The Cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome? Success!

At this point in his second term, President Donald Trump has higher approval ratings than Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama in their second terms. According to the RealClear Politics average of presidential approval polls, Trump, on Aug. 13, 2025, had a rating of 45.8 percent. G.W. Bush on Aug. 13, 2005, registered a 43.2 percent rating. Obama, on Aug. 13, 2013, stood at 43.8 percent.

For Trump, this approval rating follows: two impeachments; a verdict of liable defamation; a criminal verdict of guilty by a Manhattan jury for a supposed violation of federal election law; a prosecution by the Fulton County district attorney for alleged presidential election interference; an investigation by a special counsel into Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol building riot; the special counsel investigation of Trump’s alleged violation of federal law over his possession and handling of government documents, including classified documents; a verdict of liability and a judgment, now approaching $500 million, for supposedly inflating the value of his properties to obtain bank loans; a two-and-a-half-year investigation by a special counsel into whether Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election and whether Trump committed obstruction of justice during the investigation; and two assassination attempts, one of which nearly killed him.

Trump’s approval rating follows the signing of the controversial Big Beautiful Bill. Critics claim the bill “kicks off” deserving recipients of Medicaid while providing “tax cuts for the rich.”

The approval rating follows fierce pushback from so-called sanctuary cities and states over Trump’s campaign promise of mass deportations. The approval rating follows Trump’s unrealized promise to end the Russia-Ukraine War “on Day 1,” as well as Hamas’s refusal to release an estimated 50 of the remaining hostages under a deal Trump thought he reached for their release.

Trump’s approval rating follows bombshell accusations by the Trump Department of Justice that Obama and members of his administration in charge of intelligence knowingly falsely accused Russia of not just 2016 election interference but of committing this interference to aid Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced convening a grand jury to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought against members of the Obama administration, possibly including Obama himself.

Trump’s rating is all the more stunning given the nearly wall-to-wall bad coverage by much of the media. In April 2025, the Media Research Center wrote,

Media Research Center analysis of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts shows the new Trump administration has faced a withering 92% negative coverage, even worse than the relentlessly hostile coverage Trump faced in early 2017 … (these) news programs averaged more than 19.3 million viewers during the first quarter of 2025, making them the most widely-watched news programs in the country.

But wait, there’s more.

Trump’s Aug. 13 rating took place before Trump’s White House meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and before Trump’s White House meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. After Trump’s nearly three-hour meeting with Putin, Trump and the Russian leader jointly addressed the media. They took no questions, but Putin agreed with one of Trump’s frequent anti-President Joe Biden talking points. Putin said: “Today when President Trump says that if he was the president in 2022, there would be no war, and I’m quite sure it would indeed be so. I can confirm it. Overall, me and President Trump have built a very good and businesslike contact.”

That’s an extraordinary statement about Trump and about his predecessor. And then there’s the praise of Trump by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and his acknowledgement that Trump was right to a) criticize the failure of many NATO countries to meet their financial obligations to the alliance and b) make NATO pay America for its weapons and material assistance the U.S. is giving Ukraine.

Based on recent events, Trump’s Aug. 13 rating has become ancient history. After his meeting with Putin, Trump’s Insider Advantage approval rating among voters now stands at 54 percent! Pollster Mike Towery said: “Only the nation’s oldest voters disapprove of his job performance, which is consistent with our prior surveys. Overall, his approval numbers are surging upwards post-summit.”

I have long predicted Trump’s many successes would eventually propel him to a 60 percent approval rating. Should Trump’s meetings with Putin, Zelensky, and European leaders lead to an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, a 60 percent rating is easily in sight.

Larry Elder

10 Ways Babies Are Smarter Than Liberals

While babies are undeniably cute, they aren’t too bright. Yet, despite being unable to talk or poo on a potty, babies are still significantly smarter than today’s liberals. Here are ten ways babies are outpacing the libs:

  1. They instinctively know only mommy has breasts: First point goes to the babies.
  2. They firmly refused to wear government-mandated face masks: Babies follow the science.
  3. Babies know that a grown man falling up the stairs of Air Force One is really funny and want to see it again and again: Adorable and smart.
  4. They do not eat kale: Only dumb libs eat kale. Babies win again.
  5. A baby has never said, “True communism has never been tried.”: Their brilliance towers over the poor liberals.
  6. Babies do not enact segregation based on skin color: Another loss for the libs.
  7. They have never once voted to limit Second Amendment rights: Yet again, babies come out on top.
  8. Babies poop themselves, but don’t try to pretend like they didn’t: You weren’t fooling anyone, Joe.
  9. Babies have never raised your taxes: They understand that taxation is theft.
  10. Babies somehow know abortion is wrong: Wow. Babies are just running the table here.

And the final tally is: Babies 10, Liberals 0. Congratulations, babies.

The Babylon Bee

Russia to Join NATO ?

Congressman Matt Gaetz proposed a radical peacetime solution – allow Russia to join NATO. “Before you suggest I’m crazy for thinking about NATO and Russia as partners, the idea has been floated by foreign policy thinkers on the right and left for some time,” Gaetz added.

“In 1997, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on NATO expansion. President Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, reflected on groundbreaking cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The concept never came to fruition as NATO decided that encircling Russia was of paramount concern, and partnering with its greatest enemy was of no interest to the neocons who WANT war. “Michael McFaul was President Obama’s ambassador to Russia. In 2006, he wrote an article entitled, ‘Why a Democratic Russia Should Join NATO,’” Gaetz went on. “Again, this reinforces that NATO membership is an earned reward, not an entitlement, but why not give Russia a chance to earn it?”

