While Virginia Democrats are pushing to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution, thousands of Catholics have organized a massive opposition.

In January, Democratic Virginia state lawmakers advanced a constitutional amendment on abortion rights to appear on the November ballot, Virginia Mercury reported. While abortion is presently legal in Virginia up to 26 weeks and six days of pregnancy, the state’s constitution does not at present explicitly protect a right to abortion, 13NewsNow reported.

The proposed amendment asks voters: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?”

The ballot measure is supported by Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democratic Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones. However, some of the state’s roughly 693,000 registered Catholics from both of its two dioceses are urging voters to reject it ahead of Election Day, labeling it as “extreme.”

In a rare move, Catholic Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Arlington issued a Sept. 12 letter urging Virginians to join the “Catholics Vote No” campaign, which opposes Ballot Questions 1 and 2. Ballot Question 2 would in part “remove a provision that states marriage is between one man and one woman.”

“[Ballot Question 1] threatens the health and safety of mothers and would allow for abortions targeting healthy babies all the way up to birth,” Burbidge’s letter claims. “The amendment extends this so-called right even to minors. It would remove the role of parents concerning life-altering and irreversible decisions for their minor daughters.“

“The proposed amendment is extreme. It is unnecessary. And it is wrong,” the letter continues.

In August, Burbidge and Bishop Barry Knestout of the Diocese of Richmond issued a joint letter claiming in part that Ballot Question 1 “would endanger women’s health and safety” if passed.

Burbidge also warned against supporting the two ballot measures during Mass at St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Fairfax on Sept. 13, noting it was the first time he has asked for one of his letters to be read to parishioners “throughout the diocese.”

“Ballot Question number 1 fails to protect the life of the unborn, the health of women, and even fails to respect the rights of parents in the lives of their children. Ballot Question 2 fails to respect the sanctity of marriage as Jesus taught, the sacred union of one man and one woman,” Burbidge told the crowd at Mass. “[We] cannot condone that. We must vote no to those questions and say yes to the truth. I’ve asked that the letter from me be read throughout all the parishes today throughout the diocese, [and] I think it’s the first time I’ve done that during my tenure here. But there’s so much at stake.”

The Arlington Diocese notably comprises 69 parishes in Northern Virginia, with 464,861 registered Catholics and 266 priests.

Some Virginia Catholics are also organizing voter registration drives at their parishes, according to the Arlington Diocese’s website.

The Arlington Diocese did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

When reached for comment, the Richmond Diocese referred the DCNF to a July 6 pastoral letter from Knestout, which says in part: “as voters, we must recognize that laws shape culture and influence the protection of human rights.”

The ballot measure is actually more about Democrats seeking “power” than expanding abortion access, according to CatholicVote President and CEO Kelsey Reinhardt.

“Abortion is already legal in Virginia. That single fact tells you everything you need to know about what this amendment is actually for,” Reinhardt told the DCNF. “This is not about access. It is about permanence and about power.”

“There is a difference between a bishop who issues statements and a bishop who leads. Bishop Burbidge is leading,” she added. “Having his letter read at every Mass across the diocese was not a symbolic gesture … That kind of directness is rare.”

The proposed amendment could make Virginia “one of the most radical states in the country in terms of abortion rights” if it is approved, according to JLK Political Strategies Founder and President Jimmy Keady.

“It would enshrine abortion as a fundamental right in our Constitution, on the same footing as free speech and the Second Amendment,” Keady told the DCNF. “For many Virginians who believe the law should protect unborn life, this is an enormously egregious step that would put common-sense abortion protections beyond the reach of ordinary legislation and make it extremely difficult for future lawmakers and voters to restore any protections for the unborn.”

Keady went on to say that Democrats should not “underestimate the ability of people of faith to organize and make a difference” ahead of Election Day.

“Throughout history, churches and faith communities have played an important role in mobilizing voters and citizens around issues they believe deeply in,” he said. “When people feel strongly about an issue, they can be incredibly dedicated and effective at getting their communities engaged. This effort will be no different if they can translate that conviction into turnout on Election Day.”

Still, pro-abortion groups have claimed Virginia’s Ballot Question 1 represents a major positive step for “reproductive freedom.” The Virginians for Reproductive Freedom campaign maintains that the amendment “would protect our freedom in Virginia to make reproductive health care decisions without fear of government interference or criminal punishment.”

In 2025, there were 39,500 clinician-provided abortions in Virginia, according to estimates from the Guttmacher Institute.

“If passed, Virginia will follow Massachusetts in letting the profiting abortionist alone decide whether a baby is viable and if an abortion is necessary so that the person deciding whether the baby is viable is the same person profiting from her death,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Communications Strategist Tom Olohan told the DCNF. “Virginians must reject this deceptive, extreme, effort from the abortion lobby to push abortion up till birth nationwide.”

Early in-person voting in Virginia opened on Friday and will run through Oct. 31.

Ireland Owens, Daily Caller

The Great Greenland Crisis has ended, and Donald Trump has declared victory. Last Friday, the president announced that he had reached a deal with the Danes that would give “the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns.” The barren, icy prize is finally ours.

Or is it? Despite the usual bluster, bravado, and social media posts showing Greenland colored in with the Stars and Stripes, Trump’s avowed aim of annexation was not accomplished.

