Legalization And/Or Amnesty: Can It Ever Be Done Right?

By Anony Mee

As of December 2024, there were approximately 40 million illegal aliens (or people who should be classified as illegal aliens) living in the United States. Before Biden entered office, there were roughly 20 million illegal aliens in America. Two-thirds of that number were people who had overstayed lawful admissions

Under Biden another approximately 20 million entered, some of whom were apprehended at the border and released into the country, some were allowed to apply fraudulently for asylum and be admitted, some crossed illegally without interception, some were admitted under the bogus CBP-1 humanitarian parole program, and some came flooding in from Temporary Protected Status countries for whom Biden extended the program.

All of them should leave the US, either on their own or by deportation. With perhaps a few exceptions (maybe CPB-1), they are all criminals. Every day, we hear stories of violent illegal alien felons and their pitiful victims.

We need to understand that unauthorized entry or overstay is a crime. Working without authorization, without paying mandatory payroll deductions (federal and state), and using a SSN or name not their own are all crimes. Accessing federal and state benefits under a false identity is criminal. Using another’s identity to access medical care, obtain bank loans, go to university, or buy a car is criminal fraud.

It is a corruption, and it is corrupting the soul of the nation. We are not a people who should wink at the commercial advantages gained by those who break immigration law by hiring illegals and not giving them the pay and benefits to which workers are entitled. Illegal aliens force everyone to pay more for housing—whether rental or by purchase—because illegal-driven demand exceeds supply.

Their presence forces longer waits for both routine and emergency medical care because hundreds of thousands fill the waiting rooms here rather than in their own countries. Americans are facing rising taxes to fund education from a shrinking base because of the number of children of illegal aliens filling up the classrooms. We all might not have been carjacked by an illegal, but their presence here is costing everyone far too much.

Despite this tremendous burden on Americans, even some conservatives are calling for a sort of softened legalization, motivated by misplaced sympathy for those illegally in this country, rather than for Americans or those who are following the rules to be here. History says that this is a foolish effort.

Let’s look at our big previous legalization program. The late David North of the Center for Immigration Studies wrote an excellent analysis of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1982 (IRCA). Among his conclusions were (1) much larger numbers than had been anticipated applied; (2) there was a great deal of fraud in the program; and (3) the fraud rarely resulted in a denial.

Enacting a legalization/amnesty program invites millions to “try their luck.” I can’t tell you how often I heard that from unsuccessful or ineligible visa applicants. They will swarm into the country by any possible means and route. Putting a limiting date on presence in the United States to determine program eligibility will only fuel innumerable fraudulent document mills, unscrupulous public notaries, and unethical immigration lawyers.

And who would these folks be? Current estimates are that 44% of illegals are Mexican, 3% are Filipino, 2% are Indian, 2% are Chinese, 25% are from other Central and South American countries, and 24% from the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, 4 million potential immigrants, just 10% of the number who should not be here, are currently waiting (some more than 20 years) for their legal immigration interview (due to congressionally-mandated numerical limitations). Of them, 30% are Mexican, 7% Indian, 7% Filipino, and 6% Chinese. See where this is going? We have millions waiting to join us the legal way, yet we’re considering letting criminal millions jump the line ahead of them.

I’d like to see all the illegals removed and if we decide as a policy that we need more immigrants, we should process as quickly as possible those already waiting in the legal way.  We can establish a cutoff of those already processed by USCIS and pending in the system.

Gad Saad’s next book, Suicidal Empathy, cannot be released soon enough. The title says it all. I’m afraid we’re headed down this path with a soft amnesty for the “good guy” illegals in the country. So, here’s a hybrid and much better proposal:

Should we choose to initiate a program to legalize aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States, it should be limited to those who entered the United States lawfully and overstayed their legal admission. We already have their data in our system (e.g., their names, dates and places of birth, passport numbers, dates admitted, and durations of stays authorized).

With these “overstays,” we don’t have to worry about fraudulent identities. They had a security check in our systems before receiving their visa or admission from a visa waiver country. They had a reason to be here. Many of them already had friends and relatives here who, if needed, can help them overcome the public charge ineligibility. Any who have committed crimes or obtained federal benefits via fraud can be excluded. Give the program a cut-off date that accepts only those here before November 3, 2020, to weed out those whose visas came when the Biden Administration took over.

We do not have to give them a path to citizenship. They can be granted conditional legal residency for life, as long as they avoid criminal behavior. This will take an act of Congress, something they need to get started on immediately. It can be a limited immigration bill, speeding up processing for those waiting, and permitting lifelong conditional residency for visa overstays not otherwise ineligible.

As it seems we may well go down this amnesty/legalization path, this proposal will make it as easy as possible for ourselves. We will not be rewarding those who entered illegally, with each one of them knowing they were committing a crime as they did so. We will also not be rewarding traffickers and trafficking.

This plan will partially satisfy the immigration hawks as well as the doves. A quasi-quasi for both sides of the debate.

Anony Mee is the nom de blog of a retired public servant .

