CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Charles Davis via The Epoch Times,

The debate in Washington often treats allied policy toward China as a loyalty test—are you “with us” or “soft”? That’s the wrong frame.

Across the Indo-Pacific and beyond, close U.S. partners are converging on a pragmatic line: keep markets open where possible, harden national security where necessary, and build redundancy in supply chains so no single chokepoint—Beijing’s or anyone else’s—can hold the economy hostage. That logic aligns with the Reagan–Trump piece: deterrence through real channels, “plumbing” in supply chains, and coast-guard-first crisis management.

Canada: Warm Optics, Hard Guardrails

Beijing’s late-October global message framed the meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney as a “turnaround,” invoking the “20th anniversary of the China–Canada strategic partnership” and saying both sides would “jointly advance” it.

Ottawa’s perspective was notably cooler, describing a pragmatic reset and workmanlike efforts to clear trade “irritants,” avoiding the “strategic partnership” language. The label itself is not new: Beijing has used it since the relationship was raised in 2005 under then-Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Chinese leader Hu Jintao, and Chinese statements this fall repeated that phrasing even as Ottawa sidestepped it. The nuance matters because markets and allies read signals carefully.

Beneath the rhetoric, the policy architecture points in one direction: tighter security and selective economic reopening. Canada’s May 2022 decision barred Huawei and ZTE from 5G networks and set removal deadlines—June 28, 2024, for 5G gear and end-2027 for legacy 4G—while pushing operators to halt procurement as of September 2022. It tightened controls on the essentials without triggering a full break.

Parliament also enacted the Countering Foreign Interference Act in June 2024. This measure created a Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability regime and strengthened authorities across the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Criminal Code. Read it alongside departmental briefing books, and you see a through-line: Ottawa is expanding legal and administrative tools even as it tests a trade thaw. The result is a diplomatic reset tailored with harder domestic guardrails.

That reading also answers a recent op-ed claim that Ottawa “declared” a strategic relationship amid hybrid threats. Beijing certainly emphasized the term. Ottawa did not. When we anchor to primary records—government documents and statements, as well as the statutes and telecom directives—the story is not capitulation but compartmentalization: warmer tone for markets and consular problem-solving, as well as firmer lines around critical tech and interference. That is the same pattern we see in Japan, Australia, and the Philippines.

Japan: Rearming Carefully, Walling Off the Crown-Jewel Tech

Tokyo’s 2022 National Security Strategy marked a generational shift: lift defense spending toward 2 percent of GDP by fiscal year 2027 and acquire counter-strike capacity, including Tomahawk land-attack missiles. Contracts signed in January 2024 locked in hundreds of Tomahawks to accelerate that capability, with public justifications tied to Chinese and North Korean missile trends. The politics are sensitive; the trajectory is clear.

President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi hold up signed documents for a critical minerals/rare-earth deal with Japan during a meeting at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, on Oct. 28, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

On technology, Japan tightened export licensing on 23 categories of advanced chip-making equipment in 2023—a surgical, globally aligned control that protects critical interests and technology, while keeping other trade lanes open. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s notices and subsequent white papers make explicit that these are Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Act (FEFTA)-based security controls aimed at high-risk transfers, not a halt to commerce. This is the template allies are gravitating toward. U.S. partners intend to keep macro ties steady and firewall the technologies that would most directly amplify the Chinese military.

The Philippines: Access for Crises, Evidence for Gray-Zone Pressure

Manila has expanded U.S. access under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), adding four sites in 2023: Naval Base Camilo Osias and Lal-lo Airport in Cagayan; Camp Melchor Dela Cruz in Isabela; and Balabac Island in Palawan. The decision has enabled strategic access to logistics, medevac, and refueling within hours rather than weeks. Filipino military leaders’ statements and site visits underline that the infrastructure partnership is for both external defense and disaster response.

All of this plays out amid coercion across the South China Sea. Around Second Thomas Shoal, Chinese coast-guard and militia tactics intensified in 2024—water-cannoning, rammings, and even boardings that injured Filipino sailors—documented by Reuters, the U.S. Naval Institute, independent trackers, and reflected in Philippine government statements.

Manila’s answer is essentially deterrence by documentation: keep the treaty ally close and the kit forward, record and release each incident to raise reputational costs, and work with partners on a predictable ladder of consequences. It is the operational guardrail our own research favors.

Australia: AUKUS for Capability, Trade Thaw for Stability

Canberra is doubling down on hard power under AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The March 2023 AUKUS agreement outlines a three-phase pathway for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines: first, a rotation of U.S. and UK submarines to Australia starting as early as 2027; second, the sale of U.S. Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the 2030s; and third, a U.S.–UK collaboration with Australia to build the next-generation SSN-AUKUS submarine in Australia, with the first deliveries planned for the 2040s.

