Posted originally on the CTH on October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
Brazil’s presidential election concludes with the final round today. Nationalist Senator Flávio Bolsonaro faces incumbent Socialist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the runoff election that will determine the country’s next president.
The race remains close in the final pre-election polls. The first official results are expected after polling stations close in Brazil at 5:00pm (local) 4:00pm (US Eastern).
Consider this an open discussion thread for your thoughts, reviews, analysis and opinion of the biggest contest in Latin America in years. If you know of a solid election results link, feel free to share in the comments.
Posted originally on the CTH on October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
Earlier today former President Barack Obama was campaigning for Abdul El-Sayed and the Muslim Brotherhood in Detroit, Michigan. This is good news for Republican Senate Candidate Mike Rogers as it means the DNC are very worried about black voters not turning out for the communist, El-Sayed. Barack Obama is always triggered for races where the DNC need to get black voters to vote; that is his target audience.
To counter the Obama effort, President Trump is holding a rally to support Mike Rogers who is now leading in the polls as election day nears. Livestream links of the rally are below, and the anticipated start time is 2:00pm Eastern.
Posted originally on the CTH on October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
Attorney General Todd Blanche appears on CBS to counter the narrative being advanced by Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan. The ever-insufferable Brennan tried her hardest to push a false storyline about the DOJ trying to interfere in the Alaska election. The Video and Transcript are below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we begin with U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Good morning to you, sir.
ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So we’re nine days out. Your colleague Harmeet Dhillon, whose office would oversee election integrity cases, told my colleagues over at 60 Minutes that, quote, “absent some shocking contingency that’s unexpected, there should be no interruption in the usual course of counting and certifying the results in the states.” Do you share that view?
AG BLANCHE: Well, yes, of course. Absent- absent some facts that require us to do otherwise, there’s President Trump, the Department of Justice- we don’t want to have to get a law involved in elections, of course not. But that doesn’t mean that at times any Justice Department doesn’t do that and shouldn’t do that if the facts and the law require it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it seems you already are taking action up in Alaska. Just for our audience to understand, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot there. There’s the incumbent senator, a Republican, Dan S. Sullivan, and then there’s a challenger there, Dan J. Sullivan. The Justice Department is suing Alaska preemptively to block the certification of the results if Senator Sullivan loses. Now, President Trump was asked about this lawsuit. He said quote, “I’m the one that said do it.” Who did he tell to do this? Did he tell you to do this?
AG BLANCHE: Well, first of all, let me correct you, okay. You describe facts that were just simply either at best misleading, but really a lie to your viewers. It is not two Dan Sullivans, one an incumbent and one running. That’s not true. The head of the Alaska Election Commission, not- not President Trump, not me, has said that the second Dan Sullivan is running solely to confuse voters, solely to pull votes away from the incumbent senator. Okay, so that is something that we’re dealing with. It’s not just two Dan Sullivans running on the ballot in Alaska. That is not true. And second, President Trump has been talking about what a travesty this is for many, many, many months, and the Department of Justice has been looking at it for many, many, many months, as we should under federal law. And you saw what we did earlier this week- late last week. And it was not- it’s not to let the federal government take over the Alaska system of selecting their next senator or certifying who’s going to be senator. It’s asking the court to step in where the Alaska Supreme Court didn’t, which is to look at federal law, and if necessary, to allow a process for Alaska to decide who should be who should be certified as a winner.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Alaska Supreme Court did uphold lower court’s ruling on this matter. They found the assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by preponderance of evidence. The Alaska Supreme Court did take on this matter. I also want to show our viewers what the ballot will look like. We have a picture of it.
AG BLANCHE: No, they didn’t. That’s the state law. That’s the state law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Just to make clear here–
AG BLANCHE: That’s the state law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –this is how the state- in this country, the states administer the elections- this is how the state came up with the issue and how to handle any confusion. Our viewers are seeing it right now. It’s ranked choice voting.
AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re not- you’re not telling the truth. You’re not being honest with the voters.
MARGARET BRENNAN: They can see that Dan- I’m showing the ballot to the viewers right now.
AG BLANCHE: You’re not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s on the screen. It says Dan S. Sullivan is listed as the incumbent. Why is that- it says incumbent. Why is that not sufficient?
AG BLANCHE: Well, listen. I don’t know if it’s sufficient, but I can tell you this: that the director of the Alaska election system has said that it will likely cause confusion, and so, you know, that- you- you can continue to talk and continue to state facts as you want them to be, but that’s different than the way that they actually are. The Alaska Supreme Court did not rule on the federal law that’s implicated in every election, and it is true that it is not often that we have to get involved. But just take a step back. Take a step back and understand what’s happening here. There is no dispute that the only reason the second Dan Sullivan is running is to pull votes away in a confusing and inappropriate manner from the Dan Sullivan incumbent. Okay? And the Alaska Supreme Court, when they issued a ruling, they didn’t issue a decision yet. We’re waiting for that decision to be- to- the opinion to be issued, but in the meantime, all that we are trying to do as the Department of Justice is make sure that federal law–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –is enforced and upheld if it needs to happen after the election.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the ballots are out. There’s a lot of mail-in ballot voting in Alaska. The ballot’s going to look like what we just showed our viewers. They are both on there. In terms of the question I asked you, I asked if it was President Trump who told you to take this action. When the president said, “I’m the one that said do it,” who did he tell to do it?
AG BLANCHE: So I don’t- I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president of the United States. I never have, and I never will.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, the president of the United States said this on camera.
AG BLANCHE: But make sure that you understand that this was not the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: He said, “I told them to do it.” Did he tell that to you?
AG BLANCHE: No, that wasn’t your question. No, no, he didn’t say it on camera.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, he did.
AG BLANCHE: He said he told them to do that. I said I will not talk ever about- no, that wasn’t your question, I said. I said, what your question was to me is, did he tell me? And I said to you, I will not talk about communications I have with the president of the United States. I haven’t ever, and I won’t ever. But I will tell you this: this is the Department of Justice doing our own research under the law, the Civil Rights Unit in the Department of Justice drafting this lawsuit, and then ultimately we filed the lawsuit. President Trump has been talking about this for months and months and months and months.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AG BLANCHE: This isn’t something new that just came up last week. This is something that’s been going on for a long time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did he file it 11 days before the election?
AG BLANCHE: Well, we were hopeful that- that the Supreme Court would actually issue an opinion and explain their reasoning. What we knew from their ruling is that they didn’t consider federal law. I’m not judging them for that; it’s just a fact. They didn’t consider federal law, so we want a procedure in place that if there is litigation, there may not be, but if there is litigation brought by others after the election because of possible voter confusion, that the ballots are kept in a way that the Alaska state- that the Alaska state election system can determine who the accurate winner is, not the federal government, not President Trump, not me, but the Alaska system as the law is required- as the law is set out for it to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the DOJ lawsuit says the defendants, who are the state election board and the ballot counting review board, quote, “not certify any election result that may be impacted by voter confusion.” The confusion is defined as Senator Sullivan not winning, and had all votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan been cast as said for Senator Sullivan, then he would have won. How do you–
AG BLANCHE: –That’s not what it says, okay.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m quoting from it.
AG BLANCHE: What it says is the way- the way that you can determine–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You are telling them not to certify it.
AG BLANCHE: No, no, but the way you- you started that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: What right does the federal government have–
AG BLANCHE: No, no we’re not saying- no we’re saying–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –telling a state not to certify or how to certify?
