Trump’s trade strategy isn’t chaos—it’s calculated disruption, using American leverage to reshape global markets and deliver wins his critics can’t comprehend.

What Trump’s critics don’t understand—and probably never will: President Trump isn’t rattled. He’s composed, deliberate, and in control—which drives his opponents crazy.

But instead of fixating on his tone, measure his results. Trade victories are stacking up, each one strategically designed to favor America.

And why shouldn’t we enjoy these kinds of wins?

We earned them through generations of sweat, toil, and ingenuity, all of which built the U.S. consumer market into the most coveted in the world—the literal engine of global discretionary demand. Access to it isn’t automatic, and therein lies the leverage. For the first time in decades, we have a leader who knows how to employ those earned advantages.

Critics see disruption and scream chaos, but they confuse volatility with recklessness. In reality, disruption is the strategy. Tension is the prerequisite tool, and while it makes some ninnies uncomfortable, this rigged system cannot be unwound by simply asking politely. After decades of American acquiescence on trade, the old economic regime will not just submissively fade away.

Accordingly, this process isn’t accidental—it’s engineered. Trump guards the strategic sectors of the U.S. economy through calculated, targeted, and surgical incentives and prohibitions to grow domestic production of semiconductors, steel, medicine, energy, and defense technology.

Behind the TV news chyrons and hand-wringing, a blueprint unfolds. This emerging paradigm harnesses America’s unmatched strengths to reorient global trade and tip the balance back toward U.S. workers.

That kind of work demands poise, not polish. That kind of grand task necessitates brains, leverage, and calm under pressure. Think Tom Brady in the pocket: the chaos swirls, the hits keep coming—but he hangs in and delivers the throw.

Trump operates the same way. While his critics flinch, he closes. This isn’t small-ball, and these wins are not incremental. Instead, this process accelerates a truly global correction—long overdue—and only possible through business instincts brought into geopolitics.

Even former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss would recognize the method. In Never Split the Difference, Voss lays it out: apply pressure. Stay detached. Never settle halfway.

Sound familiar?

But Trump’s critics cannot see past their own biases to discern the mounting stack of headline-worthy wins. Consider the results, just in July:

European Union:

– $600B in EU investment

– $750B in U.S. energy purchases

– Broad tariff reductions for American exports

– 15% across-the-board tariffs for European firms—unless they move production to the U.S. and hire American workers.

Japan:

– The tariff cap was lowered to 15% (from 25%)

– $550B investment fund with direct U.S. veto power

South Korea:

– 15% tariff agreement

– $350B investment in the U.S.

– $100B LNG purchase commitment

China:

– Talks resume.

– Tariff protections hold.

– The deadline looms—and the leverage is as American as apple pie.

Tariffs aren’t punishment—they’re strategy. In this new era, tariffs represent policy and positioning. They compel the secure rebuilding of supply chains. In this process, America reclaims the leverage we are due, and reasserts our primary role in shaping the terms of global trade—not reacting to them.

So, it’s not a tantrum, not remotely. It’s a recalibration.

As Scott Adams wrote in Win Bigly, Trump isn’t unpredictable. He’s persuasive.

He throws the political equivalent of a knuckleball—deliberately unconventional and difficult to counter.

Adams and Trump recognize that superpowers don’t beg and don’t need to ask for permission. We are done allowing the ruling class of this country to profit and thrive by managing a national decline.

What beckons? Nothing less than a golden age—built on leverage, clarity, and control.

Steve Cortes, American Greatness

By J.B. Shurk

A spate of massive anti-illegal-immigration protests has broken out across the United Kingdom.  Indeed, one might say that the kingdom is increasingly united about one thing: Britain belongs to the British.  Waving Union Jack flags and carrying “Britain First” signs, thousands of protesters walk down city streets sporting patriotic clothing and repeating patriotic cheers.  A stranger who knew no better might mistake the mass euphoria for a post-war victory parade celebrating the prospect of peace.  

Americans have seen these kinds of festive gatherings before.  In spirit and enthusiasm, they resemble the “Make America Great Again” rallies that President Trump has headlined since 2015.  It is quite common, in fact, to see “Make Britain Great Again” signs in the crowds and to hear the phrase shouted energetically among those gathered.  What a dramatic shift in social consciousness a decade brings!  Ten years ago, most Brits thought little of Donald Trump and expected him to wind up an odd historical footnote to Hillary Clinton’s inevitable coronation.  Now much of the U.K. is desperate to ditch Britain’s rotten Establishment and taking inspiration from President Trump’s political revolution on the other side of the Atlantic.

