Things in America are getting pretty dicey these days. So dicey, in fact, that people in blue states are starting to wonder if it’s time to evacuate to the safety of more politically conservative places. Knowing when to get out of Dodge is vital.

The Babylon Bee has compiled the following list of clear signs that it’s time to move to a red state:

1. The neighbors ate your pets: Your dog and your cat.

2. There are tampons in the men’s restrooms: Something doesn’t seem right.

3. There are no plans to build a Buc-ee’s in your state: A clear sign there’s no hope where you are.

4. The same crackhead on the bus stabbed you for the 6th time this month: Even though you specifically asked him to stop after the 5th time.

5. The 12th “Learing Center” in town just opened up down the street: Doesn’t feel like there’s enough demand for that many.

6. You’re facing felony charges for possessing a gas-powered lawnmower: They’re really serious about climate change.

7. Your grocery store only sells bananas and rice: It’s not like that’s all anyone around you eats, it just all anyone around you eats.

8. State taxes are 103% of your income: Seems a bit high.

9. You need subtitles to understand your elected officials’ speeches: What language is that, anyway?

10. You are not L, G, B, T, nor Q: You don’t belong here.

11. Your breakfast is ruined by the Islamic call to prayer every morning: It’s hard to enjoy a bowl of Lucky Charms with all that racket.

12. You’re an American: Obviously in the minority.

If you’ve noticed any of the things listed above happening where you live, it’s time to head for greener (redder?) pastures. What are some other signs someone needs to move to a red state? Add your ideas in the comments.

The Babylon Bee

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

But what is leftism?  During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism.  Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist.

 When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like.

 But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist.

 What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.  Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this.  All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism.

We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology.  Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only.  We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.”

 Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

 This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.  They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities.  The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.

 “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.”  The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves.  Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.”

Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.  They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.”  They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

 (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours.  We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftist anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society.

 Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior.

 The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior.  They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.  (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men.  Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful.  They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.  The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives.

 They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

 Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West.  He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”, “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.  The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist.  He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them, take care of them.  He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.

 The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative.  It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined

But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.  They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.  They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs.

 For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power.  More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior).

 The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior.  This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.

 Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others.  Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it.  Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor.  This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself.  He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior.

But the leftist is too far gone for that.  His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable.  Hence the collectivism of the leftist.  He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics.  Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc.  These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics.  Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type.  But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism.

 Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.  Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.  For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms?

 Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.  But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.  Helping black people is not their real goal.

 Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.  In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist.  It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

T. Kaczinski, UC Davis

Fifty-five years ago, Democrat activist and community organizer Saul Alinsky published Rules for Radicals. Its stated purpose was not reform, persuasion, or compromise, but disruption — manufacturing chaos, provoking conflict, and inciting revolution as a means of political change. 

Alinsky was explicit: power is seized, not earned, and the ends always justify the means. More than half a century later, the book has not faded into obscurity. It remains the Left’s operating manual — its tactical guide and its justification for tearing down institutions in the name of “progress.” 

Alinsky prescribed a deliberate three-step process for political change — one rooted not in persuasion, but in pressure. We are watching Alinsky’s guerrilla warfare techniques play out in real time in Minneapolis right now.

The first step is to create a crisis.

Alinsky argued that in a complex society, people do not act until they are forced to. The organizer’s job is to trigger a crisis by “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.” The crisis must be intensified to generate motivation.

Over the past year, Democrats nationwide have relentlessly vilified ICE agents for doing their lawful job — enforcing federal immigration law. Agents tasked with apprehending illegal aliens are portrayed not as law enforcement, but as villains, fascists, and moral monsters. This rhetoric has not merely poisoned public discourse; it has actively encouraged confrontation between federal agents and radical protesters.

Even as this Democrat-designed and Democrat-sustained conflict has resulted in real-world tragedy, Minnesota’s leadership continues to escalate rather than de-escalate. Tim Walz has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize ICE itself, asserting that its agents are “not law enforcement” — a claim that is both false and dangerously inflammatory.

Never mind that illegal presence in the United States is itself a violation of federal law, or that many individuals apprehended by ICE are repeat offenders charged with serious crimes including rape, assault, and homicide. By erasing these facts, Democratic leaders shift blame away from criminal behavior and onto those tasked with enforcing the law.