The Dannebrog will still flutter in the Arctic breeze. According to a statement put out by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen Friday, the deal “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom [of Denmark] and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.”

Nor does the new agreement appear to give American firms new economic privileges, another reason Trump has cited for taking the island (although, interestingly, it does come two weeks after a U.S.-based company closed a deal for a big Greenlandic mining concern).

Rather, so far as can be determined without seeing the actual text—which is due out this week, to be signed on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly—the deal amounts to a kind of tinkering with the status quo.

Since 1951, the U.S. military presence in Greenland has been governed by the Greenland Defense Agreement, a short but sweeping pact that grants the U.S. military basing and access rights across the territory for an indefinite period of time. It was under this agreement that we constructed a network of about a dozen installations during the Cold War, all but one of which we closed down after the Soviet Union fell. (The surviving base was Thule, now renamed Pittufik in a nod to Inuit sensibilities.)

And most of the benefits the White House has highlighted since Friday—the access to all of Greenland, the lack of U.S. payments, even what the president arrestingly called the pact’s “Infinite Life”—were in fact already provided for by the 1951 agreement. Though there are a few new additions.

U.S. officials say that the deal will explicitly block non-NATO nations from basing forces in Greenland, for example. (Even if it seems doubtful in the extreme Copenhagen would ever have allowed this.)

The new agreement is also supposed to give the U.S. government some degree of control over adversaries’ ability to invest in Greenland, although the specifics are unclear (and Denmark, for what it’s worth, has historically blocked Chinese deals when we’ve pushed). And it’s been reported that this deal will provide the U.S. military with more latitude to construct military facilities.

But the most salutary thing for U.S. interests is not the grab bag of minor concessions noted above, most of which any president could have had for the asking. It is, rather, the way in which the deal was brought off.

For a year and a half, the Trump administration has employed cajolery, bluster, and bullying to obtain an outcome Europe has always held to be flatly unacceptable. Trump has sought to buy Greenland; he has tried to use tariffs to dislodge it from Denmark; he has suggested the United States may take the island by force.

And behind the half-baked security rationales, the true motive has always been clear: to close America’s biggest real estate deal since the Mexican cession, at Europe’s expense.

The effect has been to unnerve Europe, and to force its leaders to question their most deeply held assumptions about American policy and power. More than anything else in the last few years, it has persuaded the Europeans that the United States has changed. That the old guarantor of security, which could be depended upon to commit its blood and treasure to defending the other side of the Atlantic—and even defer to its wards on the planning and conduct of that defense—was no more.

As one European diplomat told the Financial Times at the height of tensions in January, “We know who our allies no longer are. It’s just we are still hoping we are wrong and the problem will go away. We know what needs to be done, we just need to bloody do it.”

If one thinks that the world’s wealthiest continent must provide for its own defense, this is immensely positive. The U.S. can and should leave Europe on its own terms, as I have previously argued in these pages. But in view of the pervasiveness of Atlanticism in American foreign policy circles, the task will be made considerably easier if the ostensible beneficiaries—that is, the Europeans themselves—cease to see American security commitments as dependable or even desirable.

We are a way off from that yet. And of course, one could argue that by abandoning the demand for annexation and resolving the crisis, Trump has also ended these dissensions. (Not to mention the deal’s other downsides, like the fact that Greenland—and therefore Europe—is now likely to play a central role in building out the wasteful, unnecessary, and probably unworkable Golden Dome system.)

But some of the damage will endure. The fractures created by an American president threatening economic and even military devastation in order to seize European territory cannot be entirely papered over.

Even if the push was initially attributable to Trump’s personal proclivities, the fact that the entire U.S. policy apparatus (including the Pentagon) was willing to sustain such an adversarial campaign against a treaty ally will resonate in Old World capitals for years to come. So viewed in its wider aspect, as the dénouement of a drama that has made a bad status quo less tenable, the Greenland deal is indeed a win for America First.

Luke Nicastro, The American Conservative

Indivisible, whose organizing guide describes building resistance to Trump and weakening MAGA’s political power, is now helping finance Faithful America’s organizing tour.

The tour page identifies that work as “funded by our partners at Indivisible.” Fleck leads the six-state initiative. Its April Louisiana program included an Indivisible leadership summit; upcoming stops are listed for Arkansas on September 25–27 and Kentucky on October 9–11.

Faithful America’s action center simultaneously describes the organization as “100% grassroots funded,” without billionaire or corporate money. It does not explain there how Indivisible’s support fits that description.

Indivisible’s financial backers include George Soros’s Open Society network, whose grant database⁠ lists $7.61 million in awards supporting Indivisible Project between 2017 and 2023. That includes a $3 million grant awarded in 2023 and $350,000 routed through Tides Advocacy in 2017. Its early backers also included Reid Hoffman and foundations or coalitions tied to Herbert Sandler, Patricia Bauman and Leah Hunt-Hendrix, according to 2017 reporting⁠.

The organization reported 2024 revenue of $771,482 and expenses of $782,014, according to figures extracted from its tax return. Those figures predate the tour.

The tour’s public funding disclosure supplies no contribution amount, grant terms or itemized budget. It establishes Indivisible’s support for the tour; it does not establish that Indivisible financed the toolkit or the group’s other campaigns. How much the partnership is worth, and precisely which organizing activities it pays for, remain unanswered.