This is hardly surprising.  For decades, mass illegal immigration into the U.K. has been a growing problem that Establishment politicians have been unwilling to address.  For decades, regular Brits have been told that there is nothing the government can do.  Closing the borders to foreign nationals intent on breaking the U.K.’s immigration laws was apparently too difficult of a task for the once mighty kingdom to undertake.  Across Europe, North America, and Australasia, Establishment governments have told their citizens much the same thing.

Then President Trump returned to the White House and finished a job that he started in his first term: sealing the border from foreign invasion.  After four years of open borders during Biden’s lawless presidency, what the Trump administration has managed to accomplish is nothing short of amazing.  The United States has now had several months in which zero illegal aliens were released into the country, and 2025 might end with net-negative immigration on the whole — a feat that most Americans have never witnessed.  

All of a sudden, the common government excuse in the U.K. and across continental Europe — that nothing can be done to stem the tide of mass illegal immigration — has been exposed as a risible lie.  That lie was common in the United States, too.  It was told for more than forty years.  In six months’ time, President Trump has proved that secure borders require but one thing: leaders willing to enforce them.  It has become much more difficult for politicians in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the U.K. to claim that limits on illegal immigration are impossible when President Trump is demonstrating in real time the hollowness of that lie in the United States.

Establishment news media are doing their best to protect the Establishment politicians.  Just as corporate “reporters” in the United States fill the public’s airwaves with sob stories about “asylum seekers” and “undocumented migrants” willing to do the jobs that Americans are supposedly unwilling to do, corporate “reporters” on the other side of the Atlantic speak of illegal aliens as if they all have hearts of gold.  Meanwhile, “honor” killings, child rapes, rampant misogyny, organized crime, terror attacks, and serial stabbings increase in direct proportion to the influx of foreign nationals — or what the Orwellian press across the West prefers to euphemistically call “newcomers.”

This nearly century-long project to destroy the West by flooding the West with foreigners who despise the West is finally coming to a head.  Perhaps it is too late to rectify the damage caused by generations of unelected bureaucrats and Marxist globalists who have done more to undermine their own countries by erasing national borders than any foreign enemy ever could.  We will soon find out whether Great Britain may survive as an island that natives will find safe enough to call home, or whether the United Kingdom will surrender what is left of its sovereignty to those who wish to conquer it in the name of foreign gods, anodyne “multiculturalism,” and totemic worship of diversity.

If the West’s survival were not such a serious issue, the outrageous lengths to which its leaders have gone to arrange its suicide would almost be comical.  Central banks have depreciated the value of common currencies to such a degree that Westerners’ cost of living continues to rise, while suitable jobs are steadily exported overseas.  The rate of homeownership is in a free fall.  Fewer Westerners can afford to have a single child, much less financially support large families.  Even if Westerners could support large families, the West’s cultural vanguard has spent the last hundred years encouraging women to kill their babies, choose careers over families, and regard men as evil foot soldiers of the dreaded “patriarchy.”

In their quixotic project to control the means of economic production by branding valuable hydrocarbon energies “pollutants,” the “global warming” climate hoaxers continue to drive up the cost of electricity.  Reliance on wind and solar power has made electrical grids unreliable.  Because higher energy costs increase industrial and manufacturing costs, Westerners are less self-sufficient than ever before.  Meanwhile, globalists have convinced Western populations that they will magically maintain their standard of living by making nothing of value and subsisting on government welfare.  

European countries fortunate enough to survive Nazi Germany’s pursuit of a European empire have chosen to commemorate their victory by forming a European Union managed principally by the Germans.  Those European countries fortunate enough to survive the Soviet Union’s Iron Curtain have chosen to safeguard their independence by destroying their own energy sectors, investing in “green” unicorns, and rendering their industries dependent upon Russian natural gas.  Those European countries that witnessed firsthand how vulnerable unarmed civilians are to foreign belligerents have chosen to disarm their citizens, dismantle their militaries, and pin their hopes for survival on American national security guarantees.

Historically Christian Western nations go out of their way to welcome foreign religions to their lands while mindlessly condemning Christian natives as bigots.  Western leaders do little when Christian churches are ransacked or burned to the ground.  Western schools banish Christian teachings from class curricula.  As committed as Western nations are to embracing foreign cultures, they are commensurately hostile to the Christian foundations of Western civilization. 

 How else could one describe this century-long assault on the West than to acknowledge it as deliberate suicide?  Nations that denounce their own cultures, traditions, histories, and religions are not nations for long.  Nations that treat foreigners better than native citizens soon become foreign nations.  Nations that do not produce children, goods, or art eventually disappear.  Diversity and multiculturalism do not sustain civilizations; they end them.