Crucially, this crisis is not universal. In states where local authorities cooperate with ICE, deportation numbers are significantly higher and enforcement proceeds with low to nonexistent public disorder.

In Minnesota, Democratic leadership has chosen confrontation over cooperation. By encouraging hostility toward ICE and refusing meaningful coordination with federal authorities, they have manufactured a volatile environment — one where enforcement becomes dangerous, chaos becomes predictable, and outrage becomes the objective.

This is not accidental. It is textbook Alinsky: provoke, polarize, and escalate until crisis itself becomes the lever of power.

The second step is to blame the target and personalize it.

Alinsky famously instructed organizers to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Institutions are abstract. By isolating a single person or group and turning them into the embodiment of evil, the organizer simplifies the conflict and focuses public rage where it can do the most damage. 

In Minnesota, that target has been ICE — and by extension, the individual agents tasked with enforcing the law. Rather than supporting the rule of law, Democrat leaders have inverted reality — demonizing the American agents carrying out federal statutes. These men and women are portrayed as Nazis rather than public servants — an accusation so obscene it would once have ended a serious political career. 

At the same time, the individuals ICE is charged with apprehending are recast as victims, saints, or symbols of moral righteousness — no matter their criminal histories. Violent offenders are defended. Illegal status is ignored. Responsibility is shifted entirely away from lawbreakers and onto those enforcing the law. 

This is not accidental rhetoric. It is deliberate personalization. By turning ICE agents into the face of evil, Democratic leaders focus public anger on a human target rather than a policy debate. Moral clarity is replaced with emotional manipulation, and law enforcement becomes the enemy.

The third step is the ultimate objective — to force the “solution.” Once the crisis has paralyzed the target and public pressure has peaked, the organizer presents the solution. This solution, however, is framed not as one option among many, but as the only path forward: accept it or face escalating chaos.

This is the Left’s only solution: President Donald Trump must remove ICE from Minneapolis and effectively cease deportation operations nationwide.

Those enforcing the law are blamed, those breaking it are excused, and the public is told that the only way to stop the disorder is to surrender authority.

This is not accidental disorder. It is intentional political warfare, designed to use instability as leverage until the Democrats get what they want — illegal voters imported under the Biden regime to give them political power.

Drew Allen is an author, columnist and host of ‘the Drew Allen Show’ podcast. His latest book is For Christ and Country: the Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.

On January 14, 2026, Governor Tim Walz delivered a formal public address calling on Minnesota authorities to resist cooperation with federal immigration operations and urging the public to “peacefully resist” the presence of ICE agents.

His statements and actions during this period include:

• Refusal to Cooperate: On January 14, 2026, Walz explicitly demanded that the Trump administration end its “occupation” of the state and stated that Minnesota would not facilitate federal immigration surges.
• Call for Public Resistance: During the same address, he encouraged Minnesotans to record videos of immigration agents to document their activities.

• Criticism of Federal Tactics: On January 24, 2026, following a second fatal shooting involving federal agents, Walz referred to ICE agents as “not law enforcement” and accused them of creating “chaos”.
• DOJ Investigation: On January 16, 2026, it was reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into both Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for allegedly obstructing federal law enforcement. 

This escalated tension followed the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, which Walz condemned while demanding that state authorities be allowed to conduct their own investigation.

A Fed had a finger bitten off. Another was injured when Walz’s storm troopers surged a hotel.

Absolutely all of this was unnecessary. All of it. All of these protests are being directed by a left-wing Signal network which appears to be led by some very high up in the state government. It’s being incited by Lt. Governor Flanagan telling people to “put your bodies on the line.”

Here’s all that had to happen:

Trump: Governor Walz, we want DHS to go into Minneapolis and remove criminal illegal aliens.

Walz: Do you have outstanding warrants and/or deportation orders for them?

Trump: Yes we do. We’d like your local law enforcement to help us identify them so there won’t be any confusion or mistakes.

Walz: Yes, Mr. President, we’d like to see this go smoothly, safely and quickly.

Trump: Great and thank you.

