Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The U.S. birth rate has been declining for nearly two decades and currently stands well below replacement level, but President Donald Trump is reportedly endeavoring to address this issue. Various ideas fielded by the Trump administration have included reserving a substantial portion of government-funded scholarships for married men and women, funding education programs centered on the relationship between a woman’s menstrual cycle and fertility, and possibly even awarding mothers $5,000 per baby delivered. The latter suggestion has become something of a focal point in news reports and social media commentary.

While it’s encouraging to see the Trump administration turn its attention to making American families great again, financial incentives have proven to only temporarily boost birth rates, and even then, not by the most significant margins. In fact, most countries that have implemented financial incentive programs in a bid to start a baby boom have actually seen long-term declines in their birth rates. Countries like Australia, China, Estonia, Finland, and Japan all have tax breaks and financial bonuses ready for moms, but Australia’s total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to 1.5, China’s to 1.0, Estonia’s to 1.31, Finland’s to 1.25, and Japan’s to 1.26, all well below the 2.1 needed to maintain population stability and, in almost all cases, representing historic lows.

Economic factors are, of course, an important consideration in raising a family, but cash incentives clearly don’t always work. Instead of considering the U.S. birth rate alone and attempting to temporarily boost its sagging numbers, the Trump administration may be better served focusing its attention on creating an environment in which Americans want to and are enabled, encouraged, and empowered to raise families. Here are two suggestions.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

1. Bolster Public Safety

Most parents will attest that they frequently worry about their child’s safety. Child locks and electric outlet coverings are common in homes with small children, to be replaced with parents’ requests such as “Text me when you get there!” as those small children grow up. But electric sockets and traffic collisions aren’t the only sources of danger in this world.

Crime rates — especially violent crime rates — have skyrocketed in the U.S. Between 2020 and 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recorded a 30% spike in murders, the highest ever increase in homicides recorded in a single year. Murders continued to increase nationwide in subsequent years, along with rape, assault, robbery, and other violent crimes. As alarming as those numbers are, the FBI’s statistics didn’t even include numbers from some of the most violent U.S. cities, like Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York City.

Data linking declining birth rates to increasing crime rates is scant, but not nonexistent. Of course, it’s easy enough to conclude that men and women may be more hesitant to raise vulnerable children in areas where crime is prevalent, but some numbers suggest the same. A 2015 study conducted by the World Bank found that the perceived safety of a woman’s environment influences her decisions regarding family life. While the study did not center on U.S. cities, it did examine the impact that violent crime has on several metropolitan areas around the globe, concluding that violent crime erodes social cohesion and increases stress and anxiety, particularly for women living in the studied locales, and significantly influences the decisions that women in particular make about their lives, including their families.

Another global study, this one from U.N.-Habitat, reached similar conclusions, finding that high crime rates overwhelmingly negatively impact the quality of life for families, especially for women and children. A few years prior, another U.N.-Habitat study focused specifically on the relationship between high crime rates and quality of life for families. According to the study, high crime rates often increased financial burdens for families — through necessitating the purchase of security devices, medical bills for family members who became victims of violent crimes, etc. — and fostered economic instability and insecurity, making it difficult for families to sustain themselves.

A common trope in American society is that of moving to the suburbs to start and raise a family, leaving the big cities and their crime and chaos behind for more peaceful prospects. But even these more peaceful prospects have fallen prey to burgeoning crime across the U.S. Fewer and fewer American locales are safe havens from crime, whether it be drug crises, robberies, riots, or gang warfare.

The president pledged on the campaign trail last year to “make America safe again” and has already taken steps to achieve this. Illegal border crossings have plummeted to record lows and the deportation of illegal immigrants, many of whom have made headlines over the past several years for excessively violent crimes, is under way. However, many blue states and Democrat-led cities have implemented and maintain “soft-on-crime” policies, tolerating theft, drug offenses, and other crimes and creating an environment of squalor, urban decay, and even violence. No parent wants to raise a child in such an environment.

Targeting “soft-on-crime” executives and administrators, implementing standards to compel state and local authorities to uphold criminal laws and statutes, and working with Congress to ensure nationwide consistency on common and serious crimes would not only help make America safe again, but would further facilitate an America in which moms and dads want to have and raise children.

2. Reshore American Jobs

There are, once again, very few studies that demonstrate a direct link between U.S. manufacturing or production jobs and the U.S. birth rate, but both have declined noticeably over the past two decades. A 2019 University of Wisconsin-Madison study did draw a correlation between the two, analyzing birth data from 1991 to 2014 across 381 metropolitan areas and finding that areas with a higher concentration of production and manufacturing jobs also had higher birth rates. Economic stability and security are tremendous benefits when raising a family and are so crucial that they approach the point of necessity. Dads need to be able to provide for their children, and a decent paycheck for dad also allows mom to stay home and tend to the children.