It is all the more curious, then, that so many Western nations are today beating the drums of war — particularly with regards to potential conflict with Russia.  European and American proponents of World War III insist that “democracy” is under attack.  Yet Western “democracy,” such as it is, has had no greater enemy than the multigenerational collection of political elites who have worked so hard to euthanize it.  It is difficult to ask Western citizens to fight and die for a civilization in the grips of suicide.  Nobody, it turns out, is interested in running onto a bloody battlefield waving a nondescript flag for generic multiculturalism.  Choosing to sacrifice oneself for a nation requires a nation worthy of being saved.

Before the U.K. government decides to arrest anti-illegal-immigration protesters for violating “hate speech” laws, perhaps it should take a moment to consider who will one day defend the British Isles from foreign invasion.  With patriots imprisoned, what country will remain?

J.B. Shurk, American Thinker

By Rajan Laad

The self-appointed liberal thought police have loaded their proverbial guns and aimed them at Sydney Sweeney since 2022.

What offense did Sweeney commit in 2022?

She posted pictures of her mother’s 60th birthday, and some ‘fans’ claimed that individuals wearing MAGA-style hats and “Blue Lives Matter” tops were in the background. The rodeo theme of the party must have also irked liberals, because it is perceived as anachronistic and rural.

Soon, Sweeney was linked to the ‘far right’ and the choicest epithets related to bigotry were conferred upon her.

The liberal mob wanted Sweeney to issue a groveling apology and a denunciation and ridicule of the MAGA agenda. Instead, she clarified that her motives weren’t political, but that did little to placate the online mob.

It is most revealing about the times we live in, when individuals have to issue clarifications merely for having relatives and friends belonging to a different political affiliation. But it wasn’t just online trolls; the invisible powers running Biden’s presidency made serious attempts to criminalize dissent and political opposition.

The outrage against Sweeney for her perceived political affiliations that has been simmering since 2022 reached a boiling point following the recent advertisement for American Eagle jeans with the slogan “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans,” which is a clever wordplay.

The online mob either honestly believed or pretended to believe that this was Nazi propaganda and that American Eagle was promoting eugenics. Ironically, this very mob will have no compunction using Nazi terminology while referring to Jewish people and the conflict in Israel.

It is disturbing that certain people are so utterly vacuous that they believe the absurd allegation. It is equally troubling that certain individuals are amplifying the malicious hoax to earn via ‘engagement’ on social media.

The online mob either honestly believed or pretended to believe that this was Nazi propaganda and that American Eagle was promoting eugenics. Ironically, this very mob will have no compunction using Nazi terminology while referring to Jewish people and the conflict in Israel.

It is disturbing that certain people are so utterly vacuous that they believe the absurd allegation. It is equally troubling that certain individuals are amplifying the malicious hoax to earn via ‘engagement’ on social media.

But it wasn’t just vacuous trolls; some academics opined the advert was “problematic.” Liberal propagandists masquerading as journalists also joined the mob. MSNBC carried a piece claiming the advertisement showed a cultural shift towards whiteness. The UK Guardian claimed that asked “Is American Eagle really using whiteness to sell jeans?“

Following the controversy, the stock of American Eagle soared, and sales were through the roof.

This once again proves that online mobs do not reflect reality. Some trolls may have been offended, but social media bots could have been employed to whip up the frenzy.

Now, about Sidney Sweeney.

She possesses all the attributes of an old-fashioned movie star. She is blonde, beautiful, and voluptuous — very reminiscent of Hollywood sex symbols such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield. She’s also a fine actress who began her career with small parts in television series and films. This led to her earning substantial parts in HBO Series such as “Euphoria” and “The White Lotus.”

She graduated to the big screen, playing the lead in the romantic comedy hit Anyone But You (2023), the psychological horror film Immaculate (2024), and most recently, Eden (2024).

Her Instagram posts and various public appearances demonstrate that she possesses the right attitude towards stardom. She seems humble, with a refreshing self-deprecatory humor.

In her SNL monologue, she joked about her image, her flop Madame Web (2023), Hollywood gossip, and Ozempic. There were no jibes at Trump or the MAGA agenda. Just simple, good-hearted fun.

This was once a normal display on television, i.e., presenting an entertainment with an attractive star and nothing more.

And this is the root of all the rage — Sidney Sweeney appears to be normal.

Sweeney is beautiful, and men are attracted to her — this is normal.

Sweeney seems to be a happy person enjoying her journey in Hollywood — this is normal.

She seems healthy, both mentally and physically — this is normal.

She seems attached to her parents — this is normal.

She doesn’t seem perpetually angry or focused on politics — this is normal.

This is what liberals despise. They even have a pejorative slang for this, it’s called “normie,” which derogatorily refers to individuals who are attributed to the demographic majority.

The norm in Hollywood is to be bitter, angry, outraged, sanctimonious, and against traditional values.

Jennifer Lawrence boasted about distancing herself from her Trump-supporting family members and hurling abuses towards President Trump.