That’s pretty much it. Rene Good and Alex Pretti would still be alive. One Fed would still have all his fingers. A lot of damage and a lot of pain could and should have been avoided. Illegal alien criminals would be on their way to the appropriate venues.

Instead, at Walz’s provocations and Flanagan’s antics these protests were orchestrated and coordinated, to cause as much pain, interference and obstruction as possible.

On top of it all, Walz had the audacity to make a galactically stupid comparison:

Governor Tim Walz called me with the request to work together with respect to Minnesota. It was a very good call, and we, actually, seemed to be on a similar wavelength. I told Governor Walz that I would have Tom Homan call him, and that what we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession. The Governor, very respectfully, understood that, and I will be speaking to him in the near future. He was happy that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota, and so am I! We have had such tremendous SUCCESS in Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, Louisiana, and virtually every other place that we have “touched” and, even in Minnesota, Crime is way down, but both Governor Walz and I want to make it better! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

I’d like to believe this and I think Trump would like to believe this but even if sincere it’s way late.Trump is bringing in Tom Homan to clean up the mess and that’s a good thing. Homan knows what he’s doing. I am hopeful that things will change. But Walz has to take to the airwaves and instruct the residents of Minneapolis to stand down, do not harass, obstruct, interfere or block or box in the cars of the Feds. If he does that things will calm down.

And he’s going to have to turn on Flanagan.

I think it will be an uphill battle as there are unquestionably paid anarchists present who want anything but peace but let’s see how this goes.

If the dust does settle, Walz will take credit, but it will prove something else- that Walz is a stupid incompetent fool who should have done this immediately.

Author: DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) has been predicting record high gold and silver prices. We are nowhere finished with record prices for the metals happening every week and sometimes every day. Mr. Gold now has a new prediction about paper exchanges not being able to deliver physical metal. Holter says, “We exploded through $100 per ounce silver, and we went through $5,000 per ounce on gold, but that’s not the story.

The story is there are already over 40 million ounces standing for delivery in January. January is a non-delivery month. If you go back in past years, you might see delivery in January that might be a million ounces, two million ounces or a small amount. We are already at 40 million ounces of silver in January with only a few days left in the month. March is a delivery month. That’s the month where I am going to be really interested to see what the number is for how much is standing for delivery at the beginning of the month. If you get 70 million or 80 million ounces of silver standing for delivery at the beginning of the month . . . that would be enough to knock out the inventory in March, which is a primary delivery month for COMEX..”

Holter goes on to say, “They reportedly have 110 million ounces to 120 million ounces registered for delivery. Is any of that incumbered? We just don’t know. If we get a failure to deliver that completely negates any and all value of a COMEX contract. . .. If the contract cannot perform, it is worth zero. A failure to deliver wipes out any credibility of COMEX pricing. . .. A failure to deliver in silver will immediately spill over into gold. A failure to deliver in gold will immediately spill over to the credit markets because gold is truly the anti-dollar or the anti-US Treasury.”

Holter says some of the big metal dealers and banks shorting the monetary metals are in financial trouble. Holter says, “This is all caused by rising metals prices, mainly rising silver prices. . .. Some people may think the rally is over, and it’s not. We are still early in this price rise. Any price you hear is going to be laughably too low, and I am going to include that $600 figure for silver that came out several years ago. I think any number you put out there for gold or silver will end up being laughably low.”

Holter contends if you look at all the commitment and debt, there is $200 trillion for the US. Holter says, “If you take just the $38 trillion in debt for the federal government and you want to back the debt with the 8,000 tons of US gold, you are talking around $200,000 per ounce for gold.”

In closing, Holter predicts, “There will be failure to deliver silver in the first part of March 2026. The currencies will zero out. It is a collapse of the entire financial system. . .. The real economy runs on credit. Everything you touch, everything you do . . . credit has been involved in its creation. If credit becomes unattainable, the real economy completely shuts down, and that is where your Mad Max comes in.”

There is much more in the 39-minute interview.

Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog

Victor David Hanson:

And they call it the MAGA revolution? It’s not a revolution. It is a counterrevolution. There’s a big difference. This is a restoration. Let’s use the word ‘Trump Restoration.’

