The Times They Are A-Changin’. Bob Dylan, the troubadour of change, penned this folk masterpiece back in 1963, and its words still resonate today.

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

mosckerr

Militarism and Genocide in Gaza: The Bloody Signature of Western Decline

Grandpa’s keys

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

Change of Heart

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

The History of the Monroe Doctrine: Shaping American Foreign Policy in 1820 and Beyond

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

Is Keir Starmer really a foreign policy realist?

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

Australians pierce the foreign policy propaganda of both major parties

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

Newsline: Britain launches strategic foreign policy reviews

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.

https://www.differenthub.com/watch-lindsey-graham-diverts-hurricane-helene-discussion-to-israel-sparks-outrage/

“Come gather ’round people, wherever you roam…”“Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen…”“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call…”“Come mothers and fathers throughout the land…”

Gail (Hebrew for JOY) winds fill the sails of the US ship of state. The shifting tides of US Foreign Policy,

An American politician and attorney who has held significant roles in both Congress and the intelligence community. Ratcliffe was a U.S. Representative for Texas’s 4th district from 2015 to 2020. He was known as one of the most conservative congressmen during his time in the House of Representatives.

Ratcliffe gained visibility during the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2019. He was an ardent defender of Trump during the impeachment hearings and actively participated in questioning witnesses. His forceful defense of the president led to memorable moments during the proceedings.

Ratcliffe famously characterized the impeachment case against Trump as the “thinnest, fastest, and weakest” in U.S. history. He argued that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold for impeachment.

When former special counsel Robert Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to testify about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Ratcliffe was one of the more ardent Republican interrogators. He forcefully questioned Mueller and criticized the report produced by the special counsel.

John Ratcliffe’s forceful defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings left a lasting impression. His passionate questioning and unwavering support for the president contributed to the intensity of those historic hearings.

Ratcliffe also played a significant role in challenging the legitimacy of the investigations into Trump. He was particularly critical of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which looked into potential connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Ratcliffe argued that the investigation was flawed and that the FBI had abused its surveillance powers

Ratcliffe was known for his strong stance against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, which he believed was misused in the investigation of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
His criticisms of the FBI and the intelligence community’s handling of these investigations were a key part of his defense strategy.

Ratcliffe’s efforts to defend Trump extended beyond the impeachment hearings. As Director of National Intelligence, he declassified documents that he believed would support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move was controversial and seen by some as an attempt to politicize intelligence.

Ratcliffe’s unwavering support for Trump and his aggressive defense tactics made him a prominent figure during the impeachment proceedings and beyond. His unwavering defense of Trump during the impeachment proceedings and his criticism of investigations into Trump have solidified his reputation as a loyal ally.

As DNI, Ratcliffe played a crucial role in overseeing U.S. intelligence operations. He was involved in identifying and countering foreign interference in U.S. elections, particularly from Iran and China. His focus on national security and his hawkish stance on China align with Trump’s priorities.

Ratcliffe declassified several documents at Trump’s request, which were intended to support Trump’s claims of being unfairly targeted by the intelligence community. This move, while controversial, demonstrated Ratcliffe’s willingness to take actions that aligned with Trump’s interests. A stark contrast to Trump’s Vice President!

Ratcliffe’s public statements and actions have consistently supported Trump’s policies and positions. For example, he criticized the Biden administration’s approach to the Middle East and emphasized the importance of supporting Israel, which aligns with Trump’s foreign policy views.

John Ratcliffe has not publicly advocated for the U.S. withdrawal from NATO in exchange for Russia’s complete withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea. His stance has generally been supportive of strong national security measures and maintaining alliances that bolster U.S. interests. Ratcliffe’s focus has been more on ensuring that NATO allies meet their defence spending commitments and addressing threats from adversaries like China and Russia.

Ratcliffe’s focus has been on ensuring that the U.S. and its allies are prepared to counter any threats and maintain stability in Europe. This approach aligns with the broader strategy of strengthening NATO’s defense posture on its eastern flank.

Would he oppose a marked shift which prioritized a Netherlands/Dutch Israeli US prioritization over the Allied NATO alliance? John Ratcliffe has not publicly expressed a stance on prioritizing a Netherlands/Dutch-Israeli-US alliance over the broader NATO alliance. His focus has generally been on maintaining strong national security measures and supporting alliances that bolster U.S. interests, including NATO.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security. The idea of the U.S. withdrawing from NATO in exchange for Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea is complex and would have significant geopolitical implications. The “America First” policy, as advocated by President Trump, emphasizes prioritizing American interests and reducing involvement in international alliances and conflicts.

This approach aligns with the Founding Fathers’ advice to avoid entangling alliances, as expressed by both George Washington & Thomas Jefferson in his Farewell Address, where both men cautioned against permanent alliances with foreign European nations. They believed that the young nation should avoid permanent alliances to maintain its independence and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

While the “America First” policy advocates for focusing on domestic issues and reducing foreign entanglements, the practical implications of such a significant shift in policy would need to be carefully considered. The benefits of maintaining strong alliances and the potential risks of withdrawing from them must be weighed against the principles of non-interventionism and national sovereignty.

The idea might align with the Founding Fathers’ advice on avoiding entangling alliances, would have to go hand in glove with closing the Federal Reserve and restoring the power of Congress ie the Gold standard. Lincolns fiat Greenback paper currency developed to answer the economic crisis of the Civil War. Never intended as a permanent fiat currency like prevails today.

The idea of returning to the gold standard and closing the Federal Reserve would represent a significant shift in U.S. economic policy. It would involve complex considerations, including the stability of the financial system, the flexibility of monetary policy, and the impact on the global economy.

The collapse of the Nixon/Saudi petrodollar OPEC monopoly and the rise of a BRICS currency indeed signal significant shifts in the global economic landscape. The petrodollar system, established in the 1970s, allowed the U.S. dollar to retain its status as the world’s primary reserve currency by ensuring that oil exports were priced in dollars.

The BRICS countries have been discussing the creation of a new currency to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar and to assert their economic independence. This move could potentially challenge the dominance of the dollar in international trade and finance, leading to a process known as de-dollarization.

For the U.S., this means that economic policies may need to adapt to these new realities. This could involve reassessing trade relationships, exploring new economic alliances, and potentially revisiting monetary policies to ensure stability and competitiveness in a rapidly evolving global market. The extinction of the dinosaurs, an apt comparison. Adaptation is key to survival in a changing environment.

A marked shift in prioritization over NATO would be a significant policy change that would require careful consideration of the broader implications for U.S. and global security.