In recent years especially, the U.S. has become inundated with cheap, low-quality products manufactured overseas. Too many manufacturing and production jobs have also gone overseas, resulting in a dearth of such jobs in the U.S. Instead, America has become a leader in service-sector jobs, low-paying positions with a high turnover rate — nearly double the national average. In addition to relatively low wages and long, unpredictable hours, such jobs provide little to no long-term stability. Is it any surprise that the declining U.S. birth rate has coincided with the loss of good-quality manufacturing and production jobs? American families need American jobs and American wages.

Once again, the president has already begun to deliver in this area. The “Liberation Day” tariffs previously announced by the president will, many experts predict, bring manufacturing and production jobs back to the U.S. As other economists have warned, there may be short-term economic difficulties and temporarily rising prices, but the long-term benefits for the nation may be substantial. In addition to his tariff agenda, the president may consider imposing restrictions on H-1B visas (which allow American employers to hire noncitizens as employees at a fraction of the wage employers would be legally required to pay Americans), granting tax breaks to employers for hiring American citizens, and decrease regulations on the transport and sale of American-made products and goods.

Ensuring that Americans can obtain fulfilling, well-paying jobs that contribute meaningfully to society will establish a stable, steady foundation upon which Americans can build their families.

LifeNews Note: S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

The post Two Ways the Trump Admin Can Help Americans Have More Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

ProPublica won the Pulitzer Prize for public service Monday for its “Life of the Mother” series, which erroneously implied that a Georgia woman who died after taking an abortion pill died because of the state’s abortion laws.

ProPublica’s story on Amber Thurman, the 28-year-old woman who died after Georgia doctors waited 20 hours to perform necessary medical care on her, heavily implied the doctors waited so long because of the state’s abortion laws.

“At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories,” the nonprofit wrote in the introduction for its article on the subject.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Thurman missed an appointment for a surgical abortion in North Carolina, so an employee at the clinic prescribed her a chemical abortion consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol, according to ProPublica.

Days later, Thurman’s boyfriend called her an ambulance after she started vomiting blood. An obstetrician (OB) at the Piedmont Henry Hospital in Stockbridge, Georgia, diagnosed her with acute severe sepsis, the nonprofit reported.

Thurman died around 20 hours after the hospital first admitted her. A maternal mortality review committee concluded that there was a “good chance” her death could have been prevented if doctors had performed a dilation and curettage (D&C) operation sooner, ProPublica learned.

ProPublica incorrectly labelled the procedure as illegal, implying that was the reason doctors did not perform it.

“Instead of performing the newly criminalized procedure, they continued to gather information and dispense medicine,” the nonprofit wrote.

A separate story in ProPublica’s “Life of the Mother” series acknowledged that the twins in her uterus were already dead.

“Medically speaking, Thurman’s pregnancy had already ended. But the state’s abortion ban had criminalized performing a D&C and threatened doctors with up to 10 years in prison if prosecutors decided they violated it,” the outlet wrote.

Georgia’s abortion ban, through The Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act, does not criminalize performing D&C’s, a procedure ProPublica’s own article admitted was part of standard miscarriage care.

The LIFE Act, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest and medical emergency. It also does not ban any procedures on a fetus that is “medically futile.”

“‘Medically futile’ means that, in reasonable medical judgment, an unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth,” the bill text reads.

D&C’s are common procedures doctors use to remove fetal tissues after both abortions and miscarriages and the procedure can also be used diagnostically, according to Johns Hopkins.

While ProPublica speculated that the Piedmont Henry doctors may have feared that Thurman’s consumption of abortion pills could have caused them to hesitate, the outlet did not report that any doctor actually said that.

The outlet confirmed that “no doctor has been prosecuted for violating abortion bans.”

A key element of the tragic case, which ProPublica, National Review, and others seem to agree on, is that doctors waited too long to perform the D&C.

“From the moment she entered the hospital, Thurman exhibited signs of an acute internal infection — and yet, doctors allowed her to languish for 20 hours until they began operating. By then, it was too late,” National Review’s Kayla Bartsch wrote.

Exactly why the doctors waited so long is still unknown. ProPublica, which won the Pulitzer for reporting on the story, was unable to find the answer.

“Doctors and a nurse involved in Thurman’s care declined to explain their thinking and did not respond to questions from ProPublica. Communications staff from the hospital did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Georgia’s Department of Public Health, which oversees the state maternal mortality review committee, said it cannot comment on ProPublica’s reporting because the committee’s cases are confidential and protected by federal law,” the nonprofit wrote.

The absence of verifiable facts did not stop the nonprofit from heavily implying that abortion laws killed Thurman, as well as other women.