We don’t know really, we don’t really appreciate what we’ve been through with 8 years of the Obama Revolution, and the 4-year, more radical, 3rd term of using or employing the waxen effigy of Joe Biden.

A revolution that we’ve experienced was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution.
It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers. Remember what they tried to do? They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches. Does this sound familiar?

This revolution that we’ve experienced – everything was up for sale. Everything was negotiable.

We invented a third gender and rammed it down people’s throats.

We tore down statues.

We said 1776 was no longer the foundational date; it was 1619.

We changed the very mechanism that we vote. We went from 70% of the electorate voting on election day, to 70% of the electorate not doing that, either through mail-in or early voting. That was a radical change that had no discussion. It was done by fiat. It was incredible.

We looked at girls sports and we destroyed it. We said that transgendered biological males that were now transgendered females could compete. They won over 600 medals they took away from hardworking female athletes.

We had drag shows among young children.

It was an effort to change the entire constitution. We forget that. They were trying to bring in Puerto Rico as a state and Washington D.C. to get 4 instant Senators. They were proud

They said that they were going to pack the Supreme Court; it hadn’t been done- hadn’t been tried since 1937, and it was an object of disgrace ever since, but they were proud to try it again.

They talked about making states, the Senate, look like the House. They wanted, and a lot of them are advocating that it was not fair that one Senator in Wyoming, take one example, is worth 250,000 votes but a Senator in California represented 20 million. They wanted to change the makeup of the Senate. They wanted to get rid of the Senate filibuster. Remember that.

They wanted to bring back neo Confederate nullification. Six hundred jurisdictions, in the manor of South Carolina in 1832, are on the edge of the Civil War in 1860 when neo Confederate Southern states said that, ‘Federal Government’s law does not apply to us.’ ‘Tariffs? Yankee tariffs? No, no! We’re going to override them.’ Andrew Jackson almost invaded the Carolinas over that, South Carolina. And so these jurisdictions said that, ‘Federal law doesn’t apply here. We’re exempt. We have our own laws. Federal immigration law does not apply here. It applies everywhere else, to you, you, you…but not to us.’

So this was a Revolutionary movement. Movies were different; sports were different, ‘take a knee’ and Donald Trump came in and it was not sufficient to say, ‘We’re going to stop the madness of 37 billion dollars; we’re going to stop the madness being short 40 or 50 thousand military recruits because of this DEI coupled with the humiliation in Kabul; we’re going to stop the appeasement of China.’

But that wasn’t all, he said, ‘The government is broke. We’re going to go through all of these agencies.’ And finally, for the first time in the history of this country, when somebody says they are going to cut spending and drain the swamp or cut the administrative…..we’re going to do it.

And there’s going to be no changing names except to go back to traditional names. And we’re not going to topple statues. And if you break the law, and you’re on campus, and you’re on your student visa, you’re going to go back home.