Faithful America’s campaign reaches from the sanctuary to the ballot box: urging changes to church practices, organizing protests, promoting progressive causes and calling on voters to remove its political opponents. Indivisible is helping fund the tour that brings that organizing into local communities. The group campaigning against Christian nationalism has a political agenda of its own—and it wants America’s churches to help advance it.

Indivisible—a leading anti-Trump resistance group and organizer of the nationwide No Kings protests⁠—is helping bankroll a church-organizing tour run by a group urging pastors to remove American flags from sanctuaries, replace a traditional Independence Day prayer and mobilize congregations against conservative political influence.

That group, Faithful America, also campaigns to abolish ICE, backs the Transgender Bill of Rights and has hosted Pride-related bystander-intervention training with CAIR Oklahoma’s executive director.

Its own public materials spell out the political mission: one tour event⁠ promises to discuss how faith-based movements can “target and dismantle” the pillars supporting “the Trump regime.”

Its materials address what Christians hear in worship and how they engage in politics.

The Preacher’s Toolkit recommends pastors “take the American flag out of your church sanctuary.” Anticipating congregational resistance, it offers discussion as an initial step.

It also recommends replacing the Episcopal Independence Day prayer because it “unintentionally verges into Christian nationalism.” Its objection is that the prayer implies the Founding Fathers acted according to divine purposes.

The flag recommendation comes with examples pastors can follow.

One recommended essay describes a congregation removing both the American flag and the Christian flag. Its author, Rebecca Littlejohn, pastor of Vista La Mesa Christian Church in East San Diego County, said discussions prompted by January 6 led to the decision.

Littlejohn argued that placing the flags alongside the cross reinforced Christian nationalism. Her account dates to 2022, before the current Indivisible partnership, and distinguishes opposition to nationalism from rejection of patriotism.

Another recommended essay, by Craig Watts, argues that displaying the national flag in worship elevates American identity over the worldwide Christian community and excludes people who do not feel positively toward the United States. Watts also rejects the argument that American wars have preserved religious freedom.

The group’s 2026 midterm campaign identifies ten figures, including Andy Barr, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Ken Paxton and Pete Hegseth, under its False Prophets designation. The list mixes candidates with appointed officials.

Faithful America describes itself as a network of progressive Christians. Its mission statement identifies the “American empire” as a source of injustice and calls on members to “Flip tables whenever necessary.” Originally a National Council of Churches project, and later a Faith in Public Life project, it now operates independently as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization.

Its own documents show how that advocacy works.

Faithful America’s instructions then move from worship to political participation.

The toolkit urges attendance at school-board hearings, legislative committees and city-council meetings, alongside lobbying and press outreach. It proposes “Tracking extremism in your area” and counterprotests around ReAwaken America and Turning Point USA events. It cautions churches against favoring candidates and recommends nonpartisan voter registration.

The organization separately describes a record of pressure campaigns against conservative religious figures and Christian institutions.

On its impact page, Faithful America says more than 18,000 members signed a petition demanding James Altman’s termination and called his bishop’s office. The campaign followed Altman’s statements about Democrats and COVID vaccines; the group highlights his subsequent removal from active ministry.

It also says more than 17,000 members pressured Google over World Vision’s reversal of a policy change concerning gay and lesbian employees. The group points to a Google executive’s subsequent resignation from World Vision’s board.

The same page describes a campaign involving more than 20,000 members against Tony Perkins’s MSNBC appearances and claims its organizing helped ReAwaken America encounter difficulty booking venues. Those are the organization’s accounts of its influence.

During the 2024 election, it says it sponsored anti-Trump events combining prayer vigils, training and press conferences. It also sent a 15-foot inflatable golden calf to political gatherings, using a biblical symbol of false worship to protest Trump and his allies.

Its present campaigns similarly turn religious arguments into demands for specific political action.

The Faithful Pride campaign, launched in 2025, encourages Christians to attend and lead Pride marches, protests and celebrations. It identifies Veronica Laizure, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Oklahoma chapter, as a trainer alongside Faithful America executive director Rev. Dr. Shannon Fleck.

Their advertised training covers safely intervening in harassment or violence, online and in person. Faithful America also distributes a Pride rally-sign package and directs readers to guidance on church participation in Pride events.

Its ICE abolition campaign declares:

“Abolishing ICE is not just policy; it is a moral imperative.”

A separate campaign supporting the Transgender Bill of Rights asks Christians to press Congress to support the initiative associated with Democratic lawmakers Pramila Jayapal and Ed Markey. It portrays the Trump administration’s treatment of transgender people as a betrayal of Christian teachings.

Faithful America also opposed Rededicate 250, the Trump-associated religious commemoration of America’s 250th anniversary, describing the event as “a front for white Christian Nationalism.” Its petition accused organizers of using the celebration to promote Trump and a particular version of Christianity.

Indivisible, whose organizing guide describes building resistance to Trump and weakening MAGA’s political power, is now helping finance Faithful America’s organizing tour.

The tour page identifies that work as “funded by our partners at Indivisible.” Fleck leads the six-state initiative. Its April Louisiana program included an Indivisible leadership summit; upcoming stops are listed for Arkansas on September 25–27 and Kentucky on October 9–11.

Faithful America’s action center simultaneously describes the organization as “100% grassroots funded,” without billionaire or corporate money. It does not explain there how Indivisible’s support fits that description.