DNC Chair Ken Martin Lies About Lying

Ken Martin is the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee (DNC). He’s the primary fundraiser and spokesman for America’s Democrats. Zohran Mamdani is the Democrat Party’s candidate to be the next Mayor of New York City. Mamdani has been caught cheerleading to “globalize the Intifada,” which means he wants to see Islamist terror everywhere. Given many opportunities to repudiate that slogan and its genocidal meaning, Mamdani has steadfastly refused:  

One would think the head of the DNC would understand Islamist terror is about as popular in America as shingles or festering cold sores. One would think wrongly.

During a recent PBS interview, Martin was given a chance to distance himself from Mamdani’s lunatic assertion. He didn’t:

There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100% of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said.

But at the end of the day, I always believe, as a Democratic Party chair in Minnesota for the last 14 years, and now the chair of the DNC, that you win through addition, you win by bringing people into your coalition.

We have Conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist. And we win by bringing people into that coalition and at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead. We are a big tent party.

Yes, it leads to dissent and debate, and there’s differences of opinions on a whole host of issues. But we should celebrate that as a party and recognize at the end of the day, we’re better because of it.

Martin taught us something surprising: leftists are a “new brand of Democrat.” He also taught us something unsurprising: globalizing the intifada is just one more of many “differences of opinion on a whole host of issues” under the Democrat “big tent party.” Why, it’s practically like preferring Doritos over Cheetos! Martin had a clear opportunity provided by PBS(?!) to say the Democrat Party rejects world-wide Islamist terrorism. He didn’t take that opportunity.

It’s common knowledge many American Jews are staunch Democrats, but Donald Trump has been peeling away a substantial number post October 7. Jewish organizations were not amused by Martin’s refusal to clearly condemn Mamdani and his call for world-wide genocide. Apparently, there are cooler, smarter heads at the DNC; Martin tried to backpedal:

Graphic: X Post

Martin is partially right. In the PBS interview he didn’t specifically say he supported or condoned “globalize the Intifada,” but he certainly didn’t say he “unequivocally condemned” it. So, Martin is lying about the “right-wing lie machine” lying about what he said or didn’t say. Particularly funny—in a disturbing way–is Martin’s assertion that “there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence,” which is pretty much the only kind of rhetoric Democrats are speaking these days, whether it’s calls for the assassination of President Trump, calls for insurrection, calls for violence against federal immigration officers or calls for violence against Normal Americans in general. That’s a pretty big tent.

There can be no doubt Mamdani is an Islamist with Communist leanings. One might think those ideologies mutually exclusive but both are totalitarian systems that brook no opposition to their rule. Muslims are also taught, culturally and through their faith, to lie to infidels the better to spread Islam. 

Mamdani is certainly lying, but he’s a little too slick to specifically repudiate “globalize the Intifada.” Instead, he won’t even speak the phrase and dances around it, allowing his Islamist followers and supporters to understand he’s lying to the infidels, while simultaneously giving infidel useful idiots an excuse to claim he doesn’t support global Islamist terror. Ken Martin is playing the same, useful idiot, game.

Is Martin simply stupid? Doesn’t he understand Mamdani’s candidacy is deadly to Democrat’s political aspirations? Can he really be so dense as to fail to understand Mamdani’s election could wipe out Democrat hopes to seize the House and Senate in 2026 and the presidency in 2028? Doesn’t he know electing an Islamist Communist as Mayor of New York City, which has America’s largest Jewish population, is deadly to the Democrat Party? Doesn’t he know all sane, decent Americans condemn Islamism, terrorism, antisemitism and genocide?

Or is Martin merely “dancing with them what brung him?” Is he forced to play to the lunatic, violent, antisemitic, anti-American base of his party, the base that all but fills that DNC big tent?

Martin’s refusal to condemn “globalize the Intifada,” his furious, unconvincing backpedaling when caught, and his refusal to distance himself and the DNC from Mamdani eloquently answers those questions.

On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor. 

Related Topics: Politics

New Image

13

sharethis sharing button
American Thinker on MeWe

 Print

 Email

Here’s What Gutter Guards Should Cost if You Qualify for Senior RebatesLeafFilter Partner

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Sponsored

View & Add Comments (13)

Around the Web

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Here’s What Gutter Guards Should Cost if You Qualify for Senior RebatesLeafFilter Partner

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

Neurologists: 1/2 Cup Each Morning Relieves Neurоpathy Quickly! (Watch Now)Health Headlines

Put Bananas in Your Garden and Just WatchWellnessGaze News

There is an Affordable Way to Correct a Bunion Without SurgerySoothRelieve

Never Put Mustard in Your Fridge, Here’s WhyLife Hacks Garden

8 Clever Ways to Pay Your BillsThe Penny Hoarder

5 Companies That Send People Money When They’re Asked NicelyThe Penny Hoarder

20 Forgotten Discounts Virginia Retirees With Property Often MissSenior Savers

Neuropathy & Nerve Pain: Why Didn’t Your Neurologist Tell You About This?NeuropathyGuide

Neuropathy is Linked to This Household Item (Stop Using It)Healthier Living

Revcontent

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe
American Thinker on GETTR
American Thinker on Truth Social

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

Trending Topics

Trending

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Gutter Guards InstallationLeafFilter Partner

Here’s What a New Roof Should Cost You in 2025HomeBuddy

Neurologists: 1/2 Cup Each Morning Relieves Neurоpathy Quickly! (Watch Now)Health Headlines

Revcontent

Most Read

24hr

48hr

7 Days

Beware ‘Ragebait Engagement Farming’

Clarice Feldman

Why So Many Young Americans Fall for Socialism

Brian C. Joondeph

How Concerned Should We Be About Chemtrails?