So we’re in the midst of a counterrevolution. It’s not revolution. You know what it is? It’s a return to normalcy. It’s a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries, but to the rest of the people, it is a counter-revolution to restore normalcy, and bring the country from the far left fringes back home again.

~~~TRANSCRIPT ENDS~~~

SAINT PAUL, MN — With tensions between ICE agents and leftist protesters in Minneapolis running high, Governor Tim Walz said he was willing to do anything to keep Minnesota residents safe except cooperate with federal law enforcement.

Walz, the failed vice presidential candidate who will not be seeking re-election as governor, said he would exhaust every potential solution to stop the bloodshed except for working with ICE to enforce immigration laws in Minnesota.

“I’m open to any solution but that one,” Walz told reporters. “I am here to serve and protect the residents of the great state of Minnesota and look out for their best interests. That requires me to do absolutely everything in my power to keep them safe, up to — but no including — cooperating with federal law enforcement. That’s a bridge too far, I’m afraid.”

Clashes between protesters and ICE agents have led to multiple controversial deaths, as leftists expressed outrage that law enforcement officers were daring to enforce laws. Walz stressed the need for de-escalation, despite his unwillingness to uphold the actual law.

“Minnesota is a state that’s all about love,” he explained when asked if he would order state and local police departments to cooperate with ICE. “And I would do anything for love. Yes, I would do anything for love. I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that. No. No, I won’t do that.”

At publishing time, Walz’s office said that the governor had decided to perform a special, heartfelt, flamboyant ribbon dance in an effort to bring peace to the state.

The Babylon Bee

Senate Democrats recently signaled that they would be willing to shut down much of the government—again—rather than vote for a package that includes funds for immigration enforcement.

This seems a bit tone deaf, as securing the border and immigration enforcement were two of the main reasons President Trump was elected.

Several things are at play here.

Democrats are so scared of losing the new and burgeoning voting bloc they illegally imported into the U.S. that they will do anything to protect it, American citizens be damned. If a few thousand Americans have to be robbed, raped, or killed—and tens of thousands annually lose their lives to fentanyl and other drugs, well, that’s the way it has to be.

So, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Asshat-N.Y.) said Democrats wouldn’t vote to advance the broader package if the current measure funding the Department of Homeland Security is included.

Translation: “If we don’t get what we want, we’ll take the ball and go home. We’ll shut the effing government down if you don’t give us what we want, even if we aren’t in power. Which means that we are always in power, which is how it should be, Allahu Akhbar! Ha, ha, ha, ha!”

Another shutdown to protect their fraud money and perpetual voter base? Funny, they didn’t use to like shutdowns of the vital, life-giving government. In fact, they continually blamed every shutdown on Republicans and made it seem as if thousands would die because of their insensitivity and heartlessness.

And now they pretend to be outraged at the deaths of the two protesters/terrorists shot by ICE, when, in reality, they are driven to peak arousal over each new death of the useful idiots they’ve essentially instructed to assault federal law enforcement. Why? Because each new death takes the focus off their corruption and is an opportunity to let the catastrophically compromised mainstream media convince people that they are somehow on “the right side of history.”

If Democrats should eventually succeed in shutting the government down to aid and abet alien criminals, Republicans must go to DEFCON 1, immediately nuke the filibuster, and do anything and everything else possible to stop this swelling Marxist insurrection.

Democrats in Minneapolis and their paid minions have turned what normally is the routine apprehension and deportation of violent illegal alien criminals into a civil war-level event. Playing with fire doesn’t begin to describe this. In days of yore, the likes of Walz and Frey could literally be “hung from the highest yardarm” for such treasonous actions.

Eric Utter, American Thinker

Before rare earths and tariffs, Denmark quietly offered Greenland to America. What happened next still echoes in 2026.

The renewed push by the United States to assert control over Greenland has placed the Arctic territory at the center of an intensifying geopolitical contest. In early 2026, trade threats, mineral competition, and strategic calculations have replaced diplomacy as the primary levers of U.S. pressure.

President Donald Trump has reintroduced the idea of acquiring Greenland, framing it as a national security imperative. The proposal has already drawn condemnation from Copenhagen and Nuuk, but the administration has signaled it may escalate further, including the use of economic retaliation against NATO allies.

Amid this unfolding standoff, a largely forgotten episode from the early 20th century has returned to relevance. More than a century ago, Denmark quietly offered Greenland to the United States as part of a broader territorial exchange. The proposal was rejected, but it marked the first formal instance of Denmark seeking to divest the island.

A 1910 Proposal Buried by Diplomacy