Meryl Streep dedicated her lifetime achievement award speech at the Golden Globe Awards in 2017 to insulting Trump and regular Americans who support Trump instead of thanking her audience and colleagues.

Charlize Theron, 49, boasted about having sex with a 26-year-old man and expressed her aversion to being in a relationship.

Just yesterday, Buzzfeed News, whose track record on being factual is poor, claimed that Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican as of 2024. The media amplified the claim. This caused cheers in the MAGAverse.

President Trump also complimented Sweeney and the advert, which caused American Eagle shares to surge by 20 percent.

The fact that Sweeney hasn’t explicitly revealed that she’s a Republican means she either prefers to keep her political affiliation private or that the claim is fake.

Maybe Sweeney wants to be an old-fashioned, mysterious movie star whose image is untouched by politics. This was the norm in the past.

Marilyn Monroe’s political affiliations were unknown to most people; all that mattered was that she looked alluring and delivered a strong performance. Marilyn Monroe’s famous birthday serenade to Kennedy at Madison Square Garden in 1962 occurred when her career had hit a rough patch; sadly, she passed away the same year.

The secondary outrage about the American Eagles’ campaign is that it is targeted at the “male gaze.”

If there was exploitation involved, it would have been outrageous. But Sidney Sweeney is an adult, and the adverts were made with her approval, and she was compensated for them. The advert is tongue-in-cheek and suggestive, but tasteful.

Once again, the male gaze is normal. Most men are attracted to beautiful women and prefer to see attractive women on screen or in person. The same is true if the genders are swapped. 

The predators must be punished, but these outliers are no reason to vilify what is normal.

This natural, healthy, and mutual attraction between men and women is what leads to procreation, which allows civilization to continue.

In the end, the outrage by liberals against Sydney Sweeney and her catchy advertisement campaign is an objection against what is normal and indeed natural.

The liberal outrage and hate, and subsequently the support from the highest echelons in politics, right up to President Trump, have generated publicity for American Eagle that no company can dream of or campaign can buy. American Eagle is now a leading international brand.

Based on her attitude, choice of projects, and performances, Sydney Sweeney is on her way to becoming a major superstar.

On July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of its founding, marked by the Continental Congress’s adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration has inspired the world. Even Vietnam’s Declaration of Independence, written by communist Ho Chi Minh in 1945, begins with some very familiar words: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

As most U.S. schoolchildren used to be taught (and some still are), the Declaration of Independence articulates a set of “self-evident” principles, or “Truths,” that define our country and society. While there is still work to be done to achieve them fully, and always will be, most Americans continue to celebrate those principles.

There is no better example of how one can balance America’s strivings and failures than that provided by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass in his famous July 5, 1852, speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”

In that speech, Douglass encouraged Americans to celebrate their anniversary. He lauds the country’s Founders: “Your fathers were wise men. … They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs. … With brave men, there is always a remedy for oppression.”

He went on to say that the idea of total separation from England was born on July 2, 1776, “… in the form of a resolution” that “these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States.”

“Today you reap the fruits of their success,” Douglass told his audience. “The freedom gained is yours, and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.”

“The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles,” he added. “Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”

Douglass then switched gears. From praising the Founders as “statesmen, patriots and heroes,” he turned to the question of slavery. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”

Douglass is unforgiving in his attack. He discusses the internal slave trade. He lambasts the clergy for tolerating slavery. And he denounces those who make constitutional or other arguments for slavery’s legality. Half of the speech is devoted to condemning slavery, its defenders and those who remain silent in its face.

The speech is brilliant, both in the depth of Douglass’s understanding of the principles embodied in the Declaration (and Constitution), and in the persuasiveness of his language condemning the country’s failure to extend its hard-won freedoms to the enslaved.

For those reasons, among others, Douglass’s speech is required reading for many Ameritas College students — not just the first part, praising America’s declared principles, and not just the second part, condemning our failure to live up to them, but the entire speech.

That’s why I was puzzled recently when I printed a copy of the speech from the PBS.org website.

I intended to use it for a discussion about the connection between principles grounded in “self-evident” truths, and the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s famous statement that there is no truth.

“How,” I wanted to ask my students, “could Douglass ground his claims about the injustice of slavery if he did not first appeal to the principles in the Declaration?”

Unfortunately, the sections of Douglass’s speech lauding American principles had been omitted. My intended lesson on Douglass’s rhetoric evolved into one about selective editing, censorship and hidden agendas.

As we mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is crucial that we uphold its ideals and acknowledge its lofty goals have not been fully achieved.

This requires an honest discussion of American principles and American history.

In its entirety, Douglass’s speech is an inspiration. It played an essential role in ending slavery. Edited, it is reduced to propaganda.