AG BLANCHE: We are not- we are- you know, if you talk the whole time, you’re not going to get answers out of me. But if you let me answer your question, I can address your question. Okay, so the- exactly what we want is that there are ways- because of the way that Alaska ballots are set up, where voters can vote for more than one candidate– there is a way, potentially- we don’t know what’s going to happen yet- where it will be obvious from the results and from the ballots that voters were confused, and that could be obvious from the way that they rank the Dan Sullivans or not including a Dan Sullivan on the ballot. I don’t know yet because there hasn’t been an election. But all we are doing is trying to put guardrails in place so that if that- this- that happens, there’s a system allowed where the ballots are kept in a way so that we can determine whether there was confusion. It’s not saying don’t certify. It’s saying if a court ultimately determines that it was decided because of confusion and not the will of the voters, then we do not think the states should certify, and that’s consistent with federal law and consistent with even Alaskan law, if that happens.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve been clear in saying you won’t talk about your conversations with the president. Who was he referring to when he said, “I’m the one that said do it”?
AG BLANCHE: I have no idea who he was referring to and even if I did have an idea, I would most certainly not talk about it. He’s not- what- what the president is saying, and what he clearly has said for the past four months, five months, is that this is a travesty, and this- in this country we should not have a system of elections where it’s okay for somebody who is only running with the same name to pull votes away.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: And by the way, how about we talk about that? I mean, do you disagree with that? Do you think that that’s okay? You think that should be allowed in- in our system of government? Someone that the- the head of the Alaskan system of voters has said that there is no scenario under which she can certify that voters will not be confused, and she lists a number of reasons why–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
AG BLANCHE: –that wasn’t President Trump and that wasn’t me. And the fact that the conversation is about this lawsuit we filed, and not the fact that there’s a person running for Senate in the United States, in Alaska that- that the head of the elections has said is- is only running to to confuse voters. That should be the conversation, and it’s not, and that’s- that’s unfortunate. But we’re going to make it–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –the conversation.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Supreme Court also talked about the fact that the good faith requirement does not appear in the Constitution, so whether it was intended to be confusing or not, they sort of put that aside. Anyway–
AG BLANCHE: Right, correct, and so- and that’s that. You know, you’re totally- you’re totally right about that. But that’s where they did not consider federal law. You’re- you’re right that what the Alaska Supreme Court said is even if it’s bad faith–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
AG BLANCHE: –our laws in Alaska, for reasons that, you know, that- not up to them, don’t- don’t address that. But that’s different than federal law, which is why we brought a federal lawsuit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about other federal actions. CBS is reporting that DOJ is looking into allegations that Corey Lewandowski, the former advisor to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, used his position for financial gain. President Trump said this.
[START SOUND ON TAPE]
PRESIDENT TRUMP: All I know is I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not going to be honest, they have to be prosecuted. I don’t know about specifically, but- because I view if people are not honest, they’re stealing from me as president. They’re stealing from me, so I want my people to be honest, and if they’re not honest, I’ll have my DOJ go and do whatever they have to do.
[END SOUND ON TAPE]
MARGARET BRENNAN: Have you briefed the president on any part of this investigation? Are you willing to go after corruption within the administration?
AG BLANCHE: Your source for that- I don’t know what it is, it’s CBS’s reporting. I don’t. I will not comment on leaks and sources. I very much agree with every word the president just said. And- but beyond that, I’m not commenting on some leak that several news outlets supposedly got last week about- about the former employee at DHS and whether I would quote “go after people in the administration,” I agree with the president. Everybody in this administration, in any administration, should operate with integrity and honesty, and- and- and do the right thing. And if they don’t, yes, of course, the Department of Justice will investigate.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Well, to that point, Democrats, if they do win in November, are talking about- when they are in control- investigating Trump officials. Vice President Vance was asked by my colleague Tony Dokoupil the other day about this scenario, and told him he will, “of course,” abide by any congressional subpoenas he receives. It is the Justice Department that ultimately would decide whether to charge someone for defying a congressional subpoena. Would you, as AG, charge Trump officials for not adhering to them?