The approach mirrors U.S. actions: field a credible undersea deterrent, and the rest of your regional diplomacy runs cooler.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump speak to reporters during a bilateral meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington on Oct. 20, 2025. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

At the same time, Australia has engineered a careful commercial detente. Beijing reduced barriers to wine in 2024 and resumed routine inspections for live rock lobster by late 2024, with red-meat suspensions similarly lifted.

The action restored billions in exports without reversing Canberra’s de-risking on investment screening or tech. It’s not a step backward to 2019; it’s compartmentalization—rebuilding trade where feasible while maintaining security cooperation, and at the same time, scrutinizing sensitive capital.

What Ties These Approaches Together?

This coalition isn’t sleepwalking. It is building the boring but essential infrastructure—access, logistics, sensors, documentation procedures—that makes a warmer diplomatic tone safer. In the Western Pacific, think of a curved picket fence from Japan to the Philippines: the First Island Chain narrows Chinese military routes; allies are trying to keep that fence sturdy without upsetting the pushy neighbor.

Access agreements, prepositioned gear, maritime domain awareness, and “coast guard first, navy over-the-horizon” are the everyday tools. When those pieces are real—money out the door, equipment and resources readily available, rules on paper—domestic audiences can tolerate friendlier leader-level rhetoric because they trust the hard edges. That was the Reagan formula; it is the only way any thaw in U.S.–China relations can be palatable.

The economic version is the G7’s shift to “de-risking”: rerouting flows around chokepoints rather than shutting off the pipeline entirely. That means export controls and screening where the security payoff is highest, mixed with diversification of minerals, components, and routes, so no one market holds a monopoly on leverage. It is less dramatic than decoupling but likelier to stick.

The Policy Test for Washington

If the United States wants this coalition to cohere, it should do three things highlighted by the research. Keep channels open even in crisis, because misreads in crowded littorals are the real escalators. Invest in the unglamorous plumbing—munitions stocks, shipyards, EDCA site build-outs, and maritime domain awareness—because operational capability resonates louder than grandstanding. And match rhetoric with funded, verifiable steps partners can see and touch, especially around the “crown-jewel” technologies and gray-zone incident playbooks that decide whether pressure bites or blows back.

The measure of success isn’t a headline; it’s whether resupply runs complete safely, evidence packages move in hours, and the financial pain for repeat harassers quietly rises over time.

Bottom line: Canada, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia are not hedging—they’re hardening smartly. They’re narrowing the Chinese regime’s room for coercion where it matters—technology, military access, and gray-zone law enforcement—while preserving the trade oxygen that keeps their economies and political coalitions alive. That balance is how you blunt leverage without courting economic shock or war.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Democrats continue to double down and pander to the woke demographic whenever they see an opportunity.  These gestures are usually designed to virtue signal and rarely have any significance in terms of political change, however, leftists don't necessarily pass laws or make declarations because a problem actually exists.  Rather, they do these things in order to encourage false perceptions within the populace.

In other words, equality has been a legal fact within the US for decades, but leftists want people to believe racism is a never-ending battle that requires their perpetual activism and government intervention.  The more they demand "equity", the more division and conflict they end up inciting. 

Democrat Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro insists that racism is an ongoing problem in his state and he has taken bold action to fight back by passing the "CROWN Act", a law which prohibits discrimination based on a person's hairstyle, type or texture.

CROWN, which stands for "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair", is clearly aimed at placating the black voting base for Democrats in PA and is unlikely to be applied to any other group. 

For example, black female managers wearing wigs and weaves and appropriating white women's hair styles will never be accused of racism, but a white manager at Taco Bell who fires a black worker for not wearing a hair net properly will probably face civil litigation for discrimination.  Woke laws are meant to create privileges and double standards, not equal protections.  As Shapiro notes:

"Real freedom means being respected for who you are - no matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love, or who you pray to...For too long, many Pennsylvanians have faced discrimination simply for hairstyles that reflect their identity and culture - that ends today..."

“This is going to help people by making sure that, wherever you work, or wherever you're applying for a job, they can't look at your hair and size you up - not based on your qualifications and all of the professional development you have and all of your education,” said PA House Speaker Joanna McClinton. “They will not look at your hair and decide you can't work here. They will not look at your hair and decide you don't belong in this C-suite. They will not look at your hair and say, ‘you can't be in the boardroom.’” 

U.S. Rep. La'Tasha D. Mayes, a West Philadelphia native who now represents parts of Pittsburgh, was the lead sponsor on the bill and said the fight will help improve lives across Pennsylvania.  "Hair discrimination has taken confidence from our children, but that ends today," Mayes said. "Hair discrimination has taken dignity from workers, but that ends today. It has taken access to economic opportunities, hopes and dreams, but that begins to end today."