“Doctors warned state legislators women would die if medical procedures sometimes needed to save lives became illegal,” ProPublica’s story reads.

ProPublica wrote that deaths from abortion pills are rare. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions consumers that at least four percent of people who take Mifeprex could end up suffering serious complications.

Approximately one in 25 women who take oral Mifeprex, a brand name version of mifepristone, will end up in the emergency room, according to the FDA.

That likelihood increases the longer a woman is pregnant. Almost 40 percent of women who take abortion pills after 84 days of gestation will need follow-up surgery and four percent will incur significant infection, according to the FDA.

When the FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000 it said women should not take it after a gestation period of seven weeks. Under the Obama administration in 2016, the administration moved that window to 10 weeks. Thurman was nine weeks pregnant when she ingested the pill.

LifeNews Note: Rebeka Zeljko writes for Daily Caller News Foundation, where this column originally appeared.

The post An Abortion Pill Killed This Woman, ProPublica Just Won a Pulitzer Blaming Her Death on Abortion Bans appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The United States government has warned Australia to halt its crackdown on free speech following the election of a left wing government for a second term.

The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor demanded that the Labour government Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ceased censoring free speech on American social media platforms.

In a statement, it listed examples of totalitarian behaviour by the Albanese government that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump found “concerning”.

It included the decision of the Australian eSafety Commissioner to require Elon Musk’s X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter, to censor Chris Elston, who campaigns against medical authorities giving puberty blockers to children.

Known as “Billboard Chris”, Mr Elston was censored after he posted a criticism of gender ideology, and used biologically accurate pronouns to describe an Australian transgender activist. 

The State Department’s statement said the U.S. government was “deeply concerned about efforts by governments to coerce American tech companies into targeting individuals for censorship”.

“Freedom of expression must be protected – online and offline,” the statement said.

“Examples of this conduct are troublingly numerous. EU Commissioner Thierry Breton threatened X for hosting political speech; Turkey fined Meta for refusing to restrict content about protests; and Australia required X to remove a post criticising an individual for promoting gender ideology.

“Even when content may be objectionable, censorship undermines democracy, suppresses political opponents, and degrades public safety. 

“The United States opposes efforts to undermine freedom of expression. As @SecRubio [Mark Rubio] said, our diplomacy will continue to place an emphasis on promoting fundamental freedoms.”

Reacting to the news of the intervention, Mr Elston said: “It’s tremendous to have the State Department support what we all know is true: free speech is a fundamental right, critical to a democratic society. 

“If our free speech can’t be protected when we speak out against the greatest child abuse scandal in the world right now, when can it be?” 

Both X and Mr Elston, who was supported by ADF International and the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, legally challenged the decision in Melbourne last month. The result is expected in the second half of this year. 

The Australian eSafety Commissioner defended the decision to censor Mr Elston’s post before a Tribunal in Melbourne by arguing that a post using the biologically accurate pronouns of a transgender activist was “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm” and should therefore be subject to state-enforced censorship, in accordance with Australia’s Online Safety Act.

The post in question, which was subject to a “removal notice” at the hands of the eSafety Commissioner in April 2024, shared a Daily Mail article headlined “Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED: Australian activist plugs bondage, bestiality, nudism, drugs, and tax-funded sex-change ops – so why is he writing health advice for the world body?” 

It included pictures posted on social media by Teddy Cook, a transgender activist, and WHO expert panel appointee.  

In February 2024, Mr Elston said on X that “this woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for trans people. 

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” 

In his evidence, mr Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly.

He said he intended to make a political comment about the ideological bias present among those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world. 

He told the tribunal: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body … children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” 

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution. 

Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, said: “The decision of Australian authorities to prevent Australian citizens from hearing and evaluating information about gender ideology is a patronising affront to the principles of democracy.  

“The confidence of the Australian eSafety commissioner to censor citizens of Canada on an American platform, shows the truly global nature of the free speech crisis. 

“Speaking up for free speech is critical at this juncture, and we’re proud to be backing Billboard Chris as he does just that.”  

Last month the U.S. State Department also expressed disappointment over the conviction of a UK Christian woman who held up a sign outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic saying: “Here to talk, if you want.”

It announced that it was “disappointed with the UK court’s conviction of Livia Tossici-Bolt for violating a designated buffer zone at an abortion clinic.”

It said: “Freedom of expression must be protected for all”.

Dr Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old retired scientist, was convicted of breaching a 150-meter exclusion or “buffer” zone when she displayed the sign over two consecutive days in March 2023.

District Judge Orla Austin, sitting at Poole Magistrates’ Court, gave her a conditional discharge and ordered her to pay prosecution costs of £20,000 by May 31.