Indivisible’s financial backers include George Soros’s Open Society network, whose grant database⁠ lists $7.61 million in awards supporting Indivisible Project between 2017 and 2023. That includes a $3 million grant awarded in 2023 and $350,000 routed through Tides Advocacy in 2017. Its early backers also included Reid Hoffman and foundations or coalitions tied to Herbert Sandler, Patricia Bauman and Leah Hunt-Hendrix, according to 2017 reporting⁠.

The organization reported 2024 revenue of $771,482 and expenses of $782,014, according to figures extracted from its tax return. Those figures predate the tour.

The tour’s public funding disclosure supplies no contribution amount, grant terms or itemized budget. It establishes Indivisible’s support for the tour; it does not establish that Indivisible financed the toolkit or the group’s other campaigns. How much the partnership is worth, and precisely which organizing activities it pays for, remain unanswered.

Faithful America’s campaign reaches from the sanctuary to the ballot box: urging changes to church practices, organizing protests, promoting progressive causes and calling on voters to remove its political opponents. Indivisible is helping fund the tour that brings that organizing into local communities. The group campaigning against Christian nationalism has a political agenda of its own—and it wants America’s churches to help advance it.

Natalie Winters

Governments that cause more problems than they fix do not deserve to survive.

J.B. Shurk | September 21, 2026

The generations of Americans who were born after Eisenhower’s tenure have given him much credit for recognizing that the symbiotic relationship between Big Government and Big Business was evolving into an unconstitutional and anti-American oligarchy that we know today as the “permanent bureaucracy,” the “ruling class,” or the “Deep State.”  Perhaps if the American general-turned-president had neutralized the Deep State in the first decade after WWII, we would not have endured some of the worst chapters in recent American history, including the Vietnam War, the debasement of the U.S. dollar, the FBI’s soft coup d’état against President Nixon, fifty years of “global warming” con games, sixty years of mass immigration from third-world nations, NAFTA’s industry-killing bloodbath, China’s entry into the WTO, the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks, the Global War on Terrorism, Obamacare’s government takeover of medicine, the Russia Collusion Hoax, the COVID information war against the Bill of Rights, numerous rigged elections decided by unlawful voters and mail-in-ballot fraud, multiple assassination attempts on President Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, leftist-inspired violence against conservatives, and the Democrats’ manufactured AI fearmongering going on today.  Diagnosing problems without taking concrete steps to solve those problems produces a perverse phenomenon: The worse unsolved problems become, the more prescient the person warning about them appears.

Toward the end of Dearlove’s speech, Britain’s former top spy argued that the government of which he was an integral part had monumentally failed: “The first responsibility of government is the safety of the nation.  However, successive governments have forgotten this, and Britain is now caught in an energy trap of its own making.  As with rebuilding our armed forces, it will take a significant national effort to extract us and bring us back to a position of safety.  The task is urgent.”  

This is certainly true.  The question is why so many successive governments in the U.K. and across the West have betrayed their own citizens and made their nations much less safe.  Because normal citizens would never have offshored their own industrial and manufacturing jobs to adversarial nations such as communist China.  Normal citizens would not have conspired with transnational human trafficking gangs to import tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens.  Normal citizens would not have imposed “green energy” regulations that make it harder for farmers to grow food and for businesses to pay their bills.  Normal citizens would not mandate that unreliable electric vehicles replace internal combustion engines while power grids crash due to insufficient supplies of wind and solar energies.  These kinds of policies are so obviously foolish and suicidal that only our credentialed “ruling class” could justify them.

Does that tell us that our bureaucrats are too stupid to keep our nations safe, as Dearlove rightly recognizes as the first responsibility of government?  Or are these self-destructive national policies proof that Western bureaucracies are waging war against Western citizens?  Certainly Western governments are guilty of failing their peoples.  The only question remaining is whether their failures stem from a combination of incompetence and hubris or treason and malice.  

As Western citizens ponder that question, they are quickly taking matters into their own hands.  Spaniards in Ceuta are destroying government shelters built for foreign invaders.  A British village has voted to secede from the U.K. after the government announced plans to house an army of foreign immigrants next door.  The price of government betrayal might soon be the fall of a Western capital.  

Recognizing problems is not good enough.  Governments that cause more problems than they fix do not deserve to survive.

American Thinker

The federal government just told noncitizens who cast ballots in American elections that prosecutors are coming for them.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Friday it had charged 16 people in seven states with illegally voting, registering to vote through false citizenship claims, and related fraud, according to a press release from the department’s Office of Public Affairs. Many of the accused are noncitizens alleged to have voted in federal contests.

The department paired the filings with a blunt message on social media. “Let this be a warning to ANYONE trying to cheat and undermine our elections,” the DOJ wrote. “Spread the word!”

Prosecutors brought cases in Texas, Idaho, Georgia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Michigan, the DOJ said. Investigators working the files also turned up alleged wire fraud, passport and identification fraud, and unlawful firearm purchases.