McFaul’s piece on Russian NATO membership was published in July 2006. But you must read between the lines, as the ambassador was suggesting more than mere integration. “In Russia, they are represented by the corrupt bureaucracy and advocates of authoritarianism who believe that greater contact with the West restricts their power and diminishes their wealth. In the West, and especially in the United States, they are represented by policymakers and analysts who believe that Russians do not value democracy, Russian leaders are imperialists, and Russia therefore can never be considered part of the West,” McFaul wrote.

He continued to say that the West was not threatening to Russia, nor are “Russians genetically disposed towards autocracy nor historically destined to remain imperial.” Yet, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, the West refuses to consider Russia a true democracy because it upholds nationalist views. Russia refuses to bend the knee to the globalist world order and, therefore, is considered an “unqualified member of the West.”

A regime change would alter the West’s perspective, as the West has long sought control over Russia. McFaul suggested that European leaders should outline a framework for Russia to join the European Union to become fully integrated into the West “even if it takes chunks of centuries.” Again, Russian NATO membership is contingent on Russia becoming a Western globalist world order member.

Obama’s Russian ambassador then went on to state that Russia must establish closer relations with other globalist organizations such as the United Nations, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe. Furthermore, Russia was to support the United States in its war in the Middle East and establish a “regional security organization, not unlike the CSCE that the United States and the Soviet Union anchored when first formed in 1974.”

Russia would never agree to join NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in the aftermath of the last World War to counter Russian influence, despite Russia being an ally during wartime. NATO incorporated Eastern bloc countries of the former Soviet Union to weaken Russia’s global influence in a move that humiliated the Russian people. Even after the Cold War, NATO continued to encircle Russia and expand eastward to assert dominance.

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin was cautious about NATO expansion but agreed to join the Partnership for Peace in 1994 to maintain diplomatic relations with the West. Yeltsin then signed on to the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act that stated Russia and NATO would not consider each other adversaries.

NATO promised not to place nuclear weapons in new member states. Both sides agreed to increased transparency and cooperation. Every promise imploded in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea, the installation of a faux Ukrainian government, and the lie that was the Minsk agreement.

“Take care of Russia,” were Yeltsin’s final words to Putin before relinquishing power. Not only is Putin protecting Russia against foreign influence, but he is keeping the true hardliner oligarchs who wish to recreate the glory days of the USSR at bay.

However, both the hardliners and NATO have been impatiently waiting for a misstep from Putin since he took office. Russia does not want to become a vassal state of the West. NATO was formed to combat Russia and now acts as a retirement home for neocons who want to see Russia destroyed before they take their final breaths.

Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics

Behind the Curtain: Rising Democratic MAGA Movement

Behind the Curtain: Rising Democratic MAGA movement

Democrats are tortured by what they should stand for now and heading into the 2028 elections. But a number of current trends suggest a likely answer: their own version of a populist, anti-establishment, MAGA-like makeover.

Why it matters: The debate is usually framed as liberal vs. centrist, Rahm versus AOC. But big, fast changes in AI, media habits and general public angst point to a more sweeping shift in ideas and attitude.

Four megatrends that are already shaping Democrats’ efforts to remake their image and rewrite their agenda:

  1. Media: MSM is fading in its mesmerizing hold over liberals. At the same time, the emerging media of podcasts, YouTube and TikTok favor the new and edgy.
  2. Mood: You see it every day, from California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s foul-mouthed declarations of redistricting wars to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocking her state’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, for using a wheelchair. Dems are tired of looking and feeling like chumps. They want to brawl, politically and verbally.
  3. AI: Some level of job devastation is coming. Championing the worker will be too appealing for Dems to resist — a chance to win back the base, at a time when Rs are all-in with Big Tech, like Dems were during the rise of the internet.
  4. Attention: The attention economy favors the bold — see New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, or the democratic socialist candidate for Minneapolis mayor, State Sen. Omar Fateh.

Between the lines: Democrats say the grassroots energy is with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — not necessarily because they agree with her on everything, but because she’s so adept at communicating in this era.