Jonathan Gault

A French court rules that France must admit the Gaza population

Andrea Widburg

The Civil War wasn’t enough: Democrats call for blood

Mike McDaniel

Top Contributors


Last 7 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Eric Utter

M. Walter

Charlton Allen

Vince Coyner

Last 30 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Clarice Feldman

Charlton Allen

Eric Utter

Douglas Schwartz

M. Walter

Noel S. Williams

J.B. Shurk

Susan Quinn

Vince Coyner

nullAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2025

×

War Takes Everything

As Peter Schweizer noted in a short report for the Hoover Institution on Christmas Day 2000, twenty-five years ago the United States was “spending less on defense as a percentage of GNP than anytime since the Great Depression.”  That all changed nine months later when the so-called “peace dividend” from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War was reinvested in a “Global War on Terrorism.”  

Eight trillion dollars later, and what do Americans have to show for their sacrifices in blood and treasure?  The Taliban is in control of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda is in control of Syria, an apologist for Islamic jihad is about to become mayor of New York City, and a pro-Hamas contingent of lawmakers wields too much power in Congress.  

In an article that resembles an obituary for U.S. foreign policy during the twenty-first century, writer Daniel McAdams dryly observes in the headline, “‘Global War on Terror’ Is Over.  Terror Won.”  That’s quite the gut punch for everyone who lived through 9/11 and its aftermath.  Yet it’s hardly inaccurate.  

A quarter-century after Islamic terrorists murdered three thousand Americans, politicians are more concerned about “Islamophobia” in the United States than providing adequate care for veterans who confronted Islamic barbarity head-on.  The hurt feelings of those who risked nothing to defend the homeland matter more than the damaged bodies and minds of those who risked everything.  

The significance of 9/11 has been so watered-down that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar remembers it only as a day when “some people did something.”  For the victims we lost, their families, members of the military who fought and died on the global battlefield, and the families of those servicemembers who never saw their loved ones again, that “something” was — by far — the most consequential event in their lives.  Now it’s just an opportunity for foreigners who become members of Congress to guilt-trip white people for their imaginary “privilege.” 

After 9/11, everybody insisted that we left our guard down and somehow brought the tragedy upon ourselves.  If we had only continued spending on defense at the same high levels that we had been spending since WWII, then we could have prevented the worst attack on American soil since the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.  That was the supposed lesson.  It didn’t matter that we were still spending more than every other country in the world; as soon as we cut back on Cold War military spending, we suffered another surprise attack.  We were vulnerable, everyone agreed, unless we rededicated tax dollars toward huge military budgets.  

Everybody in the defense sector got big buckets of money after that.  Weapons manufacturers, research and development firms, intelligence think tanks, and foreign policy consultants made out like bandits.  The FBI got new domestic surveillance powers.  The Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration came into existence.  The CIA positioned itself once again as the unofficial quarterback of the U.S. government.  Unelected bureaucrats, in other words, became much more powerful than they were before 9/11, and the defense industry started cashing much bigger checks.  All the institutions that experienced a diminishment of clout and prestige after the Cold War found their clout and prestige supercharged in the post-9/11 world.  That’s a pretty sobering reminder that some people always benefit from tragedy.

How did the American people make out?  Not so well.  In return for a foreign attack on U.S. soil, American citizens lost any claims to their privacy.  The Patriot Act (apparently already written and ready to be signed into law as soon as a sufficient emergency could justify its passage in Congress) birthed the modern national security surveillance State.  Americans lost control over their bank records, phone calls, text messages, and emails.  It became common to hear politicians justify this loss of personal privacy as a trifling matter for Americans with nothing to hide.  On 9/11, foreign terrorists murdered U.S. citizens; after 9/11, the U.S. government murdered the Fourth Amendment.

Americans also saw the accelerated migration of foreign nationals into their local communities.  Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama seemed to agree that American citizens were responsible not only for prosecuting a “Global War on Terrorism” but also for resettling “refugees” from newly occupied territories into the United States.  The end result has been a confusing and disruptive injection of multiculturalism this century.  Had Americans known that defending their way of life would involve importing millions of foreign nationals with a different way of life, many never would have supported post-9/11 wars in parts of Asia and Africa and across the Middle East.

Effectively, the U.S. government responded to the worst attack since WWII by going to war for two decades, tearing up parts of the Constitution, and undermining Americans’ shared culture.  Those politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. who have seen their powers expand this century believe the enormous costs in lives and dollars are justified.  Those industries that profit from endless war have had much to celebrate.  For many Americans, however, the butcher’s bill from this century’s military conflicts has not been pretty.