These criminals allegedly voted in 2022 AND 2024 elections. Let this be a warning to ANYONE trying to cheat and undermine our elections. Spread the word! https://t.co/fkGs8eKitz

— DOJ Rapid Response (@DOJRR47) September 19, 2026

In Georgia, DOJ said Analiea Milliscent Eccles, a 44-year-old Venezuelan national and DACA recipient, voted nine times between 2008 and 2024 and now faces counts of voting as a noncitizen and falsely claiming citizenship. A federal grand jury in Boise indicted Idaho’s Avila Gomez, a Mexican national, on a stack of charges that includes wire fraud, passport fraud and firearm offenses after he allegedly voted in 2022 and 2024.

New Jersey’s Santana Coulibaly, a lawful permanent resident, registered in 2016, voted in 2018 and 2020, and submitted a provisional ballot last year, according to the department. Eight of the defendants live in Texas.

Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald of the Fraud Division told Fox News the administration has now charged 50 noncitizens with illegal voting. “America’s elections are for Americans,” McDonald said.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News investigators have topped 1,620 open cases, made 151 arrests, and are reviewing more than 300,000 suspected cases. “One is too many, but the fact that we have 300,000 cases we’re looking into right now and 1,620 cases that are under investigation, and 151 arrests is unacceptable,” Mullin said.

The department stressed the charges are accusations and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mark Tanos, Daily Caller

Britain is facing a potential slavery reparations lawsuit from Caribbean nations.

The issue is due to be raised at the Commonwealth summit hosted in Antigua in November, which the King is set to attend.

The Caribbean Community group confirmed last week it was ‘preparing to advance reparations on the agenda of the upcoming 28th Commonwealth heads of government meeting’.

Member countries have long demanded trillions in compensation for the slave trade, described by the UN this year as ‘the gravest crime against humanity’. Britain abolished slavery in 1834 throughout most of its empire, decades before the US did so.

The UK has long rebuffed reparations demands, with Downing Street saying: ‘The transatlantic slave trade was abhorrent. We fully recognise the strength of feeling.

‘The UK’s position is clear – we do not and will not pay reparations. The UK is committed to continued dialogue with all our partners on legacies of the past.’

But Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, is hosting a conference this week to discuss how to obtain compensation and has suggested legal action via the international courts as an option. 

She said the reparations could be paid over generations, in the same way the British Government accrued debt to pay off slave owners over several generations.

Ms Mottley added: ‘We have no desire to bankrupt anybody, but we have a desire for justice.’

She also claimed the ‘white’ West’s refusal to pay reparations, while also acting with moral superiority, was hypocritical. 

‘Those who want to preach morality, and those who want to tell us about good governance, who want to create the illusion of appropriateness, goodness, purity – the language associated with ‘white’ – are perpetrating a mockery,’ she said.

If pursued, the strategy would involve bringing a case to the International Court of Justice claiming Britain was breaching treaty obligations by not paying compensation.

The UK is a party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The treaty states that reparations should be made for any examples of racial discrimination.

And the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination suggested last month that the convention should cover ‘reparation for acts of racial discrimination linked to the continuing consequences of historical injustices’.

As such, a UN member state could sue Britain on the grounds that it has breached this treaty. 

The committee also recommended measures such as building statues of notable Africans to highlight the positive contributions of the diaspora globally, and expanding teaching about the slave trade in schools.

To assist possible legal claims, Ms Mottley announced that she had appointed a ‘technical committee’ to dig up economic evidence of the harms done to Barbados, which could then be presented in support of the case for redress.

Campaigners have stressed that reparations could take various forms, from development aid to support with healthcare, rather than simply a cash payment.

Ian Gallagher, Daily Mail

When the lights go down in the California town
People are in for the evening
I jump into my car and I throw in my guitar
My heartbeat in time with my breathing

Driving over Kanan, singing to my soul
There’s people out there turning music into gold

From singer John Stewart’s 1979 hit Gold.

People turning music into gold is a nice compliment about the recording industry and its quest to entertain the masses.

If I were to write a song about journalism, I would have to title it Feces. The reaction to Trump’s announcement that he reached an agreement with Denmark to control Greenland is a classic example of people spinning gold into, well, you know what.

On Friday, President Trump tweeted:

BREAKING NEWS: I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns.

There will be NO COST to the United States! At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America.

Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.

For over 100 years, Presidents have known the strategic importance of Greenland, but NONE of them were able to do anything about it. I am proud to be the President that permanently and conclusively addressed this very important situation. This is an “Infinite Life” Agreement, there is no end! We are very honored and proud of what has just taken place, and everything agreed to today will be cherished by the American People.

We will immediately begin the process of developing a large Military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction. This solution is a great one for the United States of America, Denmark, Greenland, and all of our Allies. We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land. We will be very protective of it!

This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

That is pretty big news. On Day 607 of his second presidency, Donald Trump has achieved what the press said was impossible.

This is an example of the press reaction then.

Rather than admit the pundits were wrong and Trump once again made a great deal, the press immediately began spinning gold into, well, feces.

The New York Times said, “U.S. Has Reached Security Deal on Greenland, Trump Says — The full contours of the deal were unclear, but Denmark and Greenland both indicated they expected an agreement to be signed soon.”

Trump’s tweet included details in 331 words.

• It costs us nothing.
• It is permanent.
• It allows us to build military bases.
• It gives us control of the frozen island.

Sky News, the CNN of Britain, tweeted, “Atlantic Council senior fellow Elizabeth Braw says ‘not very much’ has changed for Greenland after its new security deal with the U.S. and Denmark, but it gives Donald Trump ‘something to show the world.’”