AG BLANCHE: Wait. So you just say the vice president says, “Of course, we’re going to comply with the subpoena,” and then ask me if I was if I’m going to prosecute–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
AG BLANCHE: –somebody who doesn’t. I have no idea what the facts are around that. I have no idea. I mean, you’re talking about hypothetical after hypothetical. If a crime has been committed, yes, of course we will investigate it.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president answered the question and said he would. But- but for- for those who defy congressional subpoenas, should the Democrats go ahead with some of these investigations?
AG BLANCHE: Who’s the “those?” Who’s defying a subpoena? Who’s defying a subpoena?
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m saying, would you be open to it?
AG BLANCHE: I mean, you’re literally making things up to try to get an answer out of me. Who?
MARGARET BRENNAN: The vice president was very clear in his remarks.
AG BLANCHE: To who?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you like to be as clear as the vice president was?
AG BLANCHE: Yes, of course. Of course, we comply with subpoenas. That we will comply with subpoenas as we always have, of course. Yes. Is there any subpoena you can identify in this administration that we haven’t complied with? Has there been any allegation or any contempt of Congress finding? No, no of course not. So, I very much agree with the vice president, and we’re not here to not defy subpoenas. Of course, we comply with subpoenas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you for your time today. Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.
Posted originally on October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
President Trump pauses to answer questions from the media as he departs Joint Base Andrews for a MAGA rally in Michigan. President Trump calls the DSA/Muslim Brotherhood senate candidate, Abdulrahman Mohamed El‑Sayed, a “jihadist”. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
Attorney General Todd Blanche appears on CNN to discuss the senate race in Alaska where Democrats (including *Lisa Murkowski) are intentionally running a candidate with a duplicate name in order to confuse and diminish votes for Republican Senator Dan Sullivan.
As Todd Blanche deconstructs the Dana Bash narrative, the CNN host is urgently being handed talking points (in real time) just off screen. You can see the notes coming in at the 7:11 moment of the video, as Bash prepares to use them in her follow-up questioning. This type of media activity is exactly why CNN and others should be considered fake news. WATCH:
Posted originally on the CTH on October 25, 2026 | Su| October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
Elon Musk responded to an account on the X Platform [SEE HERE] that made a good point about how Zelenskyy’s unauthorized use of Starlink commercial satellites can create a downstream issue that is not being discussed.
FilmLadd– “Analysts who have been bashing Elon Musk for days over this don’t get it. Russia has the capacity to blow up satellites in space. They proved this on November 15, 2021, by firing a PL-19 Nudol missile at an old satellite of their own.
The impact created a large debris cloud—more than 1,500 trackable fragments plus hundreds of thousands of smaller pieces. The International Space Station was forced to implement safe-haven procedures: the seven-person crew (including Russian cosmonauts) sealed hatches and sheltered in the docked Soyuz and Crew Dragon spacecraft for several hours as the debris cloud repeatedly crossed their orbital path.
The ISS even had to perform thruster burns on multiple occasions over the following months to avoid the debris cloud orbiting the Earth.
If Russia decides that the civilian Starlink satellite network is weaponized and fair game, we risk a serious Kessler syndrome. First modeled by NASA’s Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais in 1978, it describes a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit gets so high that collisions start producing debris faster than natural processes (mainly atmospheric drag) can remove.
Each collision creates more fragments, which raise the odds of further collisions, leading to a self-sustaining cascade, a runaway cloud of satellite debris that can make certain orbital bands increasingly hazardous.
Space could become unusable for years to centuries.
You like driving around with GPS? Starlink MUST remain a civilian entity.” [source]
“This is indeed one of the main reasons that Starlink must remain a civilian operation.
It can be used for infrastructure that is military, but it cannot be used for unequivocally offensive strikes that make it fair game to be struck back.
An adversary blowing up Starlink satellites would create a domino effect of destruction that would generate a vast field of debris making space unusable.” [source – Elon Musk]
This is not a far-fetched concern. As recently as last week this issue was in the news cycle but generally not discussed too much.