Right now the drumbeat of war is growing louder.  U.S. and European interests see Ukraine as an expendable chess piece in a larger NATO-led war against Russia.  As the death toll in Europe rises, Western war-hawks continue to demand that every last Ukrainian man be press-ganged into service.  I have made no secret of my contempt for those who insist that Ukrainians die in this war when they are not permitted to vote for elected representatives or even to dissent publicly from the government currently hanging onto power through martial law.  There is nothing “democratic” about this Ukrainian dictatorship.

I dislike the Council on Foreign Relations types who lick their chops over the possibility of defeating Russia and dismantling its enormous territory into more digestible parts.  I dislike the BlackRock vultures that can’t wait to gobble up the region’s natural resources while making trillions of dollars from government-subsidized rebuilding projects across the war-torn terrain.  I dislike the bloodthirsty loudmouths, such as Lindsey Graham, who speak of war as if it’s a playground game.  I dislike the Machiavellian politicians (particularly in Europe) who see the War in Ukraine as a convenient distraction from the exorbitant energy costs of “climate change” communism presently destroying Western economies.  I dislike those who would risk miscalculations between nuclear powers over former Soviet lands whose peoples largely identify as Russian.  I dislike those who prefer that Russian and Ukrainian Christians kill each other rather than seek peace.

Before we ratchet up the slaughter in Europe and expand the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine into something even more devastating than it already is, consider how much we’ve sacrificed this century.  The “peace dividend” following the Cold War didn’t even last a decade.  When the United States committed itself to a post-9/11 “Global War on Terrorism” for the next twenty years, we watched our Bill of Rights and culture slip away.  Whether one thinks the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were worth their costs, those costs will look minuscule next to the butcher’s bill that will come due in a full-out war between Russia and U.S.-NATO.  Those European and American parents who believe that their children will never be drafted into service should remember that Ukrainian parents once believed the same thing.

There is an abyss before us.  If we fall into it, we will lose ourselves.  The madness will be bloody and awful, and we will be lucky to see it through.  War takes everything.  It robs everyone.  I pray that we can avoid it.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker

Gold Revaluation: Trump’s Red Button Option?

Could a gold revaluation be on Trump’s mind? Below, we consider the options facing a debt-sick America.

A Bug Racing for a Windshield As we’ve been warning for years, the US and USD are a bug rapidly seeking a debt-hard windshield.

The trend and speed of this collision (and debt trap) are becoming increasingly more obvious with each passing day and headline.

In simplest terms, as US debt levels soar moon-bound, trust and interest in its IOUs (and the currency/dollar backing those IOUs) are sinking toward the ocean floor.

The evidence of such otherwise “dramatic” statements is literally everywhere.

Hard Questions For example, although not at war, the US is running World War 2 debt-to-GDP ratios at the 120% level.

Gold Revaluation: Trump’s Red Button Option? How did this happen? What’s the “emergency” behind this grotesque ratio?

And more importantly, how can Uncle Sam save himself?

Simple Answer Answering the first question is fairly simple.

We arrived at this appalling turning point because the US has been getting debt drunk for decades.

Gold Revaluation: Trump’s Red Button Option? Ever since Nixon took away the gold chaperone from the USD, politicians have been buying temporary prosperity, debt-based “growth” and duped voters by taking US public debt levels from $248B in 1971 to $37T (and counting) today.

This number alone is staggering.

Trillions Matter The difference between “billions” and “trillions” is not merely alphabetical, it’s brutal.

1 BILLION seconds ago, for example, places us in 1997. Bit 1 TRILLION seconds ago places us at 30,000 BC.

Let that sink in for a moment.

If this shocks or bothers you, well… you’re not alone.

The World Has Called the USA’s Bluff The rest of the world is shocked too, which explains why its central banks have been quietly net-dumping USTs and net-stacking physical gold since 2014.

This further explains why freezing the FX reserves of Russia in 2022 only accelerated the distrust of a now weaponized (and once neutral) world reserve currency.

De-Dollarization… What followed was a well-telegraphed and carefully forewarned trend of de-dollarization from the BRICS+ coalition.

Tier-1 Status… This trend took off around the very same time that the BIS, the mother of all central banks, officially classified gold as a Tier-1 reserve asset, making an open mockery of its “sister Tier-1 asset,” the UST.

Central Bank Gold Stacking… Gold stacking by central banks, of course, continued to skyrocket at the same time:

COMEX Panic… If such signs of US dollar and debt woes/distrust were not obvious enough, the COMEX and LBMA exchanges out of New York and London then began scurrying like headless chickens.

Why?

Because they were trying to find enough physical gold to meet delivery demands to get the gold off of these exchanges, which, since 1974, were once just derivative schemes used to manipulate rather than deliver gold.

But the hidden facts (and implications) were far simpler. Counterparties to this legalized price-fixing scam now wanted their actual gold more than their paper contracts.

Why?

Because they saw physical gold’s growing, inevitable and superior role in a future monetary system moving away from the debt-discredited USD and UST.