  • AOC, drawing huge crowds along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour, raked in more grassroots donations in the first half of the year than the DCCC (Democrats’ House fundraising committee) or any other Democrat in Congress, progressive strategist Tim Tagaris noted on X.
  • Mamdani, Axios’ Marc Caputo noticed, is in many ways a leftist version of Trump when he started running a decade ago: a product of New York … a social media sensation … the media can’t stop talking about him … opponents loathe him as an extremist.
    • How it works: Democrats look at the GOP’s 2024 gains and realize they’ll be left behind if they don’t abruptly change how they communicate. Suddenly, everyone’s a brawler:
      In the New York mayoral race, Andrew Cuomo was outhustled by Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo has revamped his strategy for November’s general election to try to be more relatable and ubiquitous — and is picking fights on social media.
      Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker gave refuge this month to Texas Democratic legislators who were fleeing the statehouse to avoid voting on redistricting. The two-week walkout ended Monday.
      Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told The New York Times that her party needs “alpha energy … speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that. We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.”
      Potential Democratic candidates are more likely to sit down with explicitly partisan spaces like Pod Save America or Ezra Klein’s podcast than they are with the longtime national political reporters who long dominated presidential-campaign coverage during the hot-stove season.
    • Alex Bruesewitz — a top Trump digital adviser, and architect of the 2024 campaign’s bro-heavy podcast strategy — told us he’s not worried about Democrats trying to replicate his recipe. He says it only works with a charismatic candidate, not ones who are “boring, stiff and scripted.”
    • at the GOP’s 2024 gains and realize they’ll be left behind if they don’t abruptly change how they communicate. Suddenly, everyone’s a brawler:
      In the New York mayoral race, Andrew Cuomo was outhustled by Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo has revamped his strategy for November’s general election to try to be more relatable and ubiquitous — and is picking fights on social media.
      Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker gave refuge this month to Texas Democratic legislators who were fleeing the statehouse to avoid voting on redistricting. The two-week walkout ended Monday.
      Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told The New York Times that her party needs “alpha energy … speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that. We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.”
      Potential Democratic candidates are more likely to sit down with explicitly partisan spaces like Pod Save America or Ezra Klein’s podcast than they are with the longtime national political reporters who long dominated presidential-campaign coverage during the hot-stove season.
    • .
      How it works: Democrats look at the GOP’s 2024 gains and realize they’ll be left behind if they don’t abruptly change how they communicate. Suddenly, everyone’s a brawler:
      In the New York mayoral race, Andrew Cuomo was outhustled by Mamdani in the Democratic primary. Cuomo has revamped his strategy for November’s general election to try to be more relatable and ubiquitous — and is picking fights on social media.
      Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker gave refuge this month to Texas Democratic legislators who were fleeing the statehouse to avoid voting on redistricting. The two-week walkout ended Monday.
      Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told The New York Times that her party needs “alpha energy … speaking about your gut and your emotion. I think Democrats have lost that. We respond to people’s pain with a long list of wonky policies.”
      Potential Democratic candidates are more likely to sit down with explicitly partisan spaces like Pod Save America or Ezra Klein’s podcast than they are with the longtime national political reporters who long dominated presidential-campaign coverage during the hot-stove season.
      Alex Bruesewitz — a top Trump digital adviser, and architect of the 2024 campaign’s bro-heavy podcast strategy — told us he’s not worried about Democrats trying to replicate his recipe. He says it only works with a charismatic candidate, not ones who are “boring, stiff and scripted.”
    • Case in point: Democrats’ rising MAGA energy is being showcased in their ferocious response to Trump’s effort to make the Texas congressional map even redder. Democrats are trying to replicate his audacious move coast to coast — even though Republicans have a clear advantage over Democrats in states that could redraw their lines before next year’s midterms.
      James Carville told us: “I’m afraid map-drawing is [a] most valuable political skill. There is no way off this hamster wheel.”
      Reality check: Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way, told us Democrats need “combative centrists,” and said it would be a huge mistake for the party to overread the attention the left is currently getting.
      “The very online left are the only ones who actually believe that kind of politics can flip seats and win the White House,” Bennett said. “We’ve got to appeal to the gigantic group of voters who’ve left Democrats in the last 10 years. Those people are not looking for socialism. They’re looking for fighters — but only ones who share their values.”
      The bottom line: Trump’s suit fits Trump uniquely. Others who try to don it can wind up looking like clowns.

Axios’ Alex Thompson and Marc Caputo contributed.

President Trump is a Humble Man

In the book of James, Chapter 4, verse 6, it says, “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Donald Trump’s public image has always been portrayed as one that lacks humility and exhibits pride. The way the President discusses his accomplishments and highlights his successes is widely recognized, even among his supporters, as evidence that his is a massive ego. Couple that with a media that has been successful at force-feeding a false narrative concerning Trump that is widely accepted as accurate. However, for those with keen discernment, Trump is a man who, upon careful observation, reveals a humble side that forms the foundation of who he truly is.

Trump is unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama, who was the quintessential narcissist, exuding an air of self-perceived greatness. Everything Obama has done and continues to do screams of unbridled conceit. Obama enters a room as if God Himself were making an appearance and about to impart eternal wisdom. It’s not even what Obama says; it’s how he conducts himself. And what makes it worse are his devotees who genuflect accordingly. Trump, on the other hand, carries himself in a way that projects none of that and never has.

For Trump, gatherings are celebrations of America, her history, her people, and a camaraderie that demonstrates a oneness of heart, mind, and patriotic spirit. Obama gatherings, on the other hand, were more of a worship service where the nation and half its people were preached at and denigrated, and racial division was instigated. Idolatry was encouraged by the idol himself, who favored telling us what God wants, rather than asking God what He requires us to do.

One of the principal characteristics of humility is truth.

Trump, on the other hand, values America and its Constitution. Based on the team around him, it’s clear that the President is also well aware of his limitations. That was evident in his first term, too, when, to his detriment, he trusted those he should never have trusted. Even still, Trump relies on the experts he surrounds himself with, taking counsel and guidance from them on all his decisions, which is a sign of humble leadership. If unpretentiousness is truth, then Trump’s verbalization of his successes is a sign of his diffidence.

Trump often acknowledges the nation’s need for Godcalls for prayer, and allows himself to be prayed over, all examples of a person’s submissive attitude and reliance on God. Misconstrued by those who lack a smidgen of discernment, instead of Trump thinking he is God, after he was shot, the President verbalized his dependence on God when he said,

I’m supposed to be dead. I’m not supposed to be here. But something very special happened. Let’s face it. Something happened. It’s… an act of God. God spared my life for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again. It changed something in me. I feel even stronger.