Multiple media and government reports confirmed that Russia’s military satellite Kosmos‑2612 maneuvered extremely close—between roughly 26 meters and 500 meters—to the U.S.-registered commercial radar satellite ICEYE‑X36 in mid‑October 2026. This close approach is considered unprecedented and raised concerns about potential surveillance or counterspace activity.
What Happened:
The Russian satellite Kosmos‑2612 performed a series of deliberate orbital maneuvers to approach ICEYE‑X36, a U.S.-registered commercial radar-imaging satellite operated by ICEYE US.
U.S. officials described the behavior as “deliberately reckless” and consistent with rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) that could be used to inspect, shadow, or interfere with another spacecraft. RF Europe
Tracking firms such as LeoLabs observed the Russian satellite adjusting its orbit repeatedly to match and close in on ICEYE‑X36. Yahoo
How Close Did They Get? Different sources reported varying closest-approach distances:
~26 meters (85 feet) at the modeled closest point (unconfirmed). Yahoo
~500 meters (1,640 feet) according to high-confidence assessments by LeoLabs. Yahoo
Even the largest estimate (500 m) is considered extremely close in orbital terms.
Why It Matters:
ICEYE‑X36 provides synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) imagery, valuable for military intelligence and used by Ukraine. This likely explains Russian interest. hoodline.com
The maneuver is considered the first known uncoordinated close approach between two active satellites in low Earth orbit where one owner did not give permission.Yahoo
U.S. officials warned the behavior resembles on‑orbit weapons testing or at least hostile reconnaissance. Ars Technica
Current Status:
After the close approach, Kosmos‑2612 began drifting away, though analysts caution it could resume proximity operations or other Russian satellites may attempt similar maneuvers. Interesting Engineering
Thankfully President Trump and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin are able to just pick up the phone and talk to each other. They have developed a relationship that allows direct talks and immediate deconfliction.
However, if U.S. Starlink satellites are being used by Ukraine, without authorization, to target objectives deep inside Russia, a nuclear-armed power, this could develop into a very serious issue. Thus, avoiding this problem becomes the issue that Elon Musk is trying to mitigate.
From an operational perspective, Russia now seemingly has a very valid claim that U.S. assets (a nuclear power) were being used to target Russia (another nuclear power). This is not a good scenario.
Zelenskyy is putting the USA in a very difficult position. Musk is essentially trying to mitigate the potential threat from Zelenskyy’s self-centered and short-sighted behavior.
As much as we have criticized him in the past, Elon Musk is the right guy with the right position on this issue.
Posted originally on the CTH on |October 25, 2026 | Sundance |
British Columbia Premier David Eby is one of the leading Canadian antagonists who quickly aligned with Mark Carney in an effort to gain power. The province was essentially split 50/50, and so David Eby developed a quick plan.
Riding the “Elbow’s Up” wave promoted by most Canadian leadership, Eby announced a strategic snap election in September. His plan was to ride the anti-Trump wave and gain power. However, between the announcement in September and the election last night something shifted. Canadian munchkins began noticing the fraud behind Wizard Carney’s loud but shallow policy. Week by week as the Canadian economy began slipping, a change started.
Then came Lorne Doerkson, a pragmatic and patriotic ‘Conservative’ challenger. Doerkson is conservative in the most Canadian sense. He’s a friendly fellow with tones and a generally affable constitution akin to Mike Huckabee circa 2012. That is to say Doerkson was the perfect ‘non-scary’ candidate to pull in a lot of support.
As a consequence, Premier Eby’s snap election gamble backfired, and he ended up handing the B.C. Conservative Party a majority government. Lorne Doerkson’s party has gained roughly 64 of the province’s 93 ridings (districts), Eby collapsed to 17. {source} Doerkson will now lead British Columbia’s first Conservative government in nearly 100 years. Shortly after the results became evident, David Eby announced he would step down as B.C. NDP leader.
I’m not going to extrapolate too much into this outcome against the backdrop of a U.S. midterm sentiment; however, it would be foolish not to notice the hidden vote base that turned out for Lorne Doerkson.