Petrodollar Signposts… To add insult to the USD’s injury, a growing and simultaneous trend away from the petrodollar during the same period was as obvious as it was media-ignored.

But the message was clear: Faith in a USD-driven future was openly in decline.

The Denial Stage? Defenders of the USD, of course, were quick and right to remind the world that no other nation or currency could beat or replace the mighty Dollar.

After all, it is the world’s reserve currency.

It still holds the majority position in global FX reserves and, let’s be honest, neither China, Russia, nor any other nation has the reputation or bond market to replace the dollar, right?

Right.

Reality Check: Gold’s Future in a Fiat Swamp But, here’s the kicker.

Nations like China or Russia aren’t trying to replace the USD with their Ruble or Yuan.

They, like the rest of the world, are slowly going to replace the USD with gold.

This doesn’t mean a gold-backed world reserve currency, just a gold-based world settlement system.

China Playing Chess Take China as an obvious example.

They have no problem de-valuing their fiat currency when measured against gold, an asset they’ve been quietly stacking and misreporting for decades in a chess game of common sense as the USA plays checkers with QE.

Nor does China have much love for USTs…

Gold Revaluation: Trump’s Red Button Option? As I type this, China continues to pair gold to the oil it imports from Russia and Iran (conveniently dubbed “evil” by the weaponized US media).

In just over a decade, China’s gold-to-oil ratio was 8 barrels of oil to one ounce of gold. Today, that same ounce of gold buys China 50 barrels of oil.

Meanwhile, China has no problem seeing its Yuan price of gold rise from 7000/ounce in 2014 to 24,000/ounce today.

In short, the Yuan has collapsed against gold but not against the USD.

But China can live with this for the simple reason that it sees a gold-based new world order, and it has been stacking that gold for years.

Why?

Tier-1 Status… This trend took off around the very same time that the BIS, the mother of all central banks, officially classified gold as a Tier-1 reserve asset, making an open mockery of its “sister Tier-1 asset,” the UST.

Central Bank Gold Stacking… Gold stacking by central banks, of course, continued to skyrocket at the same time:

COMEX Panic… If such signs of US dollar and debt woes/distrust were not obvious enough, the COMEX and LBMA exchanges out of New York and London then began scurrying like headless chickens.

Why?

Because they were trying to find enough physical gold to meet delivery demands to get the gold off of these exchanges, which, since 1974, were once just derivative schemes used to manipulate rather than deliver gold.

But the hidden facts (and implications) were far simpler. Counterparties to this legalized price-fixing scam now wanted their actual gold more than their paper contracts.

Why?

Because they saw physical gold’s growing, inevitable and superior role in a future monetary system moving away from the debt-discredited USD and UST.

Petrodollar Signposts… To add insult to the USD’s injury, a growing and simultaneous trend away from the petrodollar during the same period was as obvious as it was media-ignored.

But the message was clear: Faith in a USD-driven future was openly in decline.

The Denial Stage? Defenders of the USD, of course, were quick and right to remind the world that no other nation or currency could beat or replace the mighty Dollar

After all, it is the world’s reserve currency.

It still holds the majority position in global FX reserves and, let’s be honest, neither China, Russia, nor any other nation has the reputation or bond market to replace the dollar, right?

Right.

Reality Check: Gold’s Future in a Fiat Swamp But, here’s the kicker.

Nations like China or Russia aren’t trying to replace the USD with their Ruble or Yuan.

They, like the rest of the world, are slowly going to replace the USD with gold.

This doesn’t mean a gold-backed world reserve currency, just a gold-based world settlement system.

China Playing Chess Take China as an obvious example.

They have no problem de-valuing their fiat currency when measured against gold, an asset they’ve been quietly stacking and misreporting for decades in a chess game of common sense as the USA plays checkers with QE.

Nor does China have much love for USTs…

Gold Revaluation: Trump’s Red Button Option? As I type this, China continues to pair gold to the oil it imports from Russia and Iran (conveniently dubbed “evil” by the weaponized US media).

In just over a decade, China’s gold-to-oil ratio was 8 barrels of oil to one ounce of gold. Today, that same ounce of gold buys China 50 barrels of oil.

Meanwhile, China has no problem seeing its Yuan price of gold rise from 7000/ounce in 2014 to 24,000/ounce today.

In short, the Yuan has collapsed against gold but not against the USD.

But China can live with this for the simple reason that it sees a gold-based new world order, and it has been stacking that gold for years.

Why?

Because the BIS, the IMF, and, of course, the BRICS+ nations see a world in which gold is superior to the debt-discredited USD as a strategic reserve asset.

Gold: Far More than an “Allocation” Gold is no longer an allocation, hedge or subject of debate—it is the future of global trade and currency settlements. Period.

My colleague, Egon von Greyerz, saw this decades ago.

Of even date, for example, gold is now 20 % of global FX reserves. The USD percentage is falling dramatically to a 46% position, and the Euro holds a 16% slot.

But if central backs and BRICS+ nations continue to stack gold at current levels, gold may not be an official “world reserve currency” in substance or title, but it will be the new leading FX reserve asset in both title and power.