More recently, in his address to the nation, Trump said this:

want to thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America.

If that doesn’t smack of reverence, nothing does. Trump’s statement was a public proclamation that, as a nation, we depend on God. Humility is not self-deprecation; it’s honest acknowledgement of our need for a power higher than ourselves. Trump’s attitude is not off-putting; it’s refreshing. This is especially true after years of undeserved self-exaltation and liberal religiosity, where Democrat politicians profess faith, publicly walk with their families to church for a photo op, prayerfully take communion, and then support legislation that contradicts everything clearly outlined in God’s Word as forbidden. That sharp combination of extremist beliefs and fake Christianity effectively led many people astray.

Yet, those who accept the hypocrisy of the Left’s idea of pseudo-Christian faith are often the first to criticize Trump’s relationship with faith-based advisors and mock his open acknowledgment of America’s need for the guidance and protection from the Creator. For those who recognize a spiritual awakening and journey, it’s clear that this is precisely what Donald Trump has set out on. Willingly surrounded by people of faith, welcoming prayer even when the press is absent from the Oval Office, and always modestly acknowledging the nation’s need for God are all signs of a character trait that Trump is often not given credit for.

Meanwhile, messianic Barack Obama walked around for eight years, receiving worship while disingenuously acknowledging his personal need for God, and never once was he accused of the smugness he exuded in place of perspiration; instead, Trump is.

Now, amid the peace discussions with Putin, Zelensky, and world leaders, Donald Trump makes the most surprising statement of all his remarks thus far. Calling into “Fox & Friends,” he revealed that he hopes to negotiate a deal to end the war in Ukraine, saying,

I want to get to heaven. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.

Unlike secularists Biden, Pelosi, and, of course, Barack Obama, who behaved as if his awesomeness was the key to heaven, Trump publicly acknowledged his inability to gain access to heaven. He also admitted his minuscule worth and demonstrated an unpretentious understanding that it is God alone who offers access to eternal life. All of which is “truth,” and therein is what sets Donald J. Trump apart as a genuinely humble man.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannieology.us

It’s Free: Artful Dilettante

One of the most misused words in the English language is “free,” as in “it’s free.” Whether it’s the free samples of stuff at Costco, or the free pens and refrigerator magnets they give away at your local bank or car dealership, or the free hip replacement your mother-in-law just received, we use the term freely, so to speak, without ever considering it’s true meaning.

When we say “it’s free,” what we really mean is that someone else is paying for it—voluntarily or involuntarily. And this is a very important distinction. Because one is morally defensible, while the other is not. One involves a clear violation of private property rights, enshrined in the Seventh Commandment, while the other does not. The Seventh Commandment states, “Thou Shalt Not Steal Thy Neighbor’s Goods.” This is the clearest affirmation of private property rights ever handed down. By The Man Himself. And it’s etched in stone. You can’t take someone else’s things, period. And just because you take something from someone and turn around and give it to someone you believe is deserving doesn’t justify it either. The Seventh Commandment is everything the Good Lord ever had to say about “social justice,”–about what is mine and what is thine.

The free samples of some new pineapple/anchovy salsa being handed out by the nice ladies in latex gloves at Costco are not really free. They are either being paid for by Costco, or the company that makes those dreadful concoctions. So while Costco is erroneously saying, “Try these free samples,” what they really should be saying is, “Try one of these dreadful concoctions that we or the producer are paying for.” The same with the pens and refrigerator magnets at your local bank or car dealership. And the customers are likewise incorrect when they proudly tell their spouses, “These pens were free, Honey.”

So, while the merchants and customers are misusing the word free in these examples, if only because it’s convenient; the actions in both cases are not immoral. Neither action involves breaking the Seventh Commandment nor anyone’s private property rights. Both the salsa and the pens and refrigerator magnets are owned by the parties giving them away. The owners can dispose of them as they wish. But, in any event, they are not free. Someone had to pay for them.

Both the hip replacement and the act of that thoughtful highwayman involve a breach of the Seventh Commandment and the private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment. In either case, the ends do not justify the means. Nor is the hip replacement free. But if you ask your mother-in-law how much she had to pay for the hip replacement, she would in all likelihood and without a second thought say, “It was free.” What she really should have said was, “My neighbor paid for it, and they didn’t even ask him for permission.”

In the case of your mother-in-law’s hip replacement, however, it is neither free nor morally acquired. The new hip wasn’t free; it was clearly paid for by somebody else, in this case the taxpayer. And it was not morally acquired, since it involved a breach of the Seventh Commandment and private property rights. The money to pay for her new hip came out of her neighbor’s pocket, the very party the Seventh Commandment (and the United States Constitution) was designed to protect. The money to pay for the hip was taken from her neighbor by a third party, an intermediary we customarily call the government. Third Party intervention, however, does not legitimize the violation of the Seventh Commandment nor the very private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment. If a highwayman robs you at gun-point and tells you they are going to give all your money to the needy, it doesn’t make it right. It’s still a violation of that pesky Seventh Commandment.

So the next time you’re about to casually say, “It’s free,” think again. Because, rightly or wrongly, it really means somebody else is paying for it.