Control of the largest island in the Arctic is a pretty big deal. If it were not, why would the press oppose it so much when Trump first announced his plan to acquire Greenland?

The Washington Post reported, “Trump hails Greenland security deal that falls short of takeover.”

Falls short. We just can do whatever we want militarily without having to feed its 56,945 inhabitants. Denmark spends 6+ billion Danish krone on the island or roughly $1 billion a year.

But there is a downside. Bloomberg reported, “U.S. Strikes Greenland Deal to End Row That Threatened NATO.”

Darn it. We’re still stuck with NATO.

The Atlantic piled a nice dung heap quickly, reporting, “The Greenland Fiasco Stumbles to an End.

“President Trump announced an agreement that appeared to satisfy all parties but came at a great cost.”

The media dismissed the acquisition of Alaska as Seward’s Folly.

The Atlantic story began, “Jesper Møller Sørensen, the Danish ambassador to Washington, projected an air of calm. He was serving hors d’oeuvres, including reindeer sausage and smoked salmon, at his residence, where American, Danish, and Greenlandic guests had gathered for a Wednesday event billed as ‘A Taste of the Arctic.’ On the terrace, he told me that months-long discussions about the future of Greenland were heading in a good direction. But, he warned, the outcome would depend on whether one person could be swayed.

“It was obvious that he was talking about President Trump, who has long coveted Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. Trump has claimed that the United States needs the island for national security, at times declining to rule out using force to acquire it. When his rhetoric became more threatening earlier this year, the Danish armed forces flew emergency blood supplies and explosives to the island to prepare for a potential U.S. attack. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warned that a U.S. invasion would mean that ‘everything ends’ for NATO—something of an understatement for a scenario in which one founding member of the alliance attacks another.”

Trump needs Greenland to build the Golden Dome that will protect the USA, just like the USA has protected Greenland since 1942.

In 1940, Denmark fought Germany bravely for six hours before capitulating. That left Greenland unguarded. A year later, FDR agreed with the Danish ambassador to defend Greenland. That was 8 months before Hitler declared war on the USA.

The press always seems to get Greenland wrong.

On January 19, 2023, Tony Heller tweeted this image.

And he said, “It is -65F in Greenland. CNN says Greenland is the warmest in at least 1,000 years.”

Also on Friday, Trump banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. A reporter from NBC ragged him about some right of corporate America to roam the White House.

The president replied, “Our country has to have honest news. You know, you don’t have a country unless you have, as I say, borders, good voting, straightening them out. Borders are unbelievable. Nobody’s come into our country in the last 17 months illegally. But you need borders, and you need fair and free voting. And you know what you need? You need a free press. You need a fair press and an honest press.”

The evidence from just one of the Trio of Liars:

Trump’s complaints are legitimate. Consider how it messed up coverage of the assassination attempt.

That lie stayed up for two hours. This was not a mistake. This clearly was an attempt to play down a sniper’s bullet clipping his ear.

Trump fired CNN on Day 607.

It should have been Day 1 but he had bigger pigs to slaughter.

Back to the big story: Greenland is now Orange.

Thomas Prince, who provides Trump with security and intelligence, tweeted, “Almost everyone has forgotten that President Trump and Marco Rubio cleaned out the Chinese from managing the Panama Canal not long after they took office last year.

“Now with this deal in Greenland, coupled with the Venezuelan removal of Maduro, President Trump has secured the western hemisphere from any potential Chinese or Russian infiltration.”

The Donroe Doctrine.

Trump negotiated an excellent deal for the USA and I guess Greenland too. He spun ice into gold—a Golden Dome—and the press tried to spin it into brown snow.Subscribe

Don Surber

Share

Leave a comment

POLL

What will the next Democrat president do with this agreement?

Chill and keep it

Tear it up

Pay reparations

Let Red China build a base there

We won’t have a next Democrat prez

1039 VOTES · 6 DAYS REMAINING

145 Likes∙

20 Restacks

Discussion about this post

Alice Ball

4h

I picked We won’t have a next Dem president, and if we can actually secure elections and voting, we won’t for awhile. That party needs to be stripped to its bare bones or disbanded. They are a ridiculous joke.

Like (70)ReplyShare

8 replies

MLR

4h

And when the Mullahs are taken down, their nuclear threat removed, free navigation returns to the seas, and Iran joins the family of real nations as a result of Trump’s “war of choice” the disloyal Marxist press and their enablers in the once great democrat party will criticize the legitimacy, cost, and length of the war. They cannot be hated enough!

Like (54)ReplyShare

6 replies

121 more comments…

The day John Adams predicted

The United States is a divided mess as Democrats have encouraged tribalism in their efforts to gain power, splitting us apart.

Jul 4, 2023

241

108

14

Trumping the bureaucracy

Civil Service-protected protesters learn their agency isn’t independent

Mar 7, 2025

312

141

34

Trump finally vanquished Obama

Two polls. No waiting.

Nov 21, 2024

653

280

87

Ready for more?

Subscribe

© 2026 Don Surber · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Start your SubstackGet the app

Substack is the home for great culture

null

Have you been to the library lately? I bet you haven’t. I bet, unless you have young kids, you haven’t been there in 10 or 20 years, at a minimum. Why would you go when you have everything they offer available to you at home, either delivered immediately digitally, or the next day physically? It begs the question: why are we still paying for them?

