and drive up their own wages.

    Hazlett:  "Industrialists, eyeing low-wage blacks anywhere in their neighborhoods, found them irresistible."  That, from the viewpoint of many whites, was the problem.  The employers' profit motive and the black workers' desire for better-paying jobs created constant pressure for racial discrimination to break down.  Moreover, blacks working alongside whites led to social integration, and social integration led to further economic cooperation, thus breaking down the Colour Bar even more.

    So there you have it.  Apartheid did not come about simply because South African whites didn't like South African blacks or because whites considered blacks inferior.  Those factors were necessary and were present, but the impetus for Apartheid came almost solely from white workers who used government regulation to prevent blacks from competing with them.  Without government as the enforcer, the believers in Apartheid would have been seen as a bunch of cranks and would have had their own little racist sects, but would not have been able to able to determine where blacks and whites worked and lived for 40 years.  The main opponents of Apartheid were not just the black people who wanted better jobs, but also the white employers who wanted to hire them.

    Slavery … is essentially legalized kidnapping.                         

    The U.S. government helped maintain slavery in three main ways.

    Government discrimination against black people continued well into the 20th century.  Laws in the South required discrimination in restaurants and other privately owned facilities, whether or not the owners desired it.  These segregation laws were thus a direct attack on the property rights of the owners. 

    Small wonder that early 20th-century black leaders Booker T Washington and W.E.B. Dubois, whose disagreements with each other are legendary, agreed on unions.            

    DuBois:  "[Unions are] the greatest enemy of the black working man."

    How did unions become so powerful?  That can be answered in one word:  Government.

    F Ray Marshall points out that the craft unions (for example, the plumbers union) could discriminate more than the industrial unions (the auto workers) because the craft unions could determine literally who could join and who could not.        

    By contrast, employers of workers in industrial unions usually make the hiring decisions.

    "look for the union label" 1880s ad campaign

    Unions also were strong supporters of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
    They also supported the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted Japanese people     from immigrating.

    The loss in jobs caused by the minimum wage is not an accidental byproduct of the higher minimum wages.  It is the consequence intended by those who most avidly support increasing minimum wages.  Unions don't support minimum wage increases because their own members are working at the minimum wage.  Virtually all union employees — I've never heard of an exception — work at wages above the minimum.                

    Although probably no one today would dare admit it, many who vote for increases in the minimum wage understand that one consequence will be to destroy jobs for the least skilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are black.

    Why were buses and streetcars segregated in the first place?  It wasn't because the streetcar companies wanted it that way, but because local government required it.  In fact, owners and managers of private streetcars strongly opposed segregation.  Before the law required segregation, most streetcar companies voluntarily segregated tobacco users, not blacks.  Nonsmokers of either race were allowed to ride where they wished, but smokers were relegated to the back or the outside platform.  Even after segregation laws were passed early in the 20th century, streetcar companies dragged their heels for as long as they could before complying.  Their objection was very simple:  Racial discrimination cost them money.  

    In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies refused to enforce segregation laws for as long as 15 years after the laws' passage.  But as the government stepped up the legal pressure, the streetcar companies finally had to comply with the law, and the United States stumbled further into government-enforced segregation.

    This is how markets work.  Employers care mainly about people's productivity relative to their compensation package.  Employers who want to discriminate on grounds other than productivity may do so, but they pay a price — they pass up the opportunity to hire people whose productivity exceeds their wage rate.            [Schindler's List]

    Throughout history, governments have generally been much less tolerant of racial differences than private employers have been.  This is because the government officials who discriminate incur no cost for doing so, as long as discrimination is politically acceptable, which it often has been.

    The free market helps break down discrimination in all economic transactions                

    Markets are especially good at breaking down discrimination when what is exchanged is goods rather than just labor.

    When it comes to saving their economic lives, even otherwise prejudiced people are downright tolerant.

    As economist and Nobel prize-winner Gary Becker makes clear in his book "The Economics of Discrimination", free markets make discriminators pay for discriminating.         

    The bottom line is that in a free market, any employer who discriminates on grounds that have nothing to do with productivity will pay a cost for doing so.  The economic system that removes the props from racism is free markets.

    That freedom breaks down racial and other kinds of discrimination is one reason many people don't like free markets.        [Including the independence-minded leaders of decolonization!]

    In the vast majority of cases, the result of freedom will be racial tolerance and tolerance of differences generally.

    Freedom of association means that people should be free to hire or not hire, or to work for or not work for, whom they please.

    Moreover, laws against discrimination seem invariably to get out of control in two ways.  First, the government often starts to require discrimination.

    Second, they make even sensible discrimination illegal.

    Laws beginning as modest antidiscrimination measures inevitably evolve into laws that require discrimination or ban reasonable discrimination.