The Artful Dilettante–Keeper of the Flame of the Enlightenment

Acute Fuel Shortages in Russia

The fuel shortage is becoming increasingly acute in Russia and the occupied territories of Ukraine, APA reports, citing Russian “Telegram” channels.

It is reported that currently in a number of Russian regions there are kilometers of queues of cars in front of gas stations, and the population complains about the low quality and high prices of fuel.

Officials say that the gasoline shortage is due to ongoing repairs at a number of large oil refining plants and increased planting and harvesting work in agriculture. Regular attacks by Ukrainian drones on oil refineries also contribute to the fuel shortage.

Vienna court says Sharia law may be used in civil disputes, sparking outrage

A court in Vienna has ruled that Sharia law may be applied in civil legal disputes between two parties in Austria.

The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters was concerned with a case between two Muslim men who had previously agreed to be judged by Islamic law in case of dispute.

This means that in the event of a dispute, the arbitration court – which rules according to Islamic law – can be convened. The dispute occurred, and the court ruled against one of the men and ordered him to pay a €320,000 ($372,000) fine.

However, the man sentenced to pay the penalty did not accept the ruling. He argued that the application of the law was arbitrary, as Sharia law could be interpreted in different ways. He furthermore claimed that invoking Sharia law violated the fundamental values of Austrian law.

The Vienna Regional Court ruled that the arbitration tribunal’s decision was valid. The court argued that the ruling did not contradict Austria’s fundamental values.

Islamic legal provisions, the regional court emphasized, could be “effectively agreed upon in an arbitration agreement” for property claims.

“There are no indications of a violation of public order or a possible arbitrary decision in this case, which is why none of the grounds for annulment that must be examined ex officio are present,” the court stated.

Conservative politicians and activists expressed their concern and outrage regarding the controversial decision.

Michael Schilchegger, constitutional spokesman for the Freedom Party (FPÖ), said the ruling fosters “Islamic parallel societies” and a weakens those “forces that do not want to submit to Islam.”

Sharia law has “nothing to do with Austria and the principles of our constitution, and that’s how it should stay,” said Integration Minister Claudia Plakolm (ÖVP), who is part of Austria’s government coalition.

By the end of the year, the Ministry of Justice should draw up proposals “so that Sharia law cannot be applied in the future, for example in the area of civil marriage,” said Plakolm, who is confident “that we will receive the relevant proposals in a timely manner.”

Austrian anti-immigration activist and political commentator Martin Sellner said on X: “Under the guise of ‘private agreements,’ Sharia is entering the Austrian legal system.”

“Even though criminal aspects are excluded, this precedent opens the door to the gradual recognition of foreign legal systems,” he warned.

“For us, this means: remigration and the restoration of cultural sovereignty are more urgent than ever,” he concluded.

In recent years, uncontrolled mass migration has led to a significant increase in the Muslim population of Austria. According to a recent statistic, Islam is already the dominant religion in elementary and middle schools in Vienna. Approximately 41 percent of students in this age group are Muslim in Austria’s capital, while Christians only make up 34.5 percent (17.5 percent Catholic and 14.5 percent Orthodox).

Sharia law has also been recognized in other Western countries, such as the Canadian province of Ontario, where civil legal disputes may also be decided by Islamic law.

Andreas Wailzer, LifeSite News

These are all the wars Trump has ended so far

President Donald Trump emphasized his involvement in multiple international conflicts during meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders at the White House. He criticized media coverage, saying outlets fail to recognize his efforts to broker peace and manage crises abroad.

1. Armenia and Azerbaijan – August 2025 Leaders from Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a peace agreement at the White House after decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Trump described the deal as a step toward long-term stability, declaring the countries would now “be friends a long time.” The agreement includes a major transit route between the territories, which Trump named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity.” Iran and Russia expressed concerns about potential shifts in the regional balance of power.

2. Cambodia and Thailand – July 2025 Cambodia and Thailand agreed to an unconditional ceasefire following a five-day border conflict. Trump cited US pressure as a contributing factor, while China urged both countries to maintain peace.

3. Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda – June 2025 A US-brokered peace agreement was signed to end years of cross-border violence that displaced millions. Trump said, “Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace.” Both sides have reported isolated incidents of violations, demonstrating the ongoing challenge of maintaining peace in the region.

4. Ethiopia and Egypt – June 2025 Trump said US engagement helped prevent potential conflict over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. While formal agreements remain in progress, he asserted that US involvement ensured tensions did not escalate.

5. India and Pakistan – May 2025 Trump announced a “full and immediate ceasefire” after military tensions escalated in Kashmir following a terror attack. He cited US trade leverage as a factor in encouraging both sides to pause hostilities.

6. Serbia and Kosovo – 2020 (First Term) During his first term, the Trump administration brokered the Washington Agreement, a limited economic normalization deal aimed at reducing tensions over unresolved independence disputes.

Trump has also taken credit for ending the short-lived conflict between Iran and Israel following the US strike on Iranian nuclear targets.

Trump slammed media coverage of his foreign policy, saying outlets fail to acknowledge successes. “I am totally convinced that if Russia raised their hands and said, ‘We give up, we concede, we surrender… the Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners would say that this was a bad and humiliating day for Donald J. Trump,’” he said. “But that’s why they are the FAKE NEWS, and the badly failing Radical Left Democrats. Thank you.”