First and foremost, no one has a constitutional right to be "respected" for who they are.  No one is entitled to protection from the personal judgments and scrutiny of others.  Respect is earned, not guaranteed. 

Second, there are no hair styles among black Americans that are race specific.  Every style activists claim as racial property for African descendants is present in the history of other ethnic cultures including whites.  For example, "dreadlocks" are found within the Minoan civilization (Greece) as early as 1600–1500 BCE.  Intricate braided styles were common among the ancient Germanic and Norse peoples.

Third, it is virtually impossible to determine if a person is being discriminated against because of their hair, unless an employer openly says "I won't hire you because of your hair".  Legislation like the CROWN Act can't be logically enforced.  Instead, the laws are meant to force employers to walk on eggshells around minority applicants and employees; to pressure companies into DEI hiring by making civil retribution easier.

The likelihood of any person facing discrimination at the workplace because of their hair is minimal.  Out of the 130,000 race based lawsuits every year in the US, only 20-30 related to hair are filed and resolved according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  A state like PA might not see a single case of actual discrimination based on hair for years to come.       

There is no epidemic of hair racism.  The passage of laws like the CROWN Act are intended to make the public think that such a problem exists when it is actually an oppression fantasy.    

Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,

I didn’t grow up with Thanksgiving. I grew up in Australia, a place that prides itself on being relaxed and irreverent, where national icons range from crocodile wrestlers to movie stars with casual, sun-soaked charisma.

Our culture is fun-loving and independent, summed up in the phrase, “she’ll be right, mate.” It means: don’t fuss, don’t interfere, everyone handles their own problems. It isn’t unkindness; it’s distance. You stay in your lane; others stay in theirs.

Thanksgiving wasn’t part of my world. What I grew up with was a steady, unquestioned criticism of Americans. In art school in Sydney, we were encouraged to enjoy American movies and brands while criticizing Americans as arrogant or self-important. It was such an accepted narrative that no one seemed to ask where it had even come from.

In 2010, when I told friends I was moving my young family to the United States, more than one warned me, almost nervously, “Be careful, you might become like an American.”

I didn’t know what they meant. Why would becoming like an American be a threat?

It wasn’t until years later—after researching the Chinese Communist Party’s global soft-power campaigns and the broader network of anti-American messaging pushed by modern ideological actors—that I understood how much of the world’s casual disdain for Americans had been cultivated.

If you can weaken the idea of America, you weaken the country. And much of the world has absorbed that message without ever meeting the people it is supposed to condemn.

But everything I had been taught about Americans dissolved as soon as I arrived in New York.

My first weeks in Manhattan were exhilaratingly loud, fast, and disorienting, as one would expect. I carried a huge paper map (this was before smartphones with a built-in GPS were universal), turning it around helplessly at street corners. And every single time, someone stopped. “Where do you need to go?” They weren’t looking for conversation. They were already halfway down the block before I finished saying thank you. But they couldn’t walk past someone who clearly needed help.

The impact was even stronger for me when I returned for the next visit with my infant son. He was 11 months old and still in a stroller. Whenever I reached the top or bottom of a long subway staircase with no elevator in sight, juggling bags and a baby, someone always stepped in without hesitation. Every time. Not once did I even ask.

The contrast with Sydney was stark. I remembered navigating the city’s financial district with a stroller and heavy bags, standing at the foot of steep train-station steps as people streamed past. Not a single person stopped, even when I tried to meet someone’s eye, hoping for help. Australians are good people, but the cultural default is: you’ll figure it out. It’s not cruelty. Just a belief that everyone should manage their own load.

Americans, by contrast, have a reflexive generosity that is hard to describe until you experience it. Not chatty, not sentimental, just instinctive help, given without ceremony.

I saw the cultural difference again when my children entered New York’s public schools. The system was far from perfect even back then, but I remember walking the hallway and seeing a poster of U.S. presidents listing not their successes but their failures. The message was simple: failure is part of the journey. Everyone falls before they rise. I remember thinking: This is what I want my children to learn. I took a quick photo of that poster and shared it with Australian friends as one of many examples of positive American life. I’ve kept that image till this day.

Courtesy of Kay Rubacek

In Australia, we have “tall poppy syndrome,” where anyone who stands out too much is cut down. Don’t shine too brightly. Don’t be too confident. America, for all its imperfections, teaches something different: resilience, optimism, and the belief that effort matters more than embarrassment.

What surprised me most, though, was how naturally Americans practice gratitude. I didn’t understand its cultural weight until Thanksgiving.