    In a government-run society, unpopular groups are often discriminated against, often as a matter of government policy.  In a free society, on the other hand, freedom removes the props from discrimination.  Government policies against discrimination by business makes headlines.  Yet market penalties against discrimination are much more forceful and consistent than government penalties.  These market penalties almost never make headlines, and few people know about them.  But a free-market economy exacts a stiff penalty from employers who discriminate against people on any basis other than productivity.  For all their holier-than-thou talk about the evils of racial and other discrimination, government officials have been the main enemies of unpopular groups, and profit-maximizing businessmen have been their main saviors. Indeed, the market penalty for discrimination has been so strong that businessmen are often tenacious champions of fair treatment, even when doing so is unpopular and even when the businessmen would themselves prefer to discriminate.

    "Why did men die of hunger, for six thousand years?  Why did they walk, and carry goods and other men on their backs, for six thousand years, and suddenly, in one century, only on a sixth of the earth's surface, they make steamships, railroads, motors, and are now flying around the earth in its utmost heights of air?  Why did families live thousands of years in floorless hovels, without windows and chimneys, then, in eighty years and only in the United States, they are taking floors, chimneys, glass windows for granted, and regarding electric lights, porcelain toilets, and windowless screens as minimum necessities?"   
    (Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority)

    Related: More entries in NP's What Nobody Tells You About… series:

    • What Nobody Tells You About Indians and Other Native Americans
    • What Nobody Tells You About the Alamo and the Texas Revolution of the 1830s
    • What Nobody Tells You About the Israeli Rave of October 7, 2023

    Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, May 15, 2025

    ROF condamne la RTBF pour la façon anti-journalistique dont la chaîne belge a laissé diffamer l'un de ses porte-paroles

    Sous l'image du communiqué de presse de ROF ci-dessous condamnant la RTBF, lire la première ébauche (ou si l'on préfère la version longue ou la version détaillée dudit communiqué — the English-language version of which can be found at the very bottom of this post) avant que celui-ci n'ait été raccourci afin de former un texte d'une seule page.

    C'est avec la plus grande indignation que Republicans Overseas (Republicans Overseas France ou ROF) proteste contre votre émission du 30 avril durant laquelle on a diffamé l'un des porte-paroles de notre organisation, incapable de se défendre puisque QR Le Débat n'a pas voulu de lui sur le plateau de RTBF — ce qui, peu de gens le contesteront, est à peine croyable pour une organisation journalistique — mais a insisté pour enrégistrer ses propos plusieurs heures auparavant.

    Par conséquent, nous nous sommes vus obligés de rajouter la RTBF à la liste des médias européennes auxquelles on ne peut faire confiance. Et nous avons suggéré à tous les membres de notre organisation de ne plus accepter d'invitations de la part de RTBF.

    Nous vous rappelons que M. Erik Svane était allé jusqu'à offrir d'utiliser ses Miles pour payer de ses propres deniers un billet d'avion depuis Paris jusqu'à Zaventem. Or, cette proposition — qu'on ne peut que traiter de généreuse — a été immédiatement refusée, en insistant que sa participation serait enrégistrée au préalable via l'app Skype/Teams.

    Le soir même, celui du 30 avril, Sacha Daout et Nathalie Maleux animent un QR Le Débat sur le sujet de Trump, les 100 jours qui ont changé NOTRE monde. Tout le monde est en live, sur le plateau, avec une seule exception — le seul intervenant qui donne le point de vue des Républicains américains, à savoir M. Svane — dont les propos ont effectivement été enrégistrées six à sept heures auparavant.

    La RTBF suggére qu'il est neutre et qu'il laisse la parole à tous, et qu'il est "important de donner la voix à un défenseur de Donald Trump" (sauf que M. Svane insiste régulièrement que "I am not a defender of Trump, I am a defender of the truth — and the truth is that Donald Trump is a far better leader than the extreme leftists that are, say, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Tim Walz").  Mais sur une interview par Skype qui a duré entre 30 et 45 minutes, M. Svane apparaît à 40:14-41:33, à 55:30-56:50, et à 1:16:16-1:17:25, soit moins de quatre minutes. Certes, cela n'est pas si critiquable en soi, d'autant plus qu'on a averti M. Svane qu'avec un nombre considérable d'intervenants, aucun desdits intervenants ne devait s'attendre à beaucoup d'air time (de temps d'antenne) par personne.