Frederic J. Fransen

Kamala needs to be asked if she had been elected last year would her justice department have pursued the Hillary Clinton bogus Russia Collusion hoax with potential indictments against Hillary Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Comey and others involved. Would be fun to hear her answer.

The only question you need to ask is if she wants red wine or white. She’s not really qualified to answer much else.

The Deer Stand

Virginia’s very good Republican candidate for Governor, Virginia’s present Lieutenant Governor Winsome Sears, is in danger of losing to a radicalized Democrat posing as a moderate. There are no moderate Democrats running for office anywhere. They all favor huge taxes, unthinkable spending, gun confiscation, censorship, intimidation of political dissenters, authoritarian central economic planning, outlawing cars, allowing men on women’s sports teams and in women’s bathrooms, and woke indoctrination of six-year-olds.

“Moderate” Democrats downplay these positions, and then implement them once in power; while New York or California Democrats simply promise and do these things.

The end result is the same.

Virginia will go the way of California or New York if it gets even one more Democrat as governor. America, as a whole, is in the same precarious position–always a single election away from catastrophic policies and the end of liberty. Plan B for the majority of rational counties in Virginia? SECEDE from the leftist counties.

Michael J. Hurd

The “climate change” proponents predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2014. It’s now 2025 — and the Arctic is still perfectly frozen.

Their forecasts are never accurate. Often, their predictions are just the opposite of what proves true.

Yet the billions of dollars and bottomless pit of virtue and credibility attributed to these charlatans — it never stops.

And all the fools, unconcerned with facts, continue to applaud the deindustrialzation of civilization and the destruction of life on earth as we know it. “Climate change” isn’t merely an urban religion, or a group psychosis. It’s an international, globalist Communist death pact supported by the richest, the most educated and the allegedly most enlightened. In practice, it will lead — via the elimination of all fossil fuels and the resulting collapse of the electric grid — to a standard of living prior to pre-1850s America, except for the elites portrayed by this picture. Suffering, starvation and unimaginable catastrophe will inevitably result. In short: They want the mass of humanity barefoot and pregnant. Easier to control us that way.

It’s like watching the murder-suicide of civilization. Trump is admirably pushing back in his second term, but after 2028 we’re right back where we started if we don’t have some kind of revolution for freedom, man’s rights and the virtue of authentic, unhampered capitalism.

Michael J. Hurd

President Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that his administration could distribute dividends from tariff revenues to Americans with certain income levels.

Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One, Trump said that a distribution of dividends to selected U.S. households is possible, even as the government works to pay down the national debt.

“We have a lot of money coming in, much more money than the country has ever seen, by hundreds of billions of dollars,” he said. “There could be a distribution for dividends to the people of our country. I would say for people that would be middle-income people and lower-income people, we could do a dividend.”

He also reaffirmed the government’s commitment to lower drug prices, in line with his May 12 executive order that requires drug manufacturers to offer American consumers “the most-favored-nation lowest price” for prescription drugs.

“We‘ll be dropping drug prices, it will start over the next two to three months, by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400 percent,” he said. “We will pay as low as the lowest nation in the world.”

Trump did not specify the potential amount of dividends he could distribute. The U.S. government collected $28 billion in tariff revenues in July, marking a record monthly high and bringing the total revenue for the fiscal year to more than $151 billion, according to Treasury data.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told last month’s cabinet meeting that tariff collections could reach $300 billion by the end of the year, as a result of Trump’s trade campaign.

Trump imposed a 10 percent baseline tariff on nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, along with reciprocal tariffs that vary depending on their trade barriers with the United States, as part of an effort to address trade deficits. He later implemented a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tariffs, before extending the reprieve to Aug. 1 to allow time for negotiations.

The president signed an executive order on July 31 imposing reciprocal tariffs of between 10 percent and 41 percent on more than 60 U.S. trading partners. The new tariff rates, which are set to take effect on Aug. 7, were determined based on whether each nation has reached an agreement with the United States and the nature of those agreements.

In his order, Trump stated that some trading partners have agreed to or are close to making “meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States,” while others have proposed terms that he thinks fail to adequately address trade imbalances or “align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national-security matters.”

“There are also some trading partners that have failed to engage in negotiations with the United States or to take adequate steps to align sufficiently with the United States on economic and national security matters,” the order stated.

The Trump administration is working on a trade deal with China, which is subject to an extended deadline through Aug. 12, following a May 12 agreement in which the two largest economies agreed to lower tariffs and roll back certain trade restrictions for 90 days.

Joseph Lord and Reuters contributed to this report.

Ilhan Omar presents herself as a champion of justice, minority rights, accountability, and anti-imperialism. Her refusal to recognise or condemn the genocide her father’s military executed is irreconcilable with this public brand. Her silence is not neutral—it is an affront to survivors who endured collective persecution and loss. To inherit privilege built on systemic violence yet actively ignore that historical legacy is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of victims and millions of survivors of the Isaaq Genocide her father’s military committed.