Roberto Wakerell-Cruz, The Post Millennial

Death Of The 60s: The Dream Was Over, But The Music Lives On

The summer of 1969 saw the world united in hope, but by the end of the year, the death of the 60s dream left the world asking: What’s next?

The summer of 1969 saw the world united in hope. By the end of the year, however, the death of the 60s brought with it the end of the hippie dream of a brighter future. But the music that united hundreds of thousands of people at mass gatherings throughout 1969 lives on today. So what happened to make 1969 such a beautiful yet shocking climax to the 60s?

The answer begins with two consecutive days in September 1962 that witnessed a pair of portentous events that would change everything. At least one was seemingly innocuous, but both would have far-reaching consequences that, by the end of the decade, would redefine culture and society, opening up hitherto unimagined possibilities.

DEFINING MOMENTS OF THE DECADE

Firstly, on the evening of September 11, 1962, EMI producer Ron Richards oversaw the recording of “Love Me Do” and “PS I Love You” by Parlophone’s new signings, The Beatles. Paired together, they would become the Liverpool band’s first release, signaling the start of a revolution that would reshape the world of music and art completely over the next seven years.

The next day, on a hot afternoon in Houston, Texas, John F. Kennedy addressed a large crowd at the Rice University football stadium. The purpose of his speech was to announce his country’s goal to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, and return him safely to earth: “We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.”

In the post-war years, the western world had gone some way to rebuilding itself, intent on forging a new world without the bloodbaths that had marred the first half of the century. As the 60s took hold, so too did a new sense of hope that anything was possible. Gone would be the shackles that had tied humankind to its earthly toil.

The greatest adventure in human history “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,” Kennedy concluded, “not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.” In these few short sentences, he had committed his nation on a trajectory to undertake the greatest adventure in human history.

The ensuing years witnessed triumph upon triumph for The Beatles and their fellow pioneers of pop music. As every timeless single was followed by yet more groundbreaking albums, even the sky didn’t seem likely to limit the rise of pop’s masterminds.

The same couldn’t be said for the Apollo program in its pursuit of the assassinated JFK’s target of reaching for the stars. With the Soviets first to every landmark on the road to the Moon, Apollo seemed to be suffering nothing but frustration and setbacks. While The Beatles were holed up in EMI’s studios at Abbey Road recording Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, disaster struck in Florida, when all three of the first Apollo crew were killed in a fire during a test.

But, as the end of the decade drew close, it began to feel as though everything it had promised was going to come together in one glorious summer. 1967’s Summer Of Love had turned sour in 1968: it had been a year of riots in Paris, Chicago, London, and Prague (among many other cities); the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr, shocked the US; and an escalation of the war in Vietnam was proving increasingly unpopular. And yet Christmas Eve 1968 offered hope, in the shape of perhaps the most powerful photograph ever taken, as Apollo 8 astronauts were the first to look back at Earth from the Moon. Hope springs eternal, and from the eternity of space, the belief that the 60s was a special decade was reborn.

The summer of 1969 saw the world united in hope, but by the end of the year, the death of the 60s dream left the world asking: What’s next?

The summer of 1969 saw the world united in hope. By the end of the year, however, the death of the 60s brought with it the end of the hippie dream of a brighter future. But the music that united hundreds of thousands of people at mass gatherings throughout 1969 lives on today. So what happened to make 1969 such a beautiful yet shocking climax to the 60s?

The answer begins with two consecutive days in September 1962 that witnessed a pair of portentous events that would change everything. At least one was seemingly innocuous, but both would have far-reaching consequences that, by the end of the decade, would redefine culture and society, opening up hitherto unimagined possibilities.

THE SUMMER OF ’69

Despite the previous year’s confrontations, 1969 saw the hippie dream of peace and love very much alive. Previous years had seen a number of increasingly large outdoor music events. Of course, music festivals weren’t a new thing. Since ancient times, people have gathered in celebration of song. In the modern age, the Newport Jazz Festival had been a great annual gathering since 1954, showcasing a phenomenal array of talent, from Miles Davis, Nina Simone, and Muddy Waters to Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan, who famously shocked the audience in 1965 by playing with an electric guitar and band.

Arguably the first great rock festival was 1967’s Monterey International Pop Festival, which featured The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Otis Redding, Simon And Garfunkel, and The Who. The following year saw the first of many free concerts in London’s Hyde Park in June 1968, with Pink Floyd, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Jethro Tull, and Roy Harper on the bill (“I think it was the nicest concert I’ve ever been to,” reflected John Peel).

As the summer of ’69 approached, and the Apollo program was finally looking like it would fulfill Kennedy’s promise, the foundations were being laid for a series of mass gatherings of the clans on both sides of the Atlantic. In London, the summer sprang into life with the much-anticipated debut outing from Blind Faith, a supergroup comprising Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Ginger Baker, and Ric Grech. Their free concert in Hyde Park, on 7 June 1969, saw them joined on the bill by Donovan, Richie Havens and Edgar Broughton Band, in front of an unprecedented crowd estimated at some 120,000 people. With fans expecting something akin to a Cream show, they all stood ready for the freakout. But as it became apparent that this was a more bluesy, laidback offering, they got as close to chilling out as was possible in the soaring summer heat.