There is a pragmatic center who fully understands what can be expected from left-wing political policy.
B.C. Conservative Leader Lorne Doerkson spoke to party supporters in Vancouver, where he thanked his family, his riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin and campaign volunteers. He promised to work as hard as his volunteers as B.C. premier and praised outgoing premier David Eby for his years of service.
Posted originally on the CTH on October 24, 2026 | Sundance |
Two fundamental issues that Canadian politicians and media keep hidden from Canadians. First, in the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision last year about tariffs, the court outlined that the executive branch can constitutionally ban trade with another country. Second, the U.S. can exit the USMCA with a six-month notification.
There is an awful lot of pretending and gaslighting within this general discussion segment; purposefully advanced to keep the Canadian people in the dark. However, that said, Canada’s chief trade negotiator to the United States, Janice Charette does admit that tariff free access to the U.S market is lost forever.
Janice Charette is participating in a discussion at the Toronto Global Forum, where she is questioned by Brian Tobin, vice chair of the BMO Financial Group about the trade relationship with the United States and the opinion that many Canadian officials have espoused that Canada just needs to outlast President Donald Trump.
Charette informs the audience that regardless of who is the U.S. President, tariffs will likely remain in place permanently because the amount of revenue being generated to the U.S. Treasury is too great for any President or congress to stop. PROMPTED – WATCH:
While almost all of her analysis is flawed, skewed and seriously underestimates the nature of the dynamic that Canada is facing, what Janice Charette outlines about how Donald Trump has shifted the national revenue model using global tariffs to offset national expenditures (her baseline) is accurate.
Beyond her statement it is worth pausing for a moment and using Charette’s frame of reference to reconsider the post WWII European revenue model. It was/is President Trump’s model in reverse.
The Marshal plan, was essentially one-way tariffs on American trade that provided one-way benefits (revenue) that permitted the EU to rebuild after the second world war. To Charlette’s framework, how willing was the EU mindset to change this beneficial economic outcome?
Answer: The EU fought it (and is still fighting it), perceiving the elimination of that benefit as an existential threat to their economic power. The EU became reliant on the Marshal Plan.
In many ways Canada made the same economic mistake.
Canada legislated and built their economy around dependencies they never thought would go away.
They disassembled their dirty “carbon emitting” jobs. They took apart their energy foundation. They deindustrialized in an effort to join/lead the world in their virtue signaling around clean energy. Canada intentionally chose to take a series of steps to make their economy less independent, less strong and much less resilient; while worshipping at the altar of the “climate change” religion.
Tariff free access to the USA market, while combining non-tariff protectionist barriers to USA imports formed the foundation of this progressive system. Without the benefit of tariff-free trade with the USA, Canada could never have deindustrialized and become an economy dependent on: (1) shipping out raw materials for dirty processing in other countries; then (2) reimporting the finished component goods for assembly in Canada.
Finally, a person steps forth to stop this one-way benefit. Along came Donald Trump.
When Canada was told those USA dependencies will no longer be permitted and reciprocity will frame the new trade agreement, suddenly all those decades-long deindustrialized vulnerabilities surfaced. This is their current status.
That’s why former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told President-elect Trump the “reciprocity” demand was no longer feasible; which led to the 51st state response.
The current problem is that ‘elbow’s up’ Canada continues to maintain economic denial about their status.
Canada has raw materials, but Canada no longer has the willingness or capability to turn those raw materials into industrial scale products that later become component manufacturing goods. They are intentionally missing the industrial component because the processing itself emits dirty carbon outputs.
This is why we now see Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney selling off the assets of Canada.
Both Canada and Europe changed their energy systems for exactly the same ‘climate change’ reason, and both Canada and Europe are stuck inside the economic confines of their own creation.
China has done a masterful job exploiting that self-created vulnerability in both Europe and now Canada. What this generation is now discovering is that no amount of assembled soft power will ever be able to compensate for the hard power of industrial capacity.