Afterwards, Dr Tossici-Bolt said: “This is a dark day for Great Britain. I was not protesting and did not harass or obstruct anyone. All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. 

“Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country? The US State Department was right to be concerned by this case as it has serious implications for the entire Western world.

“I remain committed to fighting for free speech, not only for my own sake but for all my fellow citizens. 

“If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody’s right to freely express themselves is secure.”

She added: “My conviction for offering consensual conversation has been very difficult, not only for me personally, but also because I care deeply about preserving freedom of expression in the UK. 

“I am encouraged to know that the United States Department of State is following my case closely. I am grateful, and hope this encourages this country to take a close look at what it means to convict someone for nothing more than offering conversation.” 

Dr Tossici-Bolt was prosecuted after she refused to pay a fixed penalty notice for holding up the sign.

An earlier prosecution for so-called “thought crime”, involving Catholic war veteran Adam Smith-Connor’s case, prompted U.S. Vice President JD Vance to warn the Munich Security Conference in February that Europe was losing its basic freedoms. Mr Smith-Connor will appeal his conviction in a July hearing.

Photo: Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gestures after winning the general election at the Labor Party election night event in Sydney on May 3, 2025. (Photo by Saeed KHAN / AFP)

The post US government warns Australia to stop censoring free speech first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post US government warns Australia to stop censoring free speech appeared first on Catholic Herald.

Alberta’s Danielle Smith has said a vote on separation will be held next year if a petition gains enough support

Alberta could hold a public referendum on breaking away from Canada next year if a citizen-led petition gets the required number of signatures, the province’s premier, Danielle Smith, said on Monday.

The western province has long clashed with the federal government over legislation limiting fossil fuel development and promoting clean energy, which Alberta officials say unfairly targets their economy. Smith’s announcement comes days after the Liberal Party secured a fourth consecutive term in the federal election, deepening political divides between Ottawa and oil-rich Alberta.

Following the election, the Alberta Prosperity Project launched a petition calling for a referendum on the province’s independence. The petition garnered more than 80,000 signatures within 36 hours of its May 2 launch and remains open for public support.

“Should Ottawa, for whatever reason, continue to attack our province as they have done over the last decade? Ultimately that will be for Albertans to decide,” Smith said.

She added that although she does not personally support the idea of separation, she would respect the will of voters. “I will accept their judgement,” the premier said.

Recently, Smith’s government also introduced legislation to lower the threshold for referendums initiated by citizen petition. The bill reduces the number of signatures needed from 20% to 10% of eligible voters from the last provincial election and extends the collection period from 90 to 120 days. In order to pass the threshold, a petition would need about 177,000 signatures.

Smith noted that Alberta doesn’t want “special treatment or handouts;” it just wants to be free to develop its “incredible wealth of resources” and choose how to provide healthcare and education. She expressed hope that secession would not be necessary and that her government would be able to reach an agreement with Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canada’s new government.

Last week, Carney’s Liberal Party retained power after a campaign that focused heavily on what he called the existential threat posed by US President Donald Trump, who has floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st US state and imposed extensive tariffs on most of its neighbor’s goods.

The outcome of the election has added to long-running tensions in conservative regions. In Alberta, where the Conservatives won 34 out of 37 seats, many residents have expressed frustration with their federal leadership. Similar dissatisfaction has been reported in neighboring Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, the state of the liturgy seems to concern very few people in these days of waiting for a new Pope. And yet this issue is among the most important—if not the most important. Lex orandi, lex credendi—the way we pray shapes the way we believe. The decline of the liturgy and sacred music seems to be of little interest, and some may now consider the sloppiness of many liturgical…

Source

The Houthi militia based in the country has “capitulated” and does not “want to fight anymore,” the US president has claimed

Washington will immediately halt airstrikes on Yemen, US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday. He made the statement while speaking at the White House alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The order comes after weeks of US-led attacks on Yemen targeting the Houthi militant group, which has “capitulated” and pledged to stop attacks on commercial maritime traffic in the region.

The US president said the Houthi group has told Washington it does not “want to fight anymore.”

“We will honor that and we will stop the bombings. They have capitulated,” Trump stated.

The main goal of the bombing campaign against the Houthis, in which the US and UK took part, was to stop the group from “blowing up ships,” according to Trump. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio added, “This was always a freedom of navigation issue. These guys are a band of individuals with advanced weaponry that were threatening global shipping, and the job was to get that to stop.” 

Shortly after the announcement, senior Houthi figure Mohammad Ali Al-Houthi said the movement will continue its support for Gaza, and urged Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to resign over his “crimes” and “failed terrorism.”

“The Yemeni people will not be intimidated by American and Israeli terrorism, and the crimes they have committed in Yemen are the same genocidal crimes they commit in Gaza,” Al-Houthi stated, without addressing Trump’s remarks directly.