In sum, each of the foregoing themes, of which we have detailed and warned in numerous prior articles, explains the debt “emergency” facing the USD.

The Real Question: What Can the USA Do Now? But what about the corollary question? That is: What options do the US have left to solve its debt (and hence currency) crisis?

This, too, has been on our minds for years.

More Fantasy Money? Ultimately, there are no easy solutions or good scenarios left.

MMT fantasy, for example, of solving a debt crisis with more debt that is paid for with mouse-clicked money has been tried in earnest since the QE guns took the Fed from a pre-08 balance sheet of $800B to a 2022 high of nearly $9 9T.

As reminded above, that difference between a Billion and Trillion is just plain madness.

The US, faced with solving its debt crisis (and bond market) at the expense of its paper dollar, is running out of time, options and global patience.

So, again—what can the US do today?

More War? For Hemingway, at least, the most obvious next step is further currency debasement and war, which the past, current and even future headlines seem to confirm, from the Middle East to Eastern Europe:

But with distrust in US politics and foreign policies rising in alternative media platforms highlighting left and right scandals on everything from Russia-Gate laptops to Epstein cover-ups and AIPAC-guided uh-ohs, trust in the left and right stirrups of the DC saddle is tanking at a rapid rate.

Re-sets, DOGE Cuts & Tariff Walls? Meanwhile, the IMF has been telegraphing a great reset since COVID, and the current Trump administration has been trying to use DOGE cuts and tariff wars to bring debt and spending levels down.

But regardless of one’s political bias, let’s be mathematical: None of these policies is enough, and none of them, as of today, are even working – as the Elon/Trump social media war intensifies in a backdrop of rising rather than falling deficit levels.

More Financial Repression? I also expect, and have warned of, more financial repression and capital controls around the corner.

But again, not much of a solution given current and future debt levels, debased dollars (worst DXY Q3 in 40 years) and a middle class already on its knees.

The Red Button Option: Gold Revaluation? But DC has another option, which even the Fed’s recent May 2025 Manual openly hints toward.

I call it the “red-button option” of a radical gold revaluation to effectively use a precious metal (rather than a Fed mouse-click) to achieve QE-like monetization without having to issue more unloved USTs.

One can read the Fed’s lengthy May report on their own, but the Fed-speak boils down to this:

The Fed can add gold certificates to its balance sheet, which can then become assets of the Treasury Department’s TGA account to pay down a sliver of its $37 37-TRILLION-dollar public debt.

But the trillion-dollar question remains: How will these $42.00 gold certificates be re-valued?

Doing the Math In a February Forbes article, for example, there was talk of marking these certificates to market.

If that were the case, the 8131 tons of US gold (roughly 260 million ounces) at the current spot price would give Uncle Sam about $850B in instant new money to pay off some debts.

This is nice, but hardly a solution to getting the aforementioned 120% debt-to-GDP figure down to pre-08 levels at a ratio compelling enough to restore trust in—and demand for—Uncle Sam’s unwanted IOUs.

But what if the US government put in a bid for $20,000 gold?

This would create a new price floor for the precious metal while simultaneously placing newly revalued gold certificates ahead of UST’s and mortgage-backed-securities on the Fed’s balance sheet?

Sound crazy?

If you read the May Fed Report, they hint at such a balance sheet “example” but shy away from naming a new price valuation on the gold certificates.

This means we can only guess at what comes next.

An emergency gold re-valuation of $20,000, by way of just one example (perhaps lower, perhaps higher?), would create instant trillions in liquidity to address Uncle Sam’s otherwise mathematically unsustainable bar tab.

Such a measure would buy time for US IOUs and votes for a beleaguered White House.

Such considerations, once thought extreme, must now be considered with desperate seriousness in a backdrop of only desperate options.

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures? But desperate times require desperate measures, and there is nothing more desperate than the USA (and balance sheet) in its current form.

Nixon made a radical change in 1971. Can a red-button gold revaluation in 2025 or 2026 be equally ignored?

Let’s wait and see.

Be Careful of What You Wish For And regardless of whether the inflationary red button is pushed or not, gold wins either way, as the dollar’s purchasing power in such a debt landscape has no absolute direction left to it other than downward.

Gold, as the ultimate, most stable, stacked and historically most trusted anti-fiat asset, has no direction left than upward.

Let’s also not forget that if gold is so re-valued, then the nation with the most gold will have the most leverage in this new system.

But as I’ve suggested elsewhere, that nation is more likely to be China than the USA. It has a lot more gold than the World Gold Council reports…

If so, like all empires whose average hegemonic age hovers around 250 years, the era of the American empire is coming to an obvious turning point, no matter how you stack it.

Matthew Pipenburg

Ketanji Brown Jackson Says She Uses Supreme Court Opinions To Express Her Feelings

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during her book tour last weekend that she views Supreme Court opinions as a way to voice her personal convictions.

“I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do,” Jackson said.

She made the comments during a discussion of her new memoir, “Lovely One,” in front of 4,000 attendees at the Essence Festival of Culture in New Orleans.