The United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia and beyond will never be global powers again because they no longer have industrial capacity. They are no longer hard powers. This is the one point that all intellectually honest observers will notice.
The ‘soft powers’ are now in a situation where they are seeking alternative sources for their intentionally lost industrial capacity.
Thankfully, and I mean this in the sincerest way imaginable, the United States elected Donald Trump at just the right moment to remove us from this problem, or we would have been in the exact same position as Europe, Canada and Australia.
Simultaneous to this bullet dodged, it was only Donald Trump who drew significant enough attention to the problem so that other weaker persons in politics could realize the severity of the cliff we almost encountered.
Do not ever underestimate how fortunate we were. Without Donald J Trump the United States would have easily become just another larger version of a dependent soft power.
The term “service driven economy” ringing a bell?
Remember this when Trump, Xi and Putin get together next month.
Posted originally on the CTH on October 24, 2026 | Sundance |
Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party leader Alice Weidel represents the opposition leader within the current German political system. The AfD party is on the rise within Germany as the severe leftist and globalist policies carried out by Chancellors Angela Merkel, Olaf Schulz and Friedrich Merz have severely compromised the German economy.
Beginning with the catastrophic energy policy decisions, Ms. Weidel walks through the problems currently being faced by country of Germany and the urgent policy changes needed in order to attempt recovery. Thousands of businesses along with industrial manufacturing are currently collapsing. The economic spiral is shedding tens-of-thousands of jobs, and the bureaucracy of the European Union is compounding their ability to respond effectively.
Germany has always represented the economic engine of the EU, and as a nation the primary prism by which the German people evaluate their status is through the prism of economics. From that perspective Germany is in severe trouble. AfD party leader Alice Weidel outlines the structural reforms needed in order to get out of this economic mess. WATCH:
“Alice Weidel is one of the most important politicians in Europe today. She is the co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the right-wing populist party which is leading in Germany’s national polls and came top in two recent state elections. Ms Weidel is skilled at voicing Germans’ frustrations with mainstream political parties. In conversation with Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist’s editor-in-chief, in the Bundestag in Berlin, Ms Weidel discusses the AfD’s economic plan and its stance on Russia and Ukraine.”
Personally, I do not see a way that Germany can escape this spiral and simultaneously remain inside the European Union. The actions Germany needs to take, example ‘energy policy’, are not in alignment with the climate change interests of the EU bureaucracy.
Additionally, the migration and open border policy of the larger EU only makes the issues worse inside Germany as the migrant subsidies are at a scale that requires high taxes from the production class.
Posted originally on the CTH on October 24, 2026 | Sundance |
The aspect that is laughable is not that Canadian government officials constantly try to interfere and manipulate U.S. elections, the laughable part is that their Prime Minister would deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Canada routinely attempts to interfere in U.S. politics while hiding behind their own position of pearl-clutching sovereignty. Even as Mark Carney was speaking today, former Deputy Prime Minister, and current Canadian special representative to Ukraine, Chrystia Freeland is currently on a promotional tour for her book about influencing U.S. elections and opposing Donald Trump.
Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and current PM Mark Carney frequently meet with Democrat leadership in congress to strategize ways to influence election outcomes. In fact, Mark Carney hired American Maia Johnson, a Democrat operative and former campaign organizer for Hillary Clinton to be his current Chief of Staff in Canada.
With the midterm elections soon upon us, the U.S. Consulate to Canada officially told Canadian officials to stop trying to influence the election [SEE HERE] citing a dozen examples of Canadian govt officials purposefully outlining their intent to manipulate U.S. politics. Against that warning, Prime Minister Carney was asked about it. His response is typically Canadian. WATCH:
U.S Consulate: “The Canadian government brushes off concerns about potential interference in U.S. elections, even as its ministers and premiers openly describe plans to influence American politics in official documents and public appearances.” (more)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