The Houthi militia’s attacks on maritime traffic it claimed was associated with Israel, as well as long-range missile and drone strikes on the Jewish state itself, have been the key elements of a campaign to support Palestinians amid the ongoing Gaza war.

Later in the day, Oman’s Foreign Ministry revealed that the country had mediated a “ceasefire agreement” between the Houthis and the US.

“In the future, neither side will target the other, including American vessels, in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait, ensuring freedom of navigation and the smooth flow of international commercial shipping,” the ministry said in a statement.

Trump’s announcement came in the aftermath of an Israeli air raid on Houthi-controlled targets in Yemen, including the international airport in the capital, Sana’a, which left one dead and 35 injured, according to Yemeni Houthi-affiliated media.

The attack, which forced the airport to close, came in response to a ballistic missile strike on Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv. The projectile landed outside the airport, injuring six people, briefly disrupting air traffic.

Unrestricted pathogen research could endanger the lives of Americans, the US president has claimed

US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order restricting federal funding for “gain-of-function” research into viruses and other biological agents in the US and abroad, including China.

”Gain-of-function” or “dual use” studies have been gaining controversy after the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump has suggested that a lab leak in Wuhan, China, where US-funded research was based, was the source of the outbreak that brought the world to a standstill.

Beijing has denied the claims and accused Washington of trying to smear China.

Unrestricted gain-of-function research could “significantly endanger the lives of American citizens,” among other things, Trump’s order alleges, and lead to “widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.”

Trump ordered an end to federal funding for “dangerous gain-of-function research” in “countries of concern,” such as China and Iran, citing “biological threats”. He argued that US taxpayer-funded research should help Americans, without threatening national security.

Similar US-based programs will be suspended for at least 120 days during which existing policies on dual-use research will be revised or replaced, according to the document.

READ MORE: ‘A lot of people know’ who blew up Nord Stream – Trump

The document also blamed the administration of Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden for allowing “dangerous” research into viruses in the US and “actively” approving funding for similar projects abroad, where Washington’s oversight is limited.

Moscow has repeatedly alleged that US-backed biological research laboratories in Ukraine and other countries near Russian borders are involved in bioweapons research.

Washington has acknowledged providing support to laboratories in Ukraine but insisted that they were owned by Kiev and focused solely on preventing the outbreaks of infectious diseases and developing vaccines.

The Defense Ministry in Moscow has claimed that the US has transferred unfinished Ukrainian projects to post-Soviet states and Southeast Asia, while also singling out Africa as a focal point of Washington’s interests.

Slovak President Peter Pellegrini will now have to respond to the petition and consider holding a referendum

Activists in Slovakia have gathered nearly 400,000 signatures demanding the lifting of EU sanctions against Russia. The country’s president, Peter Pellegrini, will now have to respond to the petition and consider holding a referendum within a month.

Members of the Slovak Revival Movement (SHO) and the national party DOMOV, who are behind the petition, have submitted the signatures to the office of the president. They want the government to pose the following question to its citizens: “Do you agree that... sanctions against the Russian Federation harm Slovak citizens, tradesmen and entrepreneurs?”

Commenting on the initiative that was launched late last year and has surpassed the 350,000 threshold for consideration, Pellegrini’s office promised to “handle petition sheets strictly in accordance with the law.”

SHO leader Robert Svec said he expects the president not to ignore the petition and to call for a referendum, citing Pellegrini’s own presumed skepticism regarding anti-Russian sanctions.

In late March, the activists held a conference called ‘For Slovakia Without Sanctions,’ that was attended by a number of politicians and economists.

Speaking at the time, DOMOV leader Pavol Slota claimed that Slovakia’s future depends on whether the sanctions against Moscow will be lifted or not.

“It is about our whole nation, all Slovak citizens,” he stated.

Economist Peter Stanek, in turn, said that “there are dozens of studies that clearly show that sanctions have never worked,” affecting instead “those who imposed them.”

Slovakia implemented the sweeping EU sanctions imposed on Russia following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Robert Fico, who became prime minister in 2023, has maintained that the punitive measures “are not working,” and doing more harm to member states than Moscow.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday ordered the active-duty military to reduce its number of four-star generals and flag officers by 20% in order to improve efficiency.

In a memo, Hegseth announced that the measure would be followed by a second round of reductions of 10% among top officers across all branches of the armed forces, including the National Guard.

The reductions come in addition to the dismissal of more than half a dozen top generals since January, as the administration of US President Donald Trump is trimming excess spending from the federal budget through its newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Announcing the cuts, Hegseth said they would eliminate “redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership” and were intended to free the military from “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”

“More generals and admirals do not lead to more success,” Hegseth said in a video posted on X.