In 1910, the U.S. ambassador to Denmark suggested a tripartite trade that involved Greenland, islands in the Philippines, and the German region of Schleswig-Holstein. Under the plan, the United States would cede certain Philippine territories to Denmark. Denmark would then pass those islands to Germany, which in turn would restore the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein to Danish control.

The proposal was swiftly dismissed by U.S. officials. Historical analysis published in Fortune confirms that the U.S. government found the diplomatic maneuver too ambitious. No public negotiations followed, and the idea was shelved. It would take another 36 years before America formally offered to purchase Greenland.

That came in 1946, when the Truman administration extended an offer of $100 million for the island. As detailed in this Arctic Institute analysis, Greenland’s strategic value had risen sharply with the onset of the Cold War. The deal failed, but the United States retained military access to the island through the 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement.

Rare Earth Minerals and Strategic Location Drive Modern Interest

Today, Greenland’s value is viewed primarily through the lens of rare earth resources, Arctic military logistics, and supply chain security. Greenland holds deposits of neodymium, dysprosium, terbium, and lithium, critical for both green energy technology and military-grade electronics. A 2026 report in Fortune notes that 25 out of 30 raw materials listed as essential by the EU are found in Greenland.

Tariffs and Threats Escalate Diplomatic Tensions

On January 17, 2026, President Trump announced tariffs targeting Denmark’s exports to the U.S., starting at 10 percent in February and rising to 25 percent by June unless the Danish government agrees to discuss a transfer of sovereignty over Greenland. The announcement, made via Truth Social, extended similar penalties to several European NATO allies including Germany, France, and Sweden, which had expressed support for Denmark’s position.

No formal negotiations are underway. Both the Danish government and Greenland’s leadership have reaffirmed that the island is not available for sale. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated the position on January 7, saying, “Greenland is not for sale”, and urging that all engagement respect Greenlandic self-rule and NATO coordination.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede has supported continued U.S. cooperation on economic and defense matters, stopping short of endorsing sovereignty talks. In a press conference covered by the New York Times, Egede stated, “We are going to work with the U.S. – yesterday, today and tomorrow,” underscoring Greenland’s desire for balanced diplomacy without conceding control.

Market Risks and Legal Precedents Raise Broader Concerns

The use of economic pressure to force territorial change has raised red flags among trade experts and global governance observers. A policy analysis by The Daily Economy criticized the administration’s logic, arguing that sovereign territory cannot be priced like a commercial asset. If Greenland’s mineral reserves are truly worth trillions, any sale at a fraction of that amount would lack rational basis under standard net present value models.

The article also cautioned that normalizing territorial claims through economic pressure could destabilize global investment environments, inflate sovereign risk premiums, and invite retaliatory measures from the European Union. Analysts warn that trade-based coercion, if left unchecked, might reshape how smaller states calculate defense and diplomatic alignments.

In parallel, historical context offered by LSE USAPP connects today’s ambitions to 19th-century U.S. expansionism, including Seward’s drive to annex Arctic and North Atlantic territories. While the geopolitical context has changed, the territorial logic persists.

About the author, Evelyn Hart

Evelyn holds a Master’s degree in Earth Sciences, with a focus on oceanography, climatology, and palaeontology. Her research has explored terrestrial and marine ecosystem responses to past global warming events. With over 10 years of experience, she has worked as a freelance editor and content creator. She writes for Indian Defence Review, covering topics related to climate, planetary science, and the long-term interplay between Earth’s history and contemporary environmental challenges. evelynhart@indiandefencereview.com

Scroll down for article.  My tablet is messed up.

The United States is facing an existential threat. My guess is this summer will be the most violent, damaging domestic summer since the Civil War. And I predict the left will win and come out victorious on the other side. They will, after winning this new civil war, seek to eliminate the last vestiges of republicans.

I use a small r because while some Republicans are true republicans, most are not. And when the left wins the war, those RINOs are going to “work with” Democrats to create the illusion that America is still a republic, but it won’t be. They will use every tool available to silence dissent, take control over virtually every sector of American life, and they will implement rules so that America becomes a one-party nation.

Now I say all of this with the great hope that I am wrong, but I don’t think I will be.

The cowardly Republicans are going to cave in every conceivable manner in order to try to forestall a civil war. At every level, they are going to give in to the left, they are going to “compromise” their principles, and they are going to betray their voters and our Founding Fathers.

And I mean that at every level in every branch. There is simply no universe where Republicans have the intestinal fortitude to do what’s right in the face of withering attacks from the left.

There is literally no better example of this than election integrity. Nothing animates GOP voters like election integrity. Not abortion. Not welfare fraud. Not guns. (A majority of Democrats support it as well!) Literally nothing gets rank-and-file Republicans more animated in 2026 than elections, but still, the Republicans do nothing about it.