    Cela dit, le reste de l'heure et demie du programme est dominée quasi exclusivement — avec l'exception de Georges-Louis Bouchez — par des critiques acerbes, voire des adversaires déclarés, de Donald Trump et des Républicains, remplis des propos les plus outranciers, avec références en abondance aux Nazis et au Führer ("on se rappelle ce qu'était l'Allemagne dans les années 30", dixit Elio Di Rupo, "si vous lisez Mein Kampf de Hitler…" 
     
    Entre parenthèses, ceux qui font sans cesse des comparaisons avec le Troisième Reich — appelons-les les férus du mélodrame (en anglais, Drama Queens) — semblent oublier que peu de gens se rappellent d'une seule famille de Juifs dans les années 1930 et 1940 dont les membres auraient fait tout leur possible pour traverser la frontière, de façon légale ou autre, afin de rentrer dans l'Allemagne hitlérienne! Quoi qu'il en soit, évidemment, il s'avère que ces critiques acerbes ont toujours la dernière parole.  Qu'est-ce là, si ce n'est pas une démonstration de la pensée unique ?

    Ce n'est pas tous les jours qu'on me qualifie de raciste
    Mais quand c'est le cas, c'est que je viens
    de gagner un argument avec un gauchiste
    Non, le véritable dérapage arrive vers la minute 55:00 ; c'est à ce moment que les choses dérapent et deviennent graves. Suite à son intervention (pré-enrégistrée, donc) à la minute 55:30-56:50, M. Svane est victime d'une diffamation injurieuse, accusé de racisme, d'être rien que ni plus ni moins un raciste, et cela sans la moindre possibilité de se défendre — et alors que sa réponse enrégistrée plus tôt était beaucoup plus longue et nuancée. Dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, c'est une des pires accusations diffamatoires, voire la pire qui soit, qui mérite la "cancel culture" et donc d'être viré de l'espace médiatique une fois pour toutes et, par ailleurs, de la société toute entière.

    Tout de suite après l'enregistrement vidéo de notre porte-parole, une intervenante est décrite comme étant "catastrophée" par son discours, comme si cette réaction était l'Alpha et l'Omega sur le sujet — que Erik Svane serait un raciste et qu'il serait coupable de "discours raciste", point final. Et c'est tout de suite après cette intervention, qu'un ancien premier ministre met les bouchées doubles et renchérit avec des accusations nazies et fascistes à propos de l'Allemagne des années 1930 (mentionnées ci-haut).

    Ajoutons qu'il n'est peut-être pas anormal que Carine Thibaut, directrice générale d'Amnesty International Belgique, soit "catastrophée" par des points de vue tant soit peu divergents quand les médias, tant belges et européennes qu'américaines, omettent de parler des (nombreux) points négatifs touchant à la présence de 11 millions d'illégaux depuis quatre ans (soit l'équivalent de la population totale de la Belgique), préférant opérer non pas comme des journalistes indépendants mais comme ce que le blog Instapundit appelle des "Democratic Party operatives with bylines" (des agents non déclarés du parti Democrate américain se faisant passer pour des journalistes neutres et objectifs).

    Ainsi, vos correspondants aux USA, qui n'ont présenté les illégaux comme autre que des victimes et/ou des opprimés, n'ont pas pu chercher ou su trouver des méfaits d'illégaux (que ce soit des crimes crapuleux ou des "banals" exemples d'irresponsabilité, comme la conduite en état d'ivresse) — et ce, alors que la mère de Laken Riley (étudiante de 22 ans assassinée en février 2024 par José Antonio Ibarra, un illégal du Vénézuela par ailleurs arrêté plusieurs fois auparavant) était présente, en compagnie d'autres membres de famille, dans les tribunes du Congrès lors du discours State of the Union du Président Trump. (Peut-on, dès lors, parler d'un air de soviétisation en Belgique francophone ?)
     
    Déjà, en janvier la RTBF a appliqué un temps de différé dans la retransmission du discours d’investiture de Donald Trump, ce qui poussa le sus-nommé Georges-Louis Bouchez à réagir ainsi : 
    La RTBF a dit avoir créé un décalage pour permettre aux gens de mettre en perspective les propos de Donald Trump, donc, sous-entendu que les téléspectateurs sont trop bêtes pour avoir un libre jugement. #HDPros 🗣️ Il y a un vrai problème à la @RTBF. Qui sont ces experts qui déterminent le bien et le mal ? On peut ne pas partager le projet de nouveau président des États Unis mais rien ne peut justifier qu’un président élu démocratiquement reçoive ce traitement de la part de petits chefs de la pensée. La direction de l’information de la RTBF n’est pas le Ministère de la censure et de la propagande. …
    "La direction de l’information de la RTBF n’est pas le Ministère de la censure et de la propagande", apprenons-nous. La direction de la RTBF elle-même, où règneraient "de petits chefs de la pensée" dans "un air de soviétisation", l'a-t'elle seulement appris ?! Il ne serait pas facile d'affirmer que la réponse soit affirmative…
     
    Si l'on veut à tout prix utiliser le verbe ou l'adjectif "catastrophé", il est difficile de savoir s'il faut être plus catastrophé par les méfaits, malheureusement nombreux, commis par nombre d'illégaux ou par les tribunaux gauchistes qui — contrairement à leur accusations envers Donald Trump et à ses partisans voire à des simples Américains moyens (soit, deux poids deux mesures dans la justice américaine) — accordent tant à des violeurs et des assassins qu'à des simples conducteurs irresponsables une indulgence sans pareil (cautionnement de seulement $500 pour un illégal accusé de viol sur une enfant mineure, de nombreux illégaux ayant causé des morts dans des accidents de la route sous l'influence d'alcool ne sont nullement incriminés pour les décès voire sont carrément remis en liberté, etc etc etc…).