Jackson’s conception of her role appears to differ from that of most Supreme Court justices.

The justice “apparently has a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the court about what the role of a Supreme Court justice is,” Scott Jennings, former director of political affairs for George W. Bush, said in a CNN interview on Wednesday.

“People from the ideological right and the ideological left on the court have had to put her in her place a couple of times here in this term. I would guess internally it’s causing issues at the Supreme Court,” he added.

This tension has become evident in recent rulings. In June, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against universal injunctions, which federal courts were using to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders. Justice Jackson filed her own dissent.

“I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” she stated.

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire this week that “Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum,” and that her colleagues — including the other liberal justices — “are getting tired of her.”

Reminiscing about her childhood during another book promotion at the Kennedy Center, Jackson said her mother “wanted me to get out there and use my voice,” and that she’d enrolled Jackson in public speaking classes starting in elementary school.

Despite being the youngest and newest justice, having been nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, Jackson speaks more than any of her colleagues. Since October, she has spoken 50% more words than the next most vocal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, according to a report by Empirical SCOTUS.

She was also in the majority the least often this term, and wrote more — including opinions, dissents, and concurrences — than any of the other justices except for Clarence Thomas.

“There are some times when, even after the principal dissent is written, I have a slightly different perspective or a different take on something or this is an issue of particular importance to me,” she said.

“I will say, ‘Forgive me, Justice Sotomayor, but I need to write on this case,’ and it’s because I feel like I might have something to offer and something to add, and I’m not afraid to use my voice.”

Isabel Garcia

Charlie Kirk sounds the alarm on the biggest threat to Republicans holding the White House in 2028

Kristine Parks, Alba Cuebas-Fantauzzi

“The biggest threat to the Republican Party in 2028 is if we do not deliver on our promises of [home]ownership for the next generation,” Kirk told Fox News Digital in an interview at the Turning Point Student Action Summit in Tampa, Florida…

“If we don’t fix the homeownership problem in this country, the cost-of-living crisis, and if we don’t give the next generation [a chance] at being owners and not renters, we are going to see what I call ‘Mamdani-ism’ spread across the country,” he predicted.

The influential conservative media personality said there was no doubt that younger voters were trending conservative, and he believes that the shift was largely driven by losses from the COVID-19 pandemic. Canceled

Canceled milestones like prom, graduation, and in-person learning had a huge impact on this generation, he said.

“There’s very low trust of institutions and the institutions have failed them,” Kirk told Fox News Digital.

There’s very low trust of institutions and the institutions have failed them,” Kirk told Foxd News Digital. “Primarily, if you’re 18, 19, 20, 21 right now, that kind of portion of Generation Z, they were lied to during COVID and so much of their livelihood and so much of what they care about, and they’re deeply passionate about was taken from them abruptly… So they’re a little bitter about that.”

Kirk also pointed to skyrocketing prices and record-breaking illegal border crossings under the Biden administration as driving factors behind Gen Z’s growing alignment with Trump. But he warned that unless Republicans can deliver solutions, the party risks alienating this emerging bloc of voters by 2028.

If we don’t fix the homeownership problem in this country, the cost-of-living crisis, and if we don’t give the next generation [a chance] at being owners and not renters, we are going to see what I call ‘Mamdani-ism’ spread across the country,” he predicted.t

Mamdani, the democratic socialist assemblyman from Queens, soared to victory in New York City’s Democratic primary mayoral race on a hard-left platform that included freezing rent, city-owned grocery stores, free buses, free childcare, raising corporate taxes and massively increasing the minimum wage. 

Mamdani-ism is the radical element of the Democratic Party, which is bitterness, discontent, the mobilization of grievances,” Kirk told Fox News Digital. “Where it is free stuff, populism weaponized against the American public.” He sees 2028 as a battle between two choices for America: an “optimistic” and patriotic vision where Americans take pride in ownership or one that follows more closely to Mamdani’s views.

Voters under 30 were the “decisive element” in the 2024 election, Kirk said, boosting Trump to victory in key swing states like Michigan and narrowing the gap in bluer places. 

Big Tech has also seemed to notice the generational shift to the right, with several Silicon Valley leaders appearing to want a friendlier relationship with President Trump in his second term.

Meta was one of the tech companies sponsoring the conservative event in Tampa. Kirk said he’s “thrilled” that Silicon Valley seems more open to conservatives after years of tension and hostility between the two over social media censorship.

With Kirk and other Turning Point figures’ success on social media, he thinks it should be a “no-brainer” for tech companies to seek a friendlier relationship with young conservatives.

“7,000 students, this is your target demo,” he said. “And secondly, we want to dominate on these platforms because, honestly, we already are. I mean, my personal Instagram, I think we’re upwards of almost 6.4 million followers. We get billions of impressions a year. You know, were very viral around TikTok. So I can’t speak for Mark Zuckerberg, but we’re thrilled to have Meta, Rumble and any other tech companies as well.”

