The Trump–Putin 28-point “peace” proposal is not a diplomatic curiosity. It is a first-mover attempt by a Russian-aligned axis to fix the narrative and the end-state of this war in writing. The leaked European counter-proposal, built on the same skeletal structure, is not inherently better or worse; it simply sits inside the architecture the Kremlin and President Trump tried to define first. Under the Raymond Method, this is exactly the kind of moment Pillar Four—Operationali

There is nothing wrong with women wanting to look their best. That is basic autonomy, not a moral failing, and it should be stated cleanly at the outset. Likewise, the problem is not that the women in President Trump’s orbit want to look glamorous; the problem is what his preferences reveal about him and the message they send about what matters in public life. When Trump consistently elevates women who are styled and deployed in ways that evoke a cartoonish “bimbo” stereotype

A judge just erased the charges against you because Lindsey Halligan was never lawfully appointed. That’s justice working—finally—and everyone who values due process should cheer it. But don’t mistake that sound for forgiveness. You still owe this country an honest apology for 2016. Your “no good options” defense was never good enough, and your memoir-era reflections only reinforced what many of us already suspected: you thought your judgment, and your discomfort with Hillary

You have said it for years: “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” You have told the rest of us to respect the process, obey the law, trust the system, and stop whining when prosecutors come knocking. That is rule-following taken to its harshest edge. Now the courts have just enforced the rules against your  side, and the question in front of you is brutally simple: do you actually believe in following the rules, or was that all just cult talk for punishin

Vlad Vexler’s video on the leaked Ukraine “peace plan”  is framed as five insights, but they largely collapse into one simple question: is Ukraine being treated as a real country, or as a problem province inside someone else’s empire?  Once you state the question bluntly, the apparent complexity of the plan falls away. What matters is not whether the deal is “clever” or “balanced,” but whether it recognizes Ukrainian statehood in substance, not just in name. Vexler’s first, s

Trump and Rubio are still trying to sell a “peace plan” that everyone can see is a Russian wish list. That persistence is the evidence. An honest broker would have walked away the moment the plan’s contents and reactions were clear. They didn’t. That tells you where their loyalties lie—and it isn’t with Ukraine, NATO, or the EU. I. What the plan actually is Once we strip away the spin, the 28-point plan is straightforward: Ukraine gives up more territory in the east and south

Let’s be clear about the frame from the start: Marjorie Taylor Greene’s implosion is a MAGA civil-war casualty, not a victory for the left, and certainly not our responsibility to mitigate. President Trump turned his own shock trooper into a cautionary tale to discipline the rest of you. That is your problem. You built that system. You chose to live under it. Do not look to liberals, Democrats, or “the left” to save you from the consequences. Greene’s resignation is not compl

The 28-point “peace plan” now being pushed at Ukraine is not a mistake, not naïve, and not merely amateurish. It is the visible tip of a long project: to invert the moral frame of the war so that Ukraine, not Russia, is blamed for the continued killing, letting Trump finally abandon Ukraine. For years, Trump and Putin have been working toward this exact moment. Every “I can end it in 24 hours,” every complaint that Ukraine “could have made a deal,” every flirtation with land

The leaked 28-point peace proposal for the war between Ukraine and Russia—crafted in the name of a deal, but all too clearly serving Moscow—has triggered widespread alarm. What makes the reaction especially telling is that William Spaniel—a political scientist who habitually frames his commentary in neutral terms rather than partisan or even moralistic ones—spent his recent video walking through this plan and openly mocking it. He does not  invoke the traitor-general hypothe

President Trump is telling you, in public and in real time, exactly what kind of system he is building and where you fit in it. When a president calls six Democratic veterans “traitors” who have engaged in “seditious behavior, punishable by death” because they reminded the military that illegal orders must be refused, that is not a policy dispute. That is regime-security language from an aspiring autocrat, directed at anyone who might one day say no. At the same time, when he

We must begin from an explicit working assumption: President Trump is operating in alignment with Vladimir Putin’s regime interests, not American interests, and has done so consistently for years.  That alignment has two reinforcing layers. First, there is the personal-kompromat layer: the blackmail, financial leverage, and sexual or criminal exposure that would allow the Kremlin or its cutouts to destroy Trump’s political and personal life if he ever truly turned against the

The defining feature of Stephen Miller is not intelligence, not conviction, and certainly not courage. It is a warped internal compass that confuses cruelty for strength and vitriol for power. What he has built for himself is a lifelong tough-guy cosplay routine: the pseudo-Rasputin of Trumpism, draping a brittle ego in the trappings of “hard decisions” and “border security,” while his actual legacy is the deliberate infliction of suffering on the weakest people he can find.

The question is not abstract. It is the concrete problem facing anyone in Washington—or anywhere in public life—who has finally stood up, spoken plainly, and in doing so has attracted the full attention of a corrupt power. You called out the blackmail system, you voted for transparency, you told the truth about illegal orders, you refused to bow. The Eye turned. Now it is on you, and on the people you love. At that point, every pleasant theory about courage collapses. The pro

Day 304 of President Trump’s second administration reveals a regime that has passed beyond simple incompetence and entered the terminal phase of authoritarian decay. The promises—cheap goods, mass deportations, instant victory in Ukraine—have collapsed. The factions—Groypers, “new-wave” neo-Nazis, and the MAGA establishment—are now openly at war with each other. And the president, trapped in a bunkerized information cocoon, is reduced to lashing out at Democratic lawmakers up

The recent congressional discharge petition on the Epstein matter is more than domestic theater—it is an unmistakable signal to foreign governments that President Trump cannot be treated like his predecessors. Many foreign leaders—from Mark Rutte to others—appear to assume they can engage him as a semi-conventional head of state. That assumption is dangerously wrong. They must instead regard him under the paradigm of the Byzantine traitor-general: a figure whose primary goal

People are asking whether today’s overwhelming Epstein-files vote actually means  anything. They see the 427–1 tally, the easy Senate assent, and they wonder if this is another Washington gesture that will evaporate on contact with reality. It isn’t. And we know it isn’t because the exits have already begun. Here is the deal. Accountability shows it is working not when institutions speak like they did today, but when powerful men start running for the door. We now have three

AOC’s latest fundraising message advances a coherent theory of power rooted in dual-track mobilization: inside-government leverage and outside-government mass organization. Her argument is that Democrats lack institutional control under President Trump’s unified Republican government, and therefore must compensate through creative procedural workarounds, public-facing mobilization, and a positive ideological project. What matters analytically is how this framework both reveal

Mike Johnson’s latest performance in front of cameras—his strained, contradictory denunciation of the Epstein files’ release paired with his self-congratulation for having previously offered the same bill under unanimous consent—reveals a basic truth: he believes the American public is too inattentive or too confused to notice a contradiction this brazen. The error is not accidental. It is integral to the kind of asymmetric political warfare that President Trump’s orbit has n

Clay Higgins will stand in the historical record as the man who chose the wrong side of a moral singularity even when every other member of Congress — Democrats, Republicans, loyalists, dissidents, institutionalists, opportunists — understood what the right side was, even if they feared it. History is not gentle with figures who break from consensus in matters of basic decency. It is not the vote totals that matter — 427 to 1 — but the nature of the solitary objection. The Ep

In adversarial systems—whether political, military, or metaphysical—the first discipline is to assume betrayal as the baseline condition. The enemy, like the devil, will always stab you in the back, because treachery is his natural mode of operation, not an aberration. This is not paranoia; it is minimax logic applied to existential threat. The rational agent facing a proven deceiver must assume that every action is optimized for one outcome: your harm. Under this axiom, trus