“This is not a slash and burn exercise meant to punish high ranking officers; nothing could be further from the truth,” he added.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth has promoted efforts to eliminate programs and leadership that were put in place to “support diversity in the ranks.” He has sought to remove transgender service members, and has launched broad changes to enforce a single fitness standard for all combat roles.

The policy is part of Trump’s broader White House effort to eliminate several of the Biden administration’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across the federal government and the military.

Earlier this year, Trump fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Charles Brown, the second African-American commander ever to occupy the post. Brown publicly supported the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement back in 2020.

As of May 2025, the US military has about 653 active-duty generals and flag officers across all branches, including all ranks, according to data from Southwest Journal. Of those, 44 are four-star generals and flag officers, according to Hegseth.

The US Army has the highest number of generals, with 231, including 11 four-star generals.

Despite the ongoing campaign to cut federal spending, the White House has approved a record defense budget of around $1 trillion, up from the current $894 billion.

China, the world’s second biggest defense spender, has allocated $256 billion for defense in 2025, while the third largest, Russia, has budgeted $157 billion.

Between uncontrolled migration, propagandistic ideology and self-suffocating green agenda, the EU has only itself to blame for its decline

The European Union, that grand and failing dream of technocrats, is dying. Its decline is not sudden or dramatic but a slow unraveling, a bureaucratic collapse in which every policy designed to sustain it only hastens its demise.

It starves itself on the thin gruel of ideology – open borders dissolving nations into contested spaces, green mandates suffocating industry under the weight of unattainable standards, and a moralizing anti-Russian fervor that has left it isolated and energy-dependent. Once, Europe was the center of empires, the birthplace of civilizations that shaped the world. Now, it is a patient refusing medicine, convinced that its sickness is a form of enlightenment, that its weakness is a new kind of strength. The architects of this experiment still speak in the language of unity, but the cracks in the foundation are too deep to ignore.

Immigration was the first act of self-destruction, the point at which Western Europe’s ruling class severed itself from the people it claimed to govern. The elites, intoxicated by the rhetoric of multicultural utopia, flung open the gates without consideration for cohesion, for identity, for the simple reality that societies require more than abstract ideals to function. Cities have fractured into enclaves where parallel societies thrive, where police hesitate to patrol, where the native-born learn to navigate their own streets with caution. The promise was harmony, a blending of cultures into something vibrant and new. The reality is a quiet disintegration, a thousand unspoken tensions simmering beneath the surface. Politicians continue to preach the virtues of “diversity,” but the people – those who remember what it was like to have a shared history, a common language – are beginning to revolt. The backlash is no longer confined to the fringe. It is entering the mainstream, and the establishment trembles at what it has unleashed.

Then came the green delirium, the second pillar of Western Europe’s self-annihilation. Factories shutter under the weight of environmental regulations, farmers take to the streets in protest, and the middle class is squeezed between rising energy costs and stagnant wages. The climate must be saved, the leaders insist, even if the cost is economic ruin. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, dismantles its nuclear infrastructure in favor of unreliable wind and solar power, only to return to coal when the weather turns unfavorable. There is a madness in this, a kind of collective hysteria where dogma overrides pragmatism, where the pursuit of moral purity blinds the ruling class to the suffering of ordinary citizens.

The rest of the world watches, perplexed, as the EU willingly cripples itself for a cause that demands global cooperation – cooperation that is nowhere to be found. China builds coal plants, America drills for oil, India prioritizes growth over emissions, and the EU alone marches towards austerity, convinced that its sacrifice will inspire others. It will not.

And Russia – the great miscalculation, the strategic blunder that may yet prove fatal. Europe had a choice: to engage with Moscow as a partner, to integrate it into a stable continental order, or to treat it as an eternal adversary. It chose the latter, aligning itself fully with Washington’s confrontational stance, severing ties that had once provided cheap energy and economic stability. The pipelines are silent now, the ruble flows eastward, and Western Europe buys its gas at inflated prices from distant suppliers, enriching middlemen while its own industries struggle. Russia, spurned and sanctioned, turns to China, to India, to those willing to treat it as something other than a pariah. The Eurasian landmass is reconfiguring itself, and Europe is not at the center. The EU is on the outside, looking in, a spectator to its own irrelevance. The Atlanticists in Brussels believed they could serve two masters: their own people and Washington’s geopolitical whims. They were wrong.

In this unfolding drama, America and Russia emerge as twin pillars of Western civilization – different in temperament but united in their commitment to preserving sovereign nations against globalist dissolution. America, the last defender of the West’s entrepreneurial spirit and individual liberty, stands firm against the forces that would destroy borders and identities. Russia, keeper of traditional values and Christian heritage, guards against the cultural nihilism consuming Europe. Both understand that civilizations must defend themselves or perish; neither suffers the death wish that afflicts the Western European elites.