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Rudy Giuliani to Newsmax: Mamdani Must Be Stopped

New York City Democrat mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is taking the direction set by communist Karl Marx and he has “got to be stopped,” said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“Government retail-owned stores — I mean, that’s worse than some of the communist countries; price controls on everything. The list goes on and on,” Giuliani told Newsmax’s “Saturday Report.”

“He wants to erase [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. That’d be secession. He tried to arrest a world leader. You can’t let him interfere with the foreign policy of the United States.”

Mamdani won New York City’s Democrat mayoral primary, cementing his upset of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and sending him to the general election.

The 33-year-old democratic socialist and member of the state Assembly since 2021 was virtually unknown when he launched his candidacy centered on a bold slate of populist ideas.

He will now face a general election field that includes incumbent Mayor Eric Adams as well as independent candidate Jim Walden and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

“My inclination would be” that Curtis could beat Mamdani, said Giuliani.

“Those three men, whatever you think their failings are, they’re like Abraham Lincoln against” Mamdani, he told Newsmax.

Carlson on Epstein: Ask What ‘No One Has Ever Tried to Ask’

Tucker Carlson is calling on the public to ask questions “no one has ever tried to ask” about Jeffrey Epstein’s case after the Justice Department and FBI decided to withhold records from the sex trafficking investigation, the Daily Caller reported.

The move, which included the acknowledgment that one particular sought-after document never actually existed, sparked a contentious conversation between Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino at the White House this week. The spat threatened to shatter relations between them and centered in part on a news story that described divisions between the FBI and the Justice Department.

“So the real question is not ‘Was Jeffrey Epstein a weirdo who was abusing girls?’ Yes, we can answer that. The real question is ‘Why was he doing this, on whose behalf, and where did the money come from?'” Carlson said Friday at Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit.

And those are the questions that need to be answered. I think it’s entirely fair to ask them, and it’s not adequate to say anyone who asked them is somehow desecrating the memory of little girls who died in Texas. They’re not going to put up with that answer. I don’t care who gives that answer. That is not acceptable.

“I think the real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of intel services, probably not American. We have every right to ask, ‘On whose behalf was he working?'” Carlson said.

“How does a guy go from being a math teacher at the Dalton School in the late 70s with no college degree to having multiple airplanes, a private island, and the largest residential house in Manhattan? Where did all the money come from? And no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried. Moreover, it’s extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government.”

Tensions that simmered for months boiled over on Monday when the Justice Department and FBI issued a two-page statement saying that they had concluded that Epstein did not possess a “client list,” even though Bondi had intimated in February that such a document was sitting on her desk and had decided against releasing any additional records from the investigation.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Solange Reyner ✉
Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.

Trump Threatens to Revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship

President Donald Trump on Saturday called comedian Rosie O’Donnell a “threat to humanity” and said he was “seriously considering” revoking her citizenship.

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump wrote in a Saturday morning Truth Social post.

“She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

O’Donnell in recent days denounced Trump and recent moves by his administration, including the signing of a massive GOP-backed tax breaks and spending cuts plan.

It’s just the latest threat by Trump to revoke the citizenship of people with whom he has publicly disagreed, most recently his former adviser and onetime ally, Elon Musk.

But O’Donnell’s situation is notably different from Musk, who was born in South Africa. O’Donnell was born in the United States and has a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State Department notes on its website that U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization may relinquish U.S. nationality by taking certain steps — but only if the act is performed voluntary and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Solange Reyner ✉
Solange Reyner is a writer and editor for Newsmax. She has more than 15 years in the journalism industry reporting and covering news, sports and politics.

Charlie Kirk warns ‘Mamdani effect’ metastasizing in the Democratic Party with ‘grievance-based politics’

“The Mamdani effect is going to metastasize in the Democrat Party. Now, how successful it will be in a general election, I don’t know, I still have my skepticism. But the Mamdani effect is grievance-based politics, playing into people’s bitterness, and also playing into the economic disorder that Biden left us,” Kirk said.

President Trump is going to fix this, and he is aiming to fix this,” Kirk continued. “But understand, for the younger voters that I represent and the younger voters that delivered the White House for President Trump, they can’t afford homes, they’re increasingly renting, they’re not getting married, they’re not having children, so there are two ways this can go.”

Kirk said young people can either take an “optimistic, patriotic vision like President Trump is offering,” or a “very dark and sinister vision – one that is anti-Western, anti-American, anti-civilization.” He believes far-left Democrats like Mamdani have embraced the latter.

“I believe this effect will only continue in the Democrat Party for years to come,” Kirk said.

Fox & Friends” aired footage of Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin downplaying concerns from Jewish colleagues about Mamdani, who has drawn criticism for not condemning calls to “globalize the intifada” in earlier interviews. The term is widely seen as a call for violence against Jews and Israelis, but Mamdani has said he’s not out to police speech.

You might think the Democrats are going to moderate. You might think that I went on Gavin Newsom’s show, and he’s going to move to the middle. No, no, no, the rise of Mamdani and that ridiculous statement from Ken Martin shows the canary in the coal mine is [that] the Democrats are going to double and triple down on an anti-civilizational agenda,” Kirk said.

“I believe this effect will only continue in the Democrat Party for years to come,” Kirk said.