    Permettez-nous de faire une transition temporaire en anglais pour évoquer, rapidement, une poignée de faits sans constestation possible, soit un résumé, malheureusement long, d'exemples récents de banditisme ou de conduite irresponsable perpétrés par des immigrés illégaux, aux États-Unis — tout en sachant que — contrairement à ce que prétend Paola Usquelis — le fait même de passer la frontière sans papiers fait de vous ipso facto un hors-la-loi, c'est-à-dire une espèce de criminel.)

    To quote Catherine Salgado, "The victims of illegal alien crime, including Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, Ivory Smith, Nate Baker (whose killer was previously ordered deported), David Lee, and Travis Wolfe, received little to no attention from Democrats." To this list can be added Melvin Jesus Aquino Enriquez (Illegal immigrant charged with murder of 3-month-old baby) and Cory Alvarez (Massachusetts Court Gives Haitian Illegal Alien Accused of Child Rape $500 Bond).

    On August 3, 2024, German Adriano Llangari Inga “of Minneapolis” was charged with driving drunk, unlicensed, and uninsured when he killed Victoria Eileen Harwell in a head-on crash. The local press did not want to admit (!) that he was an illegal alien and the local Minnesota authorities released the Ecuador native from jail. The Fox News story quoted the White House:

    “An illegal immigrant drove drunk, killed an innocent mother, and is now on the run because Democrats didn’t do their most important job: protect their constituents,” Alex Pfeiffer, White House Principal Deputy Communications Director, told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement.

    As for Jocelyn Nungaray, the 12-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in June 2024 and killed by two illegal immigrant suspects, Johan Jose Martinez-Rangel, 22, and Franklin Jose Peña Ramos, 26, who then dumped her body in a Houston bayou. The latter "was wearing an ankle monitor at the time he allegedly murdered Nungaray that was provided to him when he was arrested by Border Patrol agents after entering the country illegally and being released from custody".
    Les Belges ne seraient-ils point indignés — ou "catastrophés" — par le viol d'une fillette de 14 ans suivi de son assassinat et de l'abandon de son corps dans un marais (quelles que soient les races, les nationalités, ou le statut d'immigration des tueurs, voire de la victime) — qui rappelle tant soit peu les victimes de l'infâme Marc Dutroux (un serial killer envers qui la justice belge a elle aussi essayé de montrer de l'indulgence, en essayant de lui attribuer une liberté conditionnelle)? Que vient faire — que diable vient faire —  le racisme présumé là-dedans ?! (UPDATE : Deux mois après la publication de ce post, la RTBF posera effectivement la question : "Doit-on pardonner à Marc Dutroux ?"!)

    Plus tard, Carine Thibaut revient à la charge et prétend qu' "il faut savoir, il y a une personne qui a été renvoyée vers le Salvador … accusée de faire partie d'une Mafia — elle ne fait pas partie de cette Mafia — et cette personne on ne sait pas où elle est". Lorsqu'elle évoque ces contes de fée gauchistes, la directrice générale d'Amnesty International Belgique, qui a trop regardé les médias sous l'influence de "Democratic Party operatives with bylines", fait clairement allusion à Abrego Garcia — dont le statut en tant que "membre actif" du gang MS-13 a été clairement prouvé — y compris par ses propres aveux, en plus d'avoir été jugé coupable de bagatelles comme le trafic des êtres humains et les violences conjugales à l'encontre de son épouse.

    Tout cela ce n'est que la partie visible de l'iceberg, sans entrer dans les affres des membres de gangs ultra-violentes d'Amérique centrale et du Sud, tels le MS-13 de El Salvador et le Tren de Aragua du Vénézuela, dont le prix pour entrer dans et faire partie de ces gangs est de commettre des meurtres, que ce soit l'assassinat de membres de gangs ennemis ou de citoyens innocents. 

    Cette partie de l'interview de M. Svane (comme nous l'avons déjà décrite) "beaucoup plus longue et nuancée", a par ailleurs été coupée ; peut-on dire censurée ?