And of Western Europe? It is a ghost at the feast, clutching its empty wineglass, muttering about “norms” and “values” as the world moves on without it. The European elites still cling to their illusions, still believe in the power of rhetoric over reality. They speak of “strategic autonomy” while marching in lockstep with Washington’s wars, of “diversity” while their own cities become battlegrounds of competing identities, of “democracy” while silencing dissent with bureaucratic machinery and media censorship.

The voters sense the decay. They rebel – in France, where Marine Le Pen’s supporters grow by the day; in Italy, where Giorgia Meloni’s government rejects the EU’s dictates on immigration; in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán openly defies the liberal orthodoxy. Yet the machine grinds on, dismissing every protest as populism, every objection as fascism. The disconnect between rulers and ruled has never been wider. The elites, ensconced in their Brussels bubble, continue to govern as if the people are an inconvenience, as if democracy means compliance rather than choice. The social contract is broken, and the backlash will only intensify.

There is a cancer in Europe, and it is not the right or the left. It is the very idea that a civilization can exist without roots, that a people can be stripped of its history and still remain coherent. The EU was built on the assumption that identity was an accident, that men were interchangeable economic units, that borders were relics of a barbaric past. Now the experiment is failing. The young flee – to America, to Asia, anywhere with opportunity and dynamism. The old huddle in their apartments, watching as their neighborhoods change beyond recognition. The politicians, insulated by privilege, continue to lecture about “tolerance” and “progress,” oblivious to the rage building beneath them.

The great realignment is already underway. The Atlantic widens; the Eurasian landmass stirs. America and Russia, for all their rivalry, understand power in a way Western Europe has forgotten. They build, they fight, they act decisively. The EU deconstructs, hesitates, agonizes over moral dilemmas while others seize the future. The 21st century will belong to those who can face it without illusions, who can say “we” and mean something concrete, who can defend their interests without apology. Western Europe, as it exists today, is incapable of this.

Perhaps the EU will linger for years yet, a hollowed-out institution shuffling through summits and issuing directives that fewer and fewer obey. But the spirit is gone. The people feel it. The world sees it. Historians will look back on this era as the funeral of liberalism – a slow, self-inflicted demise by a thousand well-intentioned cuts. The creators of this collapse will not be remembered as visionaries but as fools, as men and women who prized ideology over survival.

And when the last bureaucrat turns out the lights in Brussels, who will mourn? Not the workers whose livelihoods vanished for the sake of carbon targets. Not the parents afraid to let their children play in streets that no longer feel like home. Not the nations that surrendered their sovereignty to a project that demanded their deconstruction. Only the living corpses of the elites will remain, muttering to each other in the ruins, still convinced of their own righteousness.

But righteousness is not enough. The world has always belonged to those who are willing to fight for it – and Old Europe has forgotten how to fight.

The leader of the Christian Democratic Union party had unexpectedly fallen short of the 316-vote threshold earlier on Tuesday

Friedrich Merz has been elected as German chancellor following a second Bundestag vote on Tuesday. The leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) had initially fallen six votes short of the required 316-vote threshold earlier in the day, but hours later rallied conservatives and allies in the country’s parliament to win 325 votes.

The situation is unprecedented in Germany’s post-war history, as no prospective chancellor had previously failed to be voted through by the Bundestag at the first try after securing a coalition agreement.

Merz faced opposition from 289 MPs, many of them from the Left and Green parties, who voted against the 69-year-old.

The second vote took place after four factions agreed to alter parliamentary procedures to avoid delays. According to Politico, urgent closed-door meetings were held in between the votes.

Addressing lawmakers before the second round of voting, CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn told them that “all of Europe, perhaps even the entire world, is watching this second round of voting.”

“I appeal to everyone to be aware of this special responsibility,” he said, as quoted by broadcaster ARD.

Commenting on Merz’s initial failure, one of the leaders of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party faction in the Bundestag, Bernd Baumann, said: “Mr. Merz, you have failed. This is a historic defeat, the likes of which have never been seen in this Bundestag before.”

Green Party politician Renate Kuenast spoke of a “massive loss of authority” for the incoming chancellor, as quoted by broadcaster ZDF.

Left Party parliamentary leader Christian Goerke characterized the situation as a “crushing defeat” for Merz, attributing it to a “truly poor coalition agreement [between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats] that fails to address the major problems facing this country.”

Germany’s previous three-way ruling coalition led by the SPD fell apart last November amid internal disputes on spending. The new CDU-SPD coalition has pledged to continue key elements of former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s agenda, including support for Ukraine and unlocking a constitutional debt brake to further boost the military budget.