Yes, the things in libraries are “free,” but sometimes free is too high a price to pay for something.

There are two types of libraries: the small ones in rural communities, and the large ones in major cities. The small ones are cesspools of left-wing propaganda – go to one and look at the children’s book section and you’ll see “graphic novels” that would put the Penthouse letters section to shame. There are drawings for kids that, if they were photographs, would be a crime.

But these are done under the banner of “diversity,” so they’re important and good…or something.

The big city libraries are glorified homeless shelters. It would be child abuse to bring your kid there without an armed guard. The smell of body odor and weed has tattooed itself to the books and walls, and whispers of “Quiet, please” have been replaced by grunting junkies if you happen to disturb their high.

What does the library offer that people need?

Used books are basically given away online and in local shops or garage sales, and they have no due date. Anything new can be bought cheap online or just digitally, requiring no space to store them.

I remember when they started carrying VHS tapes and DVDs, giving Blockbuster fits over the “free” competition. It was just a ploy to get people to go into them again. It worked for a while, then it worked out about as well as it did for Blockbuster.

Now, libraries are meeting places for Drag Queen Story Hour and deviant art that couldn’t make it anywhere merit mattered.

Librarians get taxpayer money to put on events, and they all end up being left-wing events. Why do conservatives vote to fund our opponents? Is it simply because voting against library funding would trigger some kind of nostalgia in people that doesn’t exist otherwise? They’re there, they exist, and people are free to go to them, but we don’t. Still, the prospect of them going away maybe triggers something in people they don’t want to let go of, even though they have no practical use for them.

It’s the mentality that fills boxes in basements with things we can’t get rid of but never see the light of day – sentimental value does not create usefulness or shelf space.

My wife will kill me for this, as she absolutely loves libraries, but even she comes away from trips with the kids there full of disgust over what the kids’ section is full of.

We should not be paying for it.

Sell the books, sell the buildings and the land, use the money to pay off debt or lower taxes, and recognize that the days of libraries are over. They weren’t necessarily rendered useless by the Internet, but by the people hired to run them.

The problem isn’t the concept; it’s the people. The politicians who must bring a left-wing agenda into everything they do and the librarians who can’t have a desk without a seizure-inducing “progressive” rainbow flag on it. The 40-year-old single white women angry at the world that all their abortions didn’t pay off with love, riches and happiness who’ve decided to take their pending fear of dying alone out on the societal norms they think they’re courageously standing up to. They’re the type of people who view agreement and conformity to a radical left-wing agenda as an act of rebellion.

We should stop paying them by eliminating the need for their jobs.

Shut it all down. History is full of things – businesses and organizations – that have outlived their usefulness. The library absolutely had its time and place, but that passed long ago. It’s time to call it a day and stop wasting money by funding our opponents. Maybe a new, online model can be created by the private sector – if there’s one thing to know about life is if there is an actual need or want, the private sector will fill it – or some left-wing billionaires can step up and pay for them. Otherwise, close them down, end the subsidized indoctrination and drug centers (watch this video for one example) and enjoy the savings.

Derek Hunter, Townhall

The fabled “diploma divide” reveals a darker truth about a pervasive belief in a “right to rule” among Democrat elites.

The commentariat has made much lately of the fabled “diploma divide” in our politics and the propensity of “highly educated” voters to cast their ballots for Democrats. Their fascination with this statistic reveals a belief that the modern conservative movement – “America First,” “MAGA,” whatever you want to call it – is little more than a peasants’ revolt against the so-called elites who now dominate most of our institutions.

Democrats have never been particularly good at masking their disdain for Americans who don’t share their progressive sensibilities. Perhaps the most infamous example is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 remark about “deplorables.” But Barack Obama also smeared voters who are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion,” while Joe Biden called Trump supporters “garbage” and various other Democrats have slandered Trump and his supporters as “racist” and “fascist,” ad infinitum.

The clear pattern that emerges is that liberal elites simply think that they are better than everyone else and thus have an inherent right to rule over them. This sentiment is why Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark, appeared recently on the Radio Atlantic podcast and declared: “The Republican Party has to be defeated, and I think MAGA specifically, I want to defeat it and then salt the Earth with its ashes.”

Such vitriol is the product of sheer loathing for ordinary Americans and reflects real fear that the Republican coalition is now building on the working-class base that defected from the Democrats in 2016.

Democrats hope to replace those voters with college-educated voters. But there’s a problem with that plan – college-educated voters are not all trending Democrats’ way. According to a Pew Research Center analysis, college grads went for the Democrat presidential nominee by 21 points in 2016 and 24 points in 2020, but only 16 points in 2024.

Even among white college grads, Democrats’ advantage declined from 17 points in 2016 to 15 points in 2020 and then 12 points in 2024. Meanwhile, Trump’s advantage among non-college educated voters steadily grew from seven points in 2016 to eight points in 2020 and 14 points in 2024.

The only educational group among whom Democrats enjoyed a consistently large advantage was voters with postgraduate degrees. They won this cohort by 37 points in 2016, 35 points in 2020, and 32 points in 2024.