Why Ilhan Omar Must Now Come Clean Ilhan Omar must publicly acknowledge her father’s role in the Isaaq Genocide, issue a formal condemnation of this atrocity, and actively support international recognition of the Republic of Somaliland. Only through transparency and public moral accountability and redemption can she reconcile her public advocacy with her personal history. Failing to do so makes her an electoral liability to the Democratic Party, as she continuous to bring them into disrepute and cost them votes.

Between 1987 and 1989, the Somali military in which Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father, served as a senior officer executed a brutal and systematic campaign of genocide targeting the Isaaq people of the modern day Republic of Somaliland.

This dark chapter in Africa’s history, which was known as the Isaaq Genocide, was a merciless military campaign that resulted in the killing of over 200,000 Isaaq civilians. It also involved widespread forced displacement, scorched‑earth destruction of the second and third largest cities (Hargeisa and Burao), aerial bombardement of almost every other single city, town and village in Somaliland, and two decades of large‑scale red-terror style tactics against the civilian population of Somaliland.

It was carried out through relentless aerial bombardments – planes repeatedly strafed fleeing refugees – summary executions, burning of entire villages, deportations, land‑mining of water sources and homes, Holodomor style government enforced man-made famines (the Dabadheer Drought) and the use of paramilitary units such as the Somali Armed Forces’ “Dabar Goynta Isaaqa” (The Isaaq Exterminators), composed exclusively of non-ethnically Isaaq soldiers, to enact mass killings under Somalia’s military direction.

War-damaged houses in Hargeysa, a major city in northern Somalia, 1991. Eyewitness testimonies documented “mass executions by firing squad, forced disappearances, looting, mass torture, mass surveillance, rape used as a weapon, curfews and mass killings of civilians even in areas with limited resistance or lawful liberation movement activities, such in Berbera where thousands of government soldiers were stationed. Isaaq civilians across what was then the Somalia Republic, were detained and executed en-mass by Somalia government execution squads led by Colonels like Ilhan Omar’s father.

Across the country civilians were forced from their homes into dehumanising conditions, including many kept in dungeons, underground prisons and pits. Even famous Isaaqs such as Somaliland’s most renowned poet ‘Hadraawi’ did not escape this torture and years of detention under the most brutal and unsanitary conditions imaginable. Even in Mogadishu, deep inside neighbouring Somalia – and almosr 1,500KM from Somaliland’s capital of Hargeisa – Isaaq civilians were being killed in their homes, in the city and on Mogadishu’s beaches. The Jazeera massacre of 1989 is a particularly brutal example that is etched in history.

At the heart of this brutal military regime was Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father. His rank, authority, membership of the regime Daarood clan, and 10+ years of having climbed the hierarchy in Somalia military to the rank of Colonel, placed him squarely in the Somali military’s command hierarchy during and at the height of its Isaaq genocide campaign. Based on his position, loyalty to the regime, and his role in the military, it is virtually certain that he had intimate knowledge of and involvement in the planning, conception, direction and execution of the genocide.

By both legal and historical standards, despite Ilhan Omar’s team’s spin in numerous recent articles which have been placed in left-leaning online publications, the logical conclusion that Ilhan Omar’s father was almost certainly intimately involved in the Isaaq Genocide is unmistakable. It is supported on the balance of probabilities and the totality of circumstantial and inferential evidence available indicates, more critically, that it meets the threshold that this was the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

What Human Rights Reports Show Investigations from Africa Watch, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN‑commissioned Mburu Report, articles from the Washington Post and New York Times are clear: the Isaaq Genocide was conceived, planned, and executed using official state machinery. The Somalian military directed attacks such as the scorched‑earth campaign, the mining of grazing areas and waterholes, and mass destruction of homes; entire cities were intentionally razed to eliminate Isaaq presence.

The numerous reports and newspaper articles detail how the military in which Ilhan Omar’s father was a Colonel, based on government directives such as the notorious “Letter of Death” attributed to General Morgan, advocated a campaign of obliteration and extermination of ethnically Isaaq civilians who form the absolute majority of the population in Somaliland – demonstrating that genocide was national policy, not the act of rogue units. The Somalian military deployed the most heinous an inhumane propaganda to justify and enable their genocide. Ilhan Omar’s father was at one point in charge of propaganda and during his 10+ year tenure with Somalia’s military between 1981 and 1991 – a timeline which coincides with the timeline of when Somalia’s military was perpetrating the Isaaq Genocide – would almost certainly have been involved in conceiving and disseminating Isaaq Genocide propaganda. Propaganda which would have got hundreds of thousands of innocent Somalilanders, ethnic Isaaq civilians, killed.