    Certes, on n'a pas tort, loin de là, de noter que pas tous les     clandestins sont des criminels (sauf que, en entrant de façon illégale dans un pays qui n'est pas le leur, ils sont tous — contrairement à ce que, encore une fois, prétend l'avocate (!) Paola Usquelis — ipso facto hors-la-loi). Cela dit, il est établi que les autorités qui penchent vers la Gauche sous-estiment délibérément les crimes des migrants illégaux. Quoi qu'il en soit, il semblerait que le vrai problème n'est point avec la droite ; le vrai problème, c'est que pour la gauche, tous les "sans-papiers" sans exception ne sont autre que des citoyens (en herbe) hautement honnêtes et respectables, ceux que ladite gauche loue au ciel avec des panégyriques glorifiantes comme "the dreamers".

    Mais le débat sur ce sujet dans ces quelques paragraphes ne peuvent pas camoufler le fait que la RTBF a émis ou laisser émettre une diffamation à l'égard de l'un des membres de ROF — l'une des pires calomnies, voire la pire, qui existe dans l'Occident de nos jours — et que personne sur le plateau n'a fait le moindre effort pour la contredire ou apporter le moindre nuance ou le moindre contexte que ce soit.

    Le consensus chez Republicans Overseas ne peut être plus claire : Nous avons rajouté la RTBF à la liste des médias européennes auxquelles on ne peut faire confiance. Dès lors, nous avons suggéré à M. Svane, ainsi qu'à tous les autres membres de notre organisation, et les membres d'organisations qui partagent nos points de vue, de ne plus accepter d'invitations de la part de RTBF (à moins, éventuellement, d'avoir la garantie d'être présent personnellement sur le plateau afin de contrecarrer tant la pensée unique que ces accusations et ces calomnies tant fausses que simplistes, pour ne pas dire fatigantes voire — éternellement — assommantes, sur le racisme).    
     
    Il s'en va de soi que nous exigeons tant des excuses de la part de RTBF ainsi qu'un droit de réponse, sans oublier un démenti sur un prochain QR Le Débat.


    Posted by at No comments:

    Wednesday, May 14, 2025

    The Left's apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people: George Floyd was nothing more than a convenient reason to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization


    Kevin Downey Jr     reminds us that 'The Issue Is Never the Issue': How the Commies Dupe Their Dopes Into Protests and Violence (spasibo to Tovarich Stephen).

    For everyone, including myself, who was wondering how the Marxists get their useful idiots to engage in some Tesla frottage, I think I found the answer:

    An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words the cause — whether inner city blacks or women — is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. —David Horowitz

    That means that no one cared about George Floyd. No one at the top of the communist hierarchy anyway. The Marxists just used his overdose death to rally their street animals to burn and pillage our nation's big, blue garbage towns. Floyd was nothing more than a convenient reason to destroy, and, more importantly, to further their goal — the destruction of Western civilization — and to fuel the incipient rise of communism in the United States.

    FACT-O-RAMA! Bolshevik Vlad Lenin sent street-level communists around the world to spread propaganda and cause chaos. They were also encouraged to rationalize everything move made by the Kremlin. He referred to these lickspittles as "useful idiots."

     That also means that the apparatchiks don't care about black, gay, and/or trans people. Nor do they care about "due process" for illegal immigrants.

     … The duty of the useful idiots is to spread lies and cause chaos. I suspect many of these mental bellyflops have no idea that they are marching for Marxism.

    The commies have tapped into a group of "practical plonkers" they haven't utilized since the late 1960s, the original "hippies."

     … As the left releases its senior squadrons and NAMBLA lads onto the streets — and in front of the news cameras — to draw away our attention, something much more insidious is taking place in our colleges.

    Propagandists, posing as teachers and professors, are brainwashing legions of hapless kids looking for purpose.

    PINKO-RAMA! One of the 45 goals of communism for America includes this gem: Goal #17-Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

    Millions of kids enroll in colleges and universities looking for an education but end up with an indoctrination.

     … The good news is that Donald Trump has gained popularity with young people, as well as black and Hispanic voters. Trump stands for liberty and freedom, not the communism that the useful idiots on the left are peddling. With younger voters embracing Western values, the future no longer scares the bejeebers out of me.

    So the next time you see a blue-haired toilet person screeching about colonizers, "racism," or a jet gifted to Trump, just remember, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution, even if the annoying useful idiot blowing her nose on a Tesla is too stupid to understand that.

    Related: Dennis Prager — The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks — The 1619 Project exists solely to convince the young generation that America was founded on evil principles
    Posted by at No comments:

    Tuesday, May 13, 2025

    Is Leo XIV in Favor of Donald Trump's Policies or Against? ROF Spokesman Joins the TV Debate About the Vatican's Choice of an American Pope

     
    ROF's Nicolas Conquer heads to BFMTV to join the debate about the selection of a new pope (from 40:10 min until minute 58 (finish)).  