A GREAT AND EPOCH-MAKINGEVENT IN BRITISH SOCIAL HISTORY

Next up for Hyde Park was an event that would go down in the annals of rock history. It had been two years since The Rolling Stones had appeared in public. In the intervening time, they had been front-page news after Mick Jagger and Keith Richards had been sentenced to jail terms for drug offenses – sentences that had been quashed after public outcry, led by the surprising figure of William Rees-Mogg, whose editorial in The Times suggested that the Stones had been sentenced more for who they were, than for what they had done. This in itself was one of the defining moments of the decade, as mainstream pop acts and the counterculture collided publicly for the first time.

By 1969, the Stones were counterculture figures, and their appearance in one of London’s royal parks was a line in the sand. Instead of British bobbies, security was handled by Hells Angels. But the Stones’ success in the park was far from guaranteed. With founder member Brian Jones becoming increasingly estranged from the band, he was replaced in early 1969 by Mick Taylor, a brilliant young guitarist making waves with John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers.

While the reshaped Rolling Stones were holed up in The Beatles’ Apple Studios rehearsing for the show, events took a dark turn – one that would add an unwanted poignancy to the concert. In the small hours of 3 July, Brian Jones was found at the bottom of his swimming pool. The coroner’s verdict was that he died by misadventure while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Two days later, Mick Jagger opened the Stones’ Hyde Park show – which he dedicated to Brian – by reading from the poet Shelly’s Adonais about the death of his friend, John Keats, before hundreds of white butterflies were released in tribute to their departed guitar player.

Inevitably, Jones’ death overshadowed the concert, and yet the band’s return to the live stage was a triumph despite the somber beginnings. The Guardian described the show, which attracted an estimated 500,000 hippies, beatniks, Angels, and pop fans, as “a great and epoch-making event in British social history”. It was an event, a happening, and, in some respects, the music was secondary. As Keith Richards told Rolling Stone magazine, “We played pretty bad until near the end, because we hadn’t played for years… Nobody minded, because they just wanted to hear us play again.”

THREE DAYS OF PEACE AND MUSIC

Meanwhile, in upstate New York, Michael Lang, Artie Kornfeld, Joel Rosenman, and John P Roberts were struggling to find a venue for their own gathering of the clans. They had hoped to put on a festival around Woodstock, NY, home to Bob Dylan and The Band, among other musicians, artists, and poets. In the end, they put on what was billed as “three days of peace and music” an hour’s drive away, at Max Yasgur’s dairy farm at Bethel. The posters may have called it “An Aquarian Exposition”, but the world came to know the events of August 15-18, 1969 simply as Woodstock.

The bill was extraordinary: Ravi Shankar, Tim Hardin, Joan Baez, Santana, Janis Joplin, Sly And The Family Stone, The Who, Jefferson Airplane, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Joe Cocker, The Band, Crosby, Stills, Nash And Young, and Jimi Hendrix were just a selection of those who performed, with things running so late that it was around 9am on the Monday morning before Hendrix took to the stage, playing his unique take on the United States’ national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner”.

With advance sales of around 186,000 tickets, the organizers knew Woodstock was to be a major event and braced themselves for a crowd of around 200,000. But as showtime approached, it became evident that at least twice that number was on its way. Left with a choice between finishing the fence or the stage, it was decided that, from now on, it would be a free festival. With supplies limited, the swollen crowd mucked in to ensure that, even when the heavens opened and turned the ground to sludge, everyone would have a good time.

Such was the spirit of the crowd that, surveying his wrecked farmland in the wake of the event, Yasgur said, “If we join them, we can turn those adversities that are the problems of America today into a hope for a brighter and more peaceful future.” The 60s’ dream of building a better world seemed as though it was finally going to become a reality.

GOING OUT WITH A BANG

Back in the UK, Isle Of Wight Festival at the end of August returned Bob Dylan to the live stage, in front of a vast crowd that included three-quarters of The Beatles (Paul’s wife Linda had given birth to their daughter Mary the day before the festival). After his show, Dylan joined The Beatles back at John Lennon’s Ascot mansion, closing the summer with a summit of music’s leading lights.

With The Beatles latest masterpiece, Abbey Road, now mixed and ready for release, the return to the stage of Dylan and the Stones, and an incredible summer forever synonymous with the greatest gatherings of people in Western culture outside of warfare, the 60s looked set to go out with a bang. And it wasn’t just the heroes who had defined the decade who gave rise to optimism.

ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKINDP

New heroes had emerged over the summer – not least the three astronauts who had hit Kennedy’s target of putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. Neil Armstrong, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, and Michael Collins became household names when, on July 20, 1969, their Eagle Lunar Module touched down on the surface of the moon.

“One giant leap for mankind” had been Armstrong’s words, and it seemed as though the 60s had been merely the launchpad for the 70s and beyond. Surely these would be the decades when humanity would finally learn that all it really needed was love?

Back on terra firma, the future was also looking bright. New stars had emerged. David Bowie’s first hit single, “Space Oddity,” had gone stratospheric in the wake of the Apollo landings. Heavy blues rock had been gaining momentum for a few years, with the likes of Cream and Jimi Hendrix showing the way. In 1968, a new group had been launched, with session guitarist par excellence Jimmy Page assembling a band in which every instrument played loud, heavy, and hard. With their eponymous debut fast becoming one of the albums of the year, a new standard had been set.

And just as Led Zeppelin contrived to bring virtuosity to the fore, so did another strand of rock music emerge. King Crimson’s debut offering, in October, In The Court Of The Crimson King, brought jazz and symphonic music together with rock and blues to create one of the cornerstones of the burgeoning progressive rock genre.