Colonels like Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father, would have operated within the command structure of Somalia’s military during the Isaaq Genocide. As a Colonel he would have been overseeing operations in Hargeisa, Oodweyne, Burao, El‑Afweyn, Gebiley, Berbera, Garadag, Erigabo, Sheikh and else where in Somaliland where mass arrests, executions, and infrastructure destruction were used to terrorise, ethnically cleanse and exterminate the Isaaq people of Somaliland.

Taken together, these findings show that it is extremely likely that Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father, played a direct or enabling role in the genocide. This conclusion aligns with command responsibility in law and meets the legal standard of being demonstrably proven, both on the balance of probability under civil law, and beyond reasonable doubt under criminal law. The idea that a Colonel in Somalia’s military in a brutal dictatorship did not participate in the pervasive and ubiquitous genocidal activities his military was carry out in every city, town and village in the decade in which he was serving in and leading the military, is implausible, illogical and does not stand up to scrutiny. It is high time that Ilhan Omar comes clean about her father’s role in the Isaaq Genocide.

What the Isaaq Genocide entailed and the role of Colonels in the genocide Contemporaneous reporting from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian in 1988‑1989 described systematic aerial bombardments, civilian casualties, mass evacuations, and city‑scale destruction. Eyewitnesses at the time compared Hargeisa’s devastation to “the Dresden of Africa,” with over 90 percent of the city destroyed, widespread displacement, and the use of mercenary pilots for bombing runs. These independent accounts support the historical record and reinforce that senior military officers – including Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father – under a strict command and control structure, could not have remained passive much less or uninvolved. Nor is there any evidence of him refusing to carry out or resisting the military orders of genocide which the commander in chief, dictator Siad Barre, had issued. In fact, Ilhan Omar and her family only fled the country when the regime was toppled in January 1991, when his last enclave in the capital of Mogadishu was overrun by the resistance movements. This suggests her Colonel father was loyal to the dictator to the end, and fought alongside him to perpetrate the genocide, only leaving his side when the regime was toppled. A disloyal Colonel also would not have shot up through the ranks, having been promoted in quick succession, having joined as a cadet in 1981 and left as a loyal Colonel by 1991 upon the regime’s fall. This begs the question, why would a brutal dictator elevate and promote a disloyal Colonel? Of course the reality is that he would not have. Therefore her father must have been a loyal and faithful servant, who executed the orders of Genocide to the letter, and was likely handsomely rewarded for this.

While Ilhan Omar’s camp has recently pivoted to portraying her Colonel father as a “teacher trainer”, this kind of fiction and verbal acrobatics is far removed from reality. The hint of the nature of his job and the rank he held is clear from his title: Colonel. He clearly held senior military responsibilities. In the genocide perpetrated by the Somalian military, Colonels oversaw planning, command, logistics, and ideological enforcement and practical execution of the Genocide. Their commands were clear and their role was clear. In one well publicised example of such military orders to commit genocide, issued by General Mohammed Said Hersi aka ‘General Morgan’ to all military units, was caught on video, and was later reported by Al Jazeera in their later documentary about the Isaaq Genocide titled “Kill All But the Crows”. The military orders were as follows: “Attack and eliminate them all. Destroy water sources, reservoirs. Burn villages, pillage, kill residents allow no life no activity. kill even the wounded. Kill all but the crows”. Deserters, defectors and those who went AWOL would be found and summarily executed (yet of course this does not excuse being complicit in a Genocide). It is therefore inconceivable that Colonel Nur Omar Mohamed, Ilhan Omar’s father, did not carry out or did not authorise key military activities that facilitated, enabled or directly executed genocidal acts. His contributions as a high ranking Colonel likely included:

Ideological indoctrination, tactical training and direct military orders aligned with anti‑Isaaq policies. Coordination of logistics, troop deployment, and use of Somali Airlines and military aircraft

officials included Colonels, and their immediate family members like Ilhan Omar, lived gilded lifestyles and were probably in many ways indirect beneficiaries of the Genocide. It is highly plausible that she, even as a child, benefited materially or socially from the outcomes of the genocide: the seizure of Isaaq assets, the redistribution of power and wealth to regime cronies like her Colonel father, and consolidation of power by non‑Isaaq elites. In fact, Ilhan Omar is named in that context in the Palgrave Handbook on Left Wing Extremism where serious and unanswered questions are raised about her claim to be a valid refugee. It is increasingly becoming apparent that a more accurate reinterpretation of her personal history is the daughter of a Genocidaire and war criminal, who lived a gilded lifestyle as a child of the regime elite who was potentially a beneficiary of Genocide, but once in the west reinvented herself as a liberal refugee victim.