    Among the TV viewers was ROF's Paul Reen:  

    Naturally BFM had an agenda to try and create political controversy between Trump and the new Pope, emphasizing a quote from the Pope’s brother claiming that the Pope thinks the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction on immigration and that Trump’s deportation of illegal criminals is unjust (even though there is a clip circulating of when the Pope was a Cardinal warning about mass immigration into Europe). 

    Nicolas handled it all very well stating that Trump was delighted with the selection of the first American Pope, but reminded viewers that Trump was elected to do a job and is doing it and that a growing number of Catholics are supporting his policies while he also supported the independence, grace, and hopeful longevity of Pope Leo…


    Posted by at No comments:

    Monday, May 12, 2025

    The 100-day-period that has changed America the most in the past 100 years: Trump's Counter-Revolution Is a Blitzkrieg, Acting on All Fronts Simultaneously


    In his first hundred days, Franklin Roosevelt established the foundations for what would become the  welfate state, writes GÉRALD OLIVIER in La Contre-Révolution Trump après cent jours (1ere partie), that is, an ever-increasing involvement of the government in all aspects of citizens' lives. 

    What Trump has accomplished in his first hundred days almost a century later — in an article where GÉRALD OLIVIER gives a "survey of what was, if not accomplished, at least initiated, during the hundred day-period that has changed America the most in the past 100 years" — is similar to FDR's, but in the opposite direction.

    In three months, he has launched the most ambitious counter-revolution ever envisioned in the United States. The term is not too strong. It is indeed a "counter-revolution." Donald Trump's ambition is to unravel the immense web woven by the government since 1945 and unleash the creative and entrepreneurial energy of the American people. At the same time, he aims to rebalance the international trade system as it has existed since that same date, in order to consolidate the United States' position as the world's leading power while restoring its aura in the world.

    This counter-revolution has been conducted at a rapid pace, primarily through presidential decrees (Executive Orders or EOs). He signed 142 of them. A record. FDR signed 99 in his first three months.

    Neither the form nor the substance of this counter-revolution were surprising.

    Trump is known for wanting to move quickly and favoring a form of chaos to surprise and destabilize his adversaries. He learned this in business. To change things, "you have to move fast and cause havoc," as a popular expression in Silicon Valley goes. He therefore launched a furious "blitzkrieg," acting on all fronts simultaneously.

    Donald Trump also announced and detailed the actions of his future administration during his presidential campaign. In dozens of tirelessly repeated remarks and speeches. His slogans "America First" and "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) foreshadowed everything he has undertaken since January 20: fighting illegal immigration, fighting inflation, reviving fossil fuels, reducing bureaucracy, eliminating wokeness, returning to common sense, reindustrializing the United States, and rebalancing international trade.

    The only surprises came from his foreign policy. Trump restored the Monroe Doctrine and proclaimed a new American imperialism, something he had hardly elaborated on before his election. He also clashed with geopolitical realities, and his hopes of achieving peace in Ukraine were dashed by the intransigence of the parties to the conflict. However, his commitment to Israel in the Middle East was exemplary.

    An overview of what was, if not accomplished, at least begun during the 100-day period that changed America the most in a century.

    Illegal Immigration

    The fight against illegal immigration is the most convincing success of the American administration since January. Donald Trump managed to close the country's southern border. What his predecessors said was impossible without a new law from Congress, he accomplished single-handedly in just a few weeks. The border with Mexico, which was crossed by an average of 5,000 people every day from 2021 to 2024, and sometimes as many as 12,000, is now seeing fewer than 200 daily crossings. 178 to be precise at the end of April. The flow has stopped. Overnight. There is no longer a massive influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. This has had an immediate impact on criminal risk, terrorism risk, and drug trafficking.

    At the same time, the Trump administration has launched the most massive deportation operation of all time. Every day, approximately 1,000 illegal immigrants, accused of crimes in the United States and sometimes already convicted, are apprehended and returned to their countries of origin or held in pretrial detention on American soil. This is particularly the case for members of the MS-13 gangs in El Salvador and the Tren de Aragua gang in Venezuela, who are sent to the CECOT terrorist detention center in El Salvador.

    The administration's swift execution, particularly that of the border police (ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement), has provoked the ire of Democrats and several judges who have attempted to block the deportations, arguing that they are unconstitutional and deprive the victims of their rights. Trump and his administration have appealed these orders, and these disputes will inevitably end up before the Supreme Court, which will be called upon to rule in the coming months, or even weeks. This will be an opportunity to clearly redefine the scope of presidential powers regarding illegal immigration, as well as the limits to judicial obstructionism.