American conservatism is nostalgia for yesterday’s degeneracy.  Today’s abominations may “go to far,” but yesterday’s abominations are cherished mementos of down-home Americana.  The George H. E. Bush Presidential Library and Museum is about four miles south of my easy chair, and one supposes the rubes who pay twelve dollars (nine for senior citizens) to goggle at presidential bric-a-brac are, for the most part, American conservatives.  Nostalgists, in other words; nostalgists hankering for a whiff of yesterday’s abominations.

A presidential library and museum is a tourist trap with a limited shelf life because American presidents are almost never interesting or important out of office.  They tell us former presidents withdraw from public view out of modesty and deep respect for their successors.  The fact is that they retire from view to save all concerned the embarrassment of being reminded of the shameless sycophancy by which these ciphers were surrounded while in office.  A former president is just like the guy who bought rounds for the house at a bar, but now sits alone in the corner out of money.

He does not sitting alone in the corner because he is modest.

The Director of the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum must therefore sustain interest in George H. W. Bush by supplementing the yawn-inducing exhibits of Bush’s presidential bric-a-brac with crowd-pleasing exhibits of bric-a-brac that will make goggling Republican rubes continue to pay twelve (or nine) dollars.  So, next to the glass box containing the pen with which President—what was his name?—signed the Let Freedom Ring Act, we find a display of hairdos popular at about the same time.  The shuffling rubes don’t remember the Let Freedom Ring Act; but they are transported back to their youth when reminded of those hairdos.

I see in today’s paper that the Republican rubes who visit the George H. W. Bush library are now being reminded of their proud past by a display of Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” wedding dress, one of the larger milestones along freedom’s road to slut emancipation.

Screenshot

For years, the FBI misled the public by classifying the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, which nearly killed pro-life House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, as a “suicide by cop” rather than an act of domestic terrorism

That’s the report the House Intelligence Committee revealed Tuesday. The findings expose what Republicans call a politically motivated cover-up by the bureau under then-Acting Director Andrew McCabe.

On June 14, 2017, James Hodgkinson, a left-wing activist and fervent supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game in Alexandria, Virginia. Hodgkinson, who had posted anti-Trump vitriol online and carried a hit list of GOP congressmen, asked if the players were Republicans before unleashing a barrage of bullets. Scalise was gravely wounded, nearly bleeding to death, while lobbyist Matt Mika and two Capitol Police officers were also injured.

Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Later evidence showed the shooter wanted to target and kill other pro-life Republicans.

Despite clear evidence of political motivation, the FBI, led by McCabe, insisted the attack was not terrorism but an attempt by Hodgkinson to provoke his own death at the hands of police. This designation, Republicans argue, downplayed the shooter’s ideological hatred for conservatives and shielded the left from scrutiny.

“Whatever its political purpose, the FBI’s starting position was that the shooter was suicidal, hoping to die by gunfire with police. It appears to the Committee that investigative efforts and intelligence analysis then attempted to reinforce the ‘suicide by cop’ argument despite the clear and contrary facts of the case,” the new House report concludes.

The House Intelligence Committee report, spearheaded by Republicans, found that the FBI’s initial classification was influenced by internal politics, though Democrats on the committee disputed this claim. The report highlights that both the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence labeled the attack as domestic violent extremism, in stark contrast to the FBI’s stance.

It wasn’t until 2021, after relentless pressure from GOP lawmakers, that the FBI reclassified the shooting as domestic terrorism, admitting Hodgkinson was a “domestic violent extremist” targeting Republicans. The reversal came quietly, buried in a report appendix, with no public apology or explanation for the years of obfuscation.

Scalise, who endured multiple surgeries and months of recovery, slammed the FBI’s handling of the case.

“This report definitively shows the FBI completely mishandled the investigation into the Congressional baseball shooting of 2017 – ignoring crucial and obvious facts in order to sell a false narrative that the shooting was not politically motivated. I want to thank FBI Director Kash Patel, Chairman Rick Crawford, and the staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for finally getting to the truth of the matter: this was a deliberate and planned act of domestic terrorism toward Republican Members of Congress.

“I encourage Director Patel to adopt the recommendations of the Committee to ensure the intelligence community is rid of bias and to identify who was responsible for the misleading and incorrect conclusions and why, and ensure the FBI gets back to its mission of following the facts, wherever they may lead.”

New FBI Director Kash Patel, appointed by President Donald Trump, has vowed transparency, recently turning over long-sought records to Congress. Patel’s actions signal a shift, but conservatives say the damage is done.

The post FBI Lied to Americans By Denying Leftist Shooting of Pro-Life Rep. Steve Scalise Was Domestic Terrorism appeared first on LifeNews.com.