DIVERSIFYING MORE THAN EVER BEFORE

1969, rock music was diversifying more than ever before. In Detroit, and at the opposite end of the rock spectrum to the prog emerging in Britain, Iggy Pop’s Stooges, alongside MC5, had adopted an anarchic approach to rock’n’roll, their incendiary club shows harking back to the nascent Beatles’ Hamburg days. Both bands released hugely popular and influential albums in 1969.

Sly and the Family Stone had shown at Woodstock just how rock and soul could combine, bringing funk to a (largely) white audience. And while Motown acts like Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye were exploring the possibilities of experimental albums, the new kids on the block exploded onto the pop scene, as Jackson 5’s “I Want You Back” began its rise to the top of the Hot 100.

DEATH OF THE 60’S DREAM

And yet all was not as rosy in the rock garden as it may have seemed to the outsider. An August 20 mixing session for their new album at EMI Studios, at Abbey Road, was the last time John, Paul, George, and Ringo would work together. In Los Angeles, Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson had fled his own home after it had become the de facto headquarters for his friend Charlie Manson’s increasingly erratic “family”. Not long after Wilson’s departure, The Wizard, as Dennis knew him, acted on what he believed to be coded messages from The Beatles and unleashed his own vision of revolution, brutally murdering Sharon Tate and a number of others in early August.

The summer of 1969 united all humanity in celebration of humans’ greatest endeavor and brought together the youth of the world at massive gatherings from Hyde Park to Woodstock, Isle Of Wight to Seattle. The positive vibrations of that celebratory summer were tied up in new music, from David Bowie and Jackson 5 through Led Zeppelin to the rise of reggae, prog, and funk.

EVERYTHING WENT PERFECTLY WRONG

But then just as the astronauts splashed back to earth, so did the hippie dream crash, as that most spectacular of decades came to a close. Events that had taken a darker turn with the brutalities of Charles Manson and his killing spree were brought into sharp focus at the final gathering of the decade, a free concert by The Rolling Stones at the Altamont Speedway, in northern California, on December 6, 1969 – a day that Rolling Stone magazine called rock’n’roll’s worst: “a day when everything went perfectly wrong”.

In hindsight, recruiting Hells Angels as security was, according to Keith Richards, not a good idea. “But we had them at the suggestion of the Grateful Dead,” he told the Evening Standard. “The trouble is it’s a problem for us either way. If you don’t have them to work for you as stewards, they come anyway and cause trouble.”

The all-day show also featured performances by Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Flying Burrito Brothers, and Crosby, Stills, Nash And Young. As the day wore on, the scene among the 300,000-strong crowd grew heavier. As clashes with an increasingly intoxicated section of Hells Angels became violent, Grateful Dead decided not to play. By the time the Stones took to the stage, things had gotten out of hand. They had to stop ‘Sympathy For The Devil’ in an attempt to calm the crowd.

As Gimme Shelter, the Maysles Brothers’ film of the concert, documents with chilling clarity, a fight broke out near the front of the stage during “Under My Thumb” between 18-year-old Meredith Hunter and some of the Angels. During the fight, Hunter pulled a pistol, according to some reports in response to having been stabbed. In return, Hells Angel Alan Passaro stabbed Hunter, who fell to the ground and was further attacked by more Angels, dying on the ground just yards from the stage where The Rolling Stones played.

THE NEW GENERATION WILL CREATE A HIGHER ORDER

The Stones knew something had happened, but not the full extent of the attack. Doctors were repeatedly called to the front of the stage, but they continued their set, unaware that a murder had taken place in front of them. Tempted as they may have been to cancel the show, the band was acutely aware of the potentially riotous consequences if they attempted to flee.

What had been billed as “Woodstock West” had gone horribly wrong. As well as the murder of Meredith Hunter, two men were killed in a reported hit-and-run, while a fourth death came when another youth, apparently on LSD, drowned in a fast-moving irrigation canal.

Many commentators cited Altamont as not just the site of four tragic deaths, but of the death of the 60s dream itself. Writing in The New Yorker decades after the fact, Richard Brody said: “What died at Altamont was the notion of spontaneity, of the sense that things could happen on their own and that benevolent spirits would prevail.”

Likening the events of Altamont to The Lord Of The Flies, he concluded, “What emerges accursed is the very idea of nature, of the idea that, left to their own inclinations and stripped of the trappings of the wider social order, the young people of the new generation will somehow spontaneously create a higher, gentler, more loving grassroots order. What died at Altamont is the Rousseauian dream itself.”

THE MUSIC LIVES ON

But while the disaster at Altamont signaled, in retrospect at least, the moment when the 60s died, the music would live on. It’s telling that today’s biggest stars still want to be associated with those huge stars of the 60s – Rihanna has worked with Sir Paul McCartney, while, in the summer of 2018, Florence Welch joined The Rolling Stones on stage in London to perform one of their classic songs, “Wild Horses.”

The musical freedoms that had been born in the 60s allowed all that came after – and not just from those new stars like David Bowie and Jackson 5. Though The Beatles were no more, their solo careers would deliver yet more timeless classics. The Rolling Stones were arguably only just hitting their stride as the decade turned, with albums such as Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main St as good as anything they ever produced.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Every new generation that creates pop music owes a great debt to the 60s, a decade with an influence like no other.

Paul McGuinness