Ilhan Omar presents herself as a champion of justice, minority rights, accountability, and anti-imperialism. Her refusal to recognise or condemn the genocide her father’s military executed is irreconcilable with this public brand. Her silence is not neutral—it is an affront to survivors who endured collective persecution and loss. To inherit privilege built on systemic violence yet actively ignore that historical legacy is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of victims and millions of survivors of the Isaaq Genocide her father’s military committed.

Why Ilhan Omar Must Now Come Clean Ilhan Omar must publicly acknowledge her father’s role in the Isaaq Genocide, issue a formal condemnation of this atrocity, and actively support international recognition of the Republic of Somaliland. Only through transparency and public moral accountability and redemption can she reconcile her public advocacy with her personal history. Failing to do so makes her an electoral liability to the Democratic Party, as she continuous to bring them into disrepute and cost them votes.

SOMALILAND CHRONICLE

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. revealed that he is taking action to prevent Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) users from purchasing items such as sugary drinks.

Kennedy pointed out that while people can make their own decisions regarding what to buy and what not to buy, taxpayers in the United States “should not pay” for people on SNAP to purchase items like sugary sodas.

The comments from Kennedy were made as he and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary joined Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in celebrating the signing of six new SNAP state waivers, which would “amend the statutory definition of food for purchase and end the subsidization of popular types of junk food beginning in 2026,” according to an HHS press release. States signing the new SNAP waivers include West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Other states, such as Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah, have previously signed SNAP waivers.

“We are spending $405 million a day on SNAP, about ten percent is going to sugary drinks … if you add candies to that, it’s about 13 to 17 percent,” Kennedy said on Monday. “We all believe in free choice, we live in a democracy, people can make their own choice about what they’re going to buy and what they’re not going to buy.”

“If you want to buy a sugary soda — you ought to be able to do that — the U.S. taxpayer should not pay for it,” Kennedy added. “The U.S. taxpayer should not be paying to feed kids foods, the poorest kids in our country, the foods that are going to give them diabetes. And then my agency ends up — through Medicaid and Medicare — paying for those injuries. We’re going to put an end to that, and we’re doing it step by step, state by state.”

Kennedy added that he was working with Rollins on dietary guidelines, noting that the dietary guidelines they “inherited from the Biden administration were 453 pages long.”

“They were driven by the same commercial impulses that put Froot Loops at the top of the food pyramid, and they were incomprehensible,” Kennedy continued. “We are going to release dietary guidelines that are four or five or six pages long, that are understandable, that are simple, and will allow people to make good choices about their food.”

Breitbart News reported that during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing, he spoke about reversing “the chronic disease epidemic” in the nation. Kennedy “provided some examples of how” the U.S. “could implement the MAHA agenda”:

He provided some examples of how the United States could implement the MAHA agenda, using federal funding of the SNAP program — and school lunch programs — as examples.

“We should be giving 60 percent of the kids in school processed food that is making them sick. … We shouldn’t be spending 10 percent of the SNAP program on sugar drinks. We so we have a direct ability to change things,” he said, adding that “we need to focus more on outcome-based medicine, on putting people in charge of their own health care, of making them accountable for their own health care so they understand the relationship between eating and getting sick” with Medicaid and Medicare as well.

Kennedy has also clarified that he would not “take food away from anybody,” adding that if people want their McDonald’s or Hostess Twinkies, they “should be able to get them,” but that they should also be aware of what the impacts of those food items are on their health.

Kennedy added that he was working with Rollins on dietary guidelines, noting that the dietary guidelines they “inherited from the Biden administration were 453 pages long.”

“They were driven by the same commercial impulses that put Froot Loops at the top of the food pyramid, and they were incomprehensible,” Kennedy continued. “We are going to release dietary guidelines that are four or five or six pages long, that are understandable, that are simple, and will allow people to make good choices about their food.”

Breitbart News reported that during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing, he spoke about reversing “the chronic disease epidemic” in the nation. Kennedy “provided some examples of how” the U.S. “could implement the MAHA agenda”:

He provided some examples of how the United States could implement the MAHA agenda, using federal funding of the SNAP program — and school lunch programs — as examples.

“We should be giving 60 percent of the kids in school processed food that is making them sick. … We shouldn’t be spending 10 percent of the SNAP program on sugar drinks. We so we have a direct ability to change things,” he said, adding that “we need to focus more on outcome-based medicine, on putting people in charge of their own health care, of making them accountable for their own health care so they understand the relationship between eating and getting sick” with Medicaid and Medicare as well.

Kennedy has also clarified that he would not “take food away from anybody,” adding that if people want their McDonald’s or Hostess Twinkies, they “should be able to get them,” but that they should also be aware of what the impacts of those food items are on their health.

BREITBART