In short, Democrats have bet the house on courting voters with advanced degrees – particularly those in nebulous fields such as “gender studies.” These degree-collectors took out loans for exorbitant sums to buy diplomas with no real economic utility. This is why we have as of late seen a groundswell of support within the Democrat Party for student loan forgiveness and “tax the rich” schemes that would redistribute wealth to this impoverished class of advanced degree holders.

The number one concern of this group of voters is locking the rubes out of power – starting with Donald Trump who, despite being a New York billionaire, has more than any other politician in recent memory channeled the frustrations of the working class.

Consequently, if the Democrats retake the House in November, they will impeach the President again. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who would likely become Judiciary Committee chairman, recently told NBC’s Meet the Press that Trump has “undoubtedly” committed impeachable offenses. This echoed a press release he issued last year discussing impeachment:

“Impeachment is a critical means of political and constitutional self-defense that the people have available to use against a lawless president who acts like a king and commits high crimes and misdemeanors against the people.”

Raskin was, of course, a major driver of the two previous Trump impeachments and was the lead House manager in the second Senate impeachment trial. The second trial was so farcical that Chief Justice John Roberts, who would normally preside over such proceedings, refused to participate.

A third impeachment would likely be just as ridiculous, but securing a conviction wouldn’t really be the point. The real object of the game would be to crush the morale of the peasants’ revolt against the brave new world established by the Obama and Biden regimes and only interrupted by Trump.

It is difficult to overstate the shock to the system that was caused by Trump’s 2016 victory. Hillary Clinton was Obama’s anointed successor, and she was meant to serve her two terms consolidating Obama’s nascent one-party autocracy. Thus, when the hoi polloi got above themselves and put Trump in the White House, his destruction became the primary objective of Washington’s self-appointed optimates.

The evidence for this was released to the public by then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard on July 18, 2025:

“The issue I am raising is not a partisan issue. It is one that concerns every American. The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.”

After months of investigation into the conspiracy, DNI Gabbard discovered that President Obama ordered DNI James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Secretary of State John Kerry, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director Andrew McCabe to manufacture a fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment based on the notorious Steele Dossier. This bogus assessment was used by these people as the basis for launching a years-long attempt to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.

The same assessment was also used as the basis for the infamous Russia Hoax and the interminable Mueller investigation – which never found a scrap of evidence that Trump or any of his associates had colluded with Vladimir Putin to somehow rig the 2016 presidential election.

Despite having been thoroughly debunked, sections of the dossier were nonetheless used by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the pretext for launching the first impeachment inquiry and the 2020 impeachment trial. DNI Gabbard wrote this about the Obama cabal:

“Their egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic. No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it. As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice.”

All of which, oddly enough, brings us back to the diploma divide. What do Barack Obama, James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, and Andrew McCabe have in common? They are all “highly educated” elites with advanced degrees from Ivy League universities.

William F. Buckley famously said, “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

Buckley was obviously on to something. It is hardly a secret that most elite schools have become leftist indoctrination camps and their diplomas are nothing more than participation trophies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) graduated from Boston University with a B.A. in international relations and economics. Have you ever heard her discuss either topic without laughing aloud?

If the MAGA movement is a peasants’ revolt, power to the hoi polloi. The republic can’t stand any more “elites” like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or their bumbling enablers.

David Catron, AMAC Newsline

Perhaps yesterday was not the best day to schedule a halal food festival in the Philly suburbs?

Lynne Lechter | September 20, 2026

If it wasn’t so serious, the latest Islamic attack on America’s Jewish and Christian foundation would be comical

As has been recounted by various American Thinker writers, the Islamic pernicious offense marches on, mostly unabated.  The lack of serious pushback, to date, is scandalous.

Many if not all rabbis, of every Judaic denomination, assert that they do not want to infuse negativity into Jewish classes or religious services.  But what about during the rest of the time?  And it appears the Christian world has ignored this growing encroachment as well. 

While our population is being coddled with a dearth of danger warnings, many Islamic youths and adults are trained in martial arts and inundated with continuing lies regarding Middle East history.  Specifically maddening are the global lies that persist regarding the horrific events of the Hamas attacks against mostly Israeli civilians on October 7.  Defying logic, after about 1,200 Israelis were gang-raped, burned alive, and murdered, and over 200 kidnapped, some already dead, their bodies paraded through the streets of Gaza as trophies, the world blamed and continues to blame Israel.

Islamic tactics do not change.  Yesterday, September 19, 2026, was the day before the start of the Jewish most sacred religious holiday: Yom Kippur.  For 24 hours, Jews do not eat or drink.  They repent of anything they have done to hurt another human being and ask him and G-d for forgiveness. 

However, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, a unique event occurred at the mammoth mall there, owned by the Simon Company.  In an outside parking lot area, stretching for blocks, a halal food festival was permitted.  Such an event is a first.  The area was filled with what appeared to be over 100 tents, with merchants purportedly selling food and merch.  Due to the configuration of the tents, and lines of people waiting to get in, it was impossible to know if propaganda materials were also present.  People stood in line for blocks to enter, and more hijabs were worn than normally seen. 

The most flagrant oddity is that for whatever reason, the mall permitted an event not previously open to any other group.  Moreover, true to type, Muslims selected the halal festival date the day before the most sacred Jewish holiday. 

America must wake up.  All one needs to ponder is the creep of Islamic political growth occurring in the U.K.

For those who observe Yom Kippur, I trust you have an easy fast.

American Thinker