    As a reminder, interference by federal judges to block executive branch decisions at the national level has been steadily increasing recently, constituting a means of blocking government action, completely contrary to the popular will expressed through the electoral process. During George W. Bush's two eight-year terms in office, there were a total of six judicial injunctions against his decisions. Then, twelve during the eight years of the Obama presidency. And sixty-four during Trump's first term alone. Under Biden, the total had fallen to fourteen. It has reached thirty-five during the first three months of Trump's new term, for a total of 99. Clearly, the local judicial system has become the new recourse for the Democratic opposition to halt executive action and interfere with the democratic process when the Republicans are in power.

    Fighting Inflation

    On the inflation front, the price of key commodities, including eggs—a staple of the traditional American breakfast—and especially gasoline, have fallen considerably. It cost $6.50 to buy a dozen eggs on January 21st; now, the price is $3.20. A 50% drop. A barrel of crude oil, which was $73 on January 20th, fell to $58 on April 8th. It has since risen to $63. This represents a drop of 15 to 20%, which was immediately felt at the pump by American drivers (and European drivers, but with less impact given the weight of taxes on gasoline prices in Europe).

    In Georgia, gasoline has fallen below $2 per gallon (akin to 4 liters) in some places. The national average price remains at $3.15, whereas it had hovered near $5 in July 2022.

    The United States is currently experiencing no domestic inflationary pressure. This does not prevent the media from denouncing a "potential risk of imported inflation" presented by the widespread increase in tariffs that Trump introduced on April 2. However, this is only a "risk," not a proven reality, and this risk is uncertain because the level of the tariffs in question is currently subject to multiple negotiations, and the impact of a tariff on a product's selling price is a matter of debate.

    Energy Revival

    Regarding energy, the Green New Deal, beloved by the tree huggers, is dead, and the United States has once again withdrawn from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Donald Trump has reauthorized the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits, authorized liquefied gas exports, issued new exploration permits, notably in Alaska, a vast territory containing equally vast hydrocarbon reserves, restarted the production of "clean coal," and suspended permits for the installation of new "wind farms." In short, fossil fuels, which abound in the United States' subsoil, are once again popular, and renewable energies are being restored to their historic place as backup energy sources.

    Trump established a "National Energy Dominance Council" whose task is to work not simply toward US energy independence, which was achieved during his first term, but also toward its dominance in the global market.

    Trump also ended the ban on internal combustion vehicles in 2035. The Biden administration had decreed that electric vehicles should account for 67% of car sales by 2032, and 100% three years later. This decision was made without any public consultation or parliamentary debate by the un-elected bureaucrats of the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump put an end to this ambition, which was nothing more than wishful thinking and would spell the end of the American auto industry.

    Conversely, he encouraged the production of all types of vehicles—internal combustion, hybrid, and electric—on American soil. This was to revive the struggling industry and support the re-industrialization of the United States. Many manufacturers, including Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, Hyundai, and Audi, have responded to this call, motivated by the desire to avoid the tariffs that President Trump has begun imposing on imported vehicles and auto parts.

    Government Reform and the Fight Against the Deep State

    The DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) is the most spectacular creation of the Trump 2.0 administration. And the opposition it has generated is both a reflection of its success and an illustration of the true mood prevailing in Washington.

    For decades, American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have complained about a sprawling, costly, and paralyzing bureaucracy. Ronald Reagan complained about it as early as 1981, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and Barack Obama in 2012. All vowed to take action to reduce this bureaucracy.

    At the time, this ambition was unanimously supported by public opinion. But all these presidents have, in truth, done nothing. A speech full of melodrama, and nothing beneath it. Donald Trump, on the other hand, who had promised to act quickly and decisively to reduce the power and influence of un-elected bureaucrats during his campaign, set about drastically reducing bureaucracy upon his return to the White House. First with a simple rule: a new regulation can only be instituted if ten existing rules are eliminated. Then with the creation of DOGE, which he entrusted to Elon Musk.

    The task specified to Musk is to identify all "abuses, fraud, and waste" existing in government agencies and services, in order to inform directors so that they can take the necessary measures. In just three months, Musk has exposed tens of billions of dollars of waste, often bordering on negligence, sometimes incompetence, as well as outright embezzlement and a form of corruption. In short, Musk has revealed the use of billions of dollars of public funds to finance opaque progressive propaganda outlets in the United States and abroad.

    Musk should have been celebrated as a hero. He should have been praised, thanked, and rewarded. Because, without asking for any compensation, he launched a fight on behalf of American taxpayers, to ensure that their hard-earned dollars were spent wisely and for causes that served the United States' interests. But he was vilified, denounced, threatened, and attacked. His companies' products were vandalized and boycotted. Why? Because by attacking the bureaucracy—that is, the deep state—with a chainsaw, Elon Musk has shaken the Democratic political machine and endangered the radical nebula that has thrived for years on hidden government subsidies. The violence of the attacks he continues to face is, moreover, the true measure of the success of his actions.