But the catalyst for the Summer of Love circa 2026 (which is already starting) won’t be election integrity per se, but rather immigration. The challenge is that the Democrats have spread 50 million illegal aliens across the entire country. From Maine to California and everywhere in between. This will not be like the Civil War, where the two sides were mostly geographically separated. No, this is going to be like a dozen people thrown into cage matches all around the country.

And why is this going to be the Big One? Because as we’re seeing in Minneapolis, the left has perfected the business model of professional protest movementeers. They’ve been training for more than 25 years. We saw it in the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999, the IMF protests in DC in 2000, Occupy Wall Street in 2011, and the 2020 version of the Summer of Love.

They’ve literally been perfecting it for the last quarter century, and now they are preparing to strike. They are well funded, have a millions-strong army who have been exhorted to hate and violence by a treasonous media, are highly organized, proactive, and most of all, local governments around the country, even some in red states, are on their side.

The result will be a spreading of what we’re seeing in Minnesota as the temperatures rise, and it will be a perfect storm of success for them, regardless of how it turns out. On the one hand, there are countless “observers” who are willing to risk their lives to go out and attack ICE agents because they know that, if they die, they’ll be lionized as freedom fighters who laid down their lives in the defense of innocent children, regardless of the actual facts, and the propaganda value will be immeasurable to their cause.

What’s more, on the off chance that any of the protesters actually get arrested, the local DAs will release them without bail or charges, or federal judges will refuse to sign off on the arrest warrants. None of this, of course, is speculation. It’s all real and happening right now.

Whatever the outcome, the left wins. If their troops are killed while fighting ICE, we’re told that the fascist Trump is guilty of the murder of innocents. If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, he’s a dictator. If a governor calls out the National Guard, it’s a police state. Whichever way it works, the media will spin it as David versus Goliath with the law-abiding citizens and ICE characterized as the Philistines.

Minnesota is only the beginning. It’s likely the left will pursue a multi-month strategy in which they hit multiple cities simultaneously and others in isolation to distract and fragment the administration’s attention.

But the Summer of Love is just one element of the treachery that is going to go on. To appease these leftists, the Republicans are going to bend themselves into pretzels trying to prove that they are not what they are being accused of.

We’ve already seen it. Trump promised to get rid of the Department of Education. Not only is it not gone, but Republicans fully funded it. Countless programs that fund left-wing programs have also been funded, and they’ve refunded programs that Trump cut. Over at Justice, the administration has not made a single arrest related to the theft of 2020, the persecution of the J6ers, or the travesty that was Russiagate.

The reality is, Republicans, and sadly, that includes Donald Trump, are not serious about fixing America, pulling us back from the leftist precipice we have been teetering on for twenty years. If Trump were serious,

• He would put Greenland, Europe, Venezuela, Gaza, and Iran on the back burner—that doesn’t mean ignore them—and invoke the Insurrection Act.
• He would clear out and charge the protesters in Minnesota and would nationalize the National Guard in any circumstances where ICE agents are being targeted with harassment and violence.
• He would immediately begin RICO investigations of the NGOs that are funding these protests.
• He would also investigate left-wing judges who are sometimes operating hand in hand with said NGOs.
• He would ramp up deportations and allow those deported to appeal from their home countries, while freezing all funds going to states that provide benefits to illegal aliens, as well as all states and locales that act as sanctuary cities.
• And finally, he would use every power at his disposal to convince GOP legislators to make the cuts to the budget necessary to choke off the funds going to those behind all of this.

The moment he does the above, he will be labeled a Nazi, a fascist, a tyrant, and more. But the reality is, he’s already being called that, so it doesn’t really matter.

Republicans have been living in a fantasy land where Democrats are honorable people. They’re not. Democrats are in a knife fight, and they know it. They’ve taken to heart Sean Connery’s lines from The Untouchables: “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!” The only difference is that Elliott Ness was on the side of the good guys; Democrats are not.

Democrats are prepared and are willing to burn down the country to maintain their power. The Republicans need to understand that and decide to stop them, using every tool available. But sadly, Republicans are too worried about being called bad names or having their sensibilities bruised to suit up and man the barricades against the wretched hordes that are the Democrats.

We are at war. The Democrats showed us their playbook in 2020, and they’re rolling it out now. I’d like to think the GOP has the stones to fight that war before it becomes an all-out, hot civil war, but I’ve not seen any proof that such intestinal fortitude exists. I hope I’m wrong.

Vince Coyner, American Thinker