    So far, DOGE has saved $160 billion. That's 10% of the budget deficit. One hundred and twenty thousand civil service jobs have been eliminated. That sounds like a lot, but it only represents 6% of the workforce, or $12 billion in savings per year. Dozens of agencies have nevertheless seen their missions redefined or suspended, indicating that DOGE's impact is not just economic but political.


    Dans La Contre-Révolution Trump après cent jours (1ere partie), GÉRALD OLIVIER nous donne un "Tour d’horizon de ce qui a été, sinon accompli, du moins commencé, au cours des cent premiers jours qui ont le plus changé l'Amérique en un siècle."

    Le 30 avril a clos les premiers cent jours du second mandat de Donald Trump à la Maison Blanche. C’est une date symbolique. Non pas en référence aux cent jours de Napoléon en 1815, mais aux cent jours de Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) en 1933. 

    Devenu président après deux ans d’une crise économique sans précédent, Roosevelt avait réussi à stopper la spirale dépressive et redonner espoir à ses concitoyens, grâce à une série de réformes votées durant ses cent premiers jours. Ce faisant, il avait révolutionné le gouvernement, la politique et l’économie américaines plus qu’aucun de ses prédécesseurs. Ses premiers jours avaient établi les fondations de ce qui allait devenir « l’Etat providence »,  soit une implication toujours plus étendue du gouvernement dans tous les aspects de la vie des citoyens.

    Près d’un siècle plus tard, Donald Trump est engagé dans une œuvre comparable, mais en sens inverse. En trois mois, il a lancé la plus ambitieuse contre-révolution jamais envisagée aux Etats-Unis. Le terme n’est pas trop fort. Il s’agit bien d’une « contre-révolution ». Donald Trump a pour ambition de détricoter l’immense toile tissée par le gouvernement depuis 1945 et de libérer l’énergie créative et entrepreneuriale du peuple américain. Dans le même temps, il ambitionne de rééquilibrer le système du commerce international tel qu’il existe depuis cette même date, afin de conforter la place des Etats-Unis comme première puissance mondiale et de restaurer son aura sur le monde. 

    Cette contre-révolution a été conduite à cent à l’heure principalement à coups de décrets présidentiels (Exexutive Orders ou EOs). Il en a signé cent quarante-deux. Un record. FDR en avait signé 99 sur ses trois premiers mois. …

    Immigration clandestine

    … Pour rappel les interférences de juges fédéraux pour bloquer au niveau national les décisions de l’exécutif n’ont cessé de se multiplier récemment constituant un moyen, totalement contraire au vœux populaire exprimé via la processus électoral, de bloquer l’action du gouvernement. … l’appareil judiciaire local est devenu le nouveau recours de l’opposition démocrate pour stopper l’action de l’exécutif et interférer avec le processus démocratique lorsque les Républicains sont au pouvoir.


    Posted by at 6 comments:

    Sunday, May 11, 2025

    "Wholly unprepared for wartime production needs": Is America still the world’s leading technological and industrial power?


    Is America still the world’s leading technological and industrial power?

    asks ROF's Sébastien Laye in the Washington Examiner as he lays out A Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook for the US. 

    This is the daring and haunting question some of the most brilliant minds in technology and industrial policy recently addressed in a thick volume called The Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook. 

    Compiling contributions from American Compass, the Institute for Progress, the Foundation for American Innovation, and the New American Industrial Association Foundation, this extensive text lists policy proposals anchored in the belief that if we prolong the mantra “invent here, make there”, a lurking decline will decidedly knock the U.S. off its pedestal. 

    These researchers focused on three areas: industrial, national security, and frontier innovation. With AI, these three considerations are tightly intertwined inasmuch as technology has become the cornerstone of industrial and innovation might. The playbook proposed by these researchers has the merit to remind policymakers that without a manufacturing base, this three-pronged approach would be heedless.

    At the inception of the text, the authors dramatize the stakes by asserting that America is wholly unprepared for wartime production needs, as it would take at the current pace nearly eight years to replenish our weapons inventory. These manufacturing problems are further exacerbated by failing electrical and energy infrastructure nationwide. From the citizenry’s perspective, technology, like other pursuits, should support economic growth, national security, and community flourishing.

    Other entries in Sébastien Laye's Washington Examiner series:
    • Promethean Rivalry: The AI race between America and China is even more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex
    • Silicon Valley against China: the Trump administration needs to step up America's artificial general intelligence (AGI) game
    • Is General Mayhem the Dystopian Future for International Technologiy Rivalries? Read About MAIM (Mutually Assured AI Malfunction) in the U.S.-China AI Race
    • A national security imperative: By doubling down on partnerships with Ukraine and Greenland, the U.S. aims to break free from Chinese dependency while reinforcing its technological supremacy

    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)