Growing up, Christmas was my favorite holiday, but after coming to America, Thanksgiving very soon became the day I loved most. There is no pressure to buy gifts; no commercial frenzy. Just a meal, some company, and the simple act of acknowledging what is good.

It took me time to recognize how rare this is. Most nations unify through ancestry, monarchy, grievance, or shared struggle. America unifies through something else entirely: a civic ritual of gratitude. Gratitude is not just a personal virtue here—it is part of the national identity. And that identity, I’ve come to believe, is one of America’s greatest strengths.

As I traveled through more than half the states, I saw enormous diversity—cultural, political, economic—but also a consistent thread of generosity and warmth. Americans can be insulated from the geopolitical hostility that targets their nation, and that may be quite a good thing. Many don’t realize how deeply anti-American narratives have been embedded worldwide. But on the ground (and leaving political divides aside), I have encountered more kindness here than in any other country I’ve ever lived in or visited.

I didn’t move to the United States expecting to stay permanently. I didn’t know what kind of life it would offer my children. But slowly, through these everyday experiences, I began to see what makes America truly different. And Thanksgiving embodies it.

It is not about the Pilgrims, or food, or travel logistics. It is the annual reminder that American identity is built on gratitude: gratitude for freedom, for opportunity, for community, and for the chance to begin again. It asks for nothing but humility. It invites everyone, regardless of background, into a shared moment of thanks.

As an immigrant, that matters deeply to me. Gratitude softens division; it tempers cynicism. It reminds us that liberty is not automatic. And it teaches children—my children—that life’s value isn’t measured only by achievement but by appreciation.

Fifteen years ago, I came to the United States, unsure of how long we would stay. Today, when I sit at a Thanksgiving table, I understand something that I never saw from a distance: gratitude is the strong force that holds this country together. It is what makes America generous. It is what makes America resilient. And it is what makes America home.

I didn’t come to America for Thanksgiving. But Thanksgiving is one of the reasons I stayed.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

Just recently, the Bondi DOJ filed an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez.

But, gun owners are still rightfully furious with the Department of Justice and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, for defending federal gun registration.

So while GOA wholeheartedly supports the DOJ's filing in Wolford, that pro-gun brief stands in stark contrast to another anti-gun brief filed just days ago, in GOA's case against the National Firearms Act, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.

Today, @TheJusticeDept took decisive action to protect the Second Amendment by filing a brief in the Supreme Court challenging a Hawaii state law that effectively bans public carry. As our brief states, “Hawaii’s law plainly violates the Second Amendment.”

It’s not just Hawaii…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) November 24, 2025

And this...

In the past week @AGPamBondi & @TheJusticeDept have:

- Supported national gun registration
- Demonized machineguns
- Called guns "weapons of war"
- Expanded government power over 2A
- Said SBRs are for criminals

Filing this brief is great—these other actions are unacceptable. https://t.co/0TxdxIWVDD

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 24, 2025

For those unfamiliar, Gun Owners of America filed a lawsuit against the ATF after the signing of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on July 4th.

The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" zeroed out the tax on many items regulated by the National Firearms Act, including Silencers, AOWs, and short-barreled firearms.

But the NFA's registration requirements remain. That's because the ATF previously needed to keep records of who paid the NFA tax for any given firearm. Now that a $0 tax is not a tax at all, we're arguing that the registration requirements for these items should be thrown out as unconstitutional and unnecessary. After all, can the federal government really throw you in jail for not paying a $0 tax on a firearm? 

Unfortunately, Pam Bondi's Justice Department has decided to oppose us in our fight against one of the worst acts of gun control in American history. 

To make matters worse, the DOJ did so by using the same language as anti-gun groups like Everytown and Brady and at one point, even referring to these types of firearms as "weapons of war" a phrase exclusively used by anti-gun politicians. 

Channeling @bradybuzz and @Everytown hysteria,@AGPamBondi argues that short-barreled rifles and shotguns are "weapons of war."

You know... precisely the sort of weapons the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect. https://t.co/MNxLglG0ZX pic.twitter.com/cFNW833YJb

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 21, 2025

The brief from Bondi's DOJ in our suit is indistinguishable from any brief filed by the Biden Department of Justice under Merrick Garland. 

And the most egregious part? They don't have to do this.

In Washington, DC, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has decided not to enforce DC's ban on "high-capacity magazines," arguing that "it is the United States's position that [DC's magazine ban] is unconstitutional."

This DOJ spokesman is WRONG. Congress & the NFA cannot override the Constitution & Second Amendment. @USAttyPirro is refusing to enforce D.C.’s unconstitutional magazine ban & rifle/shotgun carry ban. @theJusticeDept should do the same with the NFA. https://t.co/utT3Ja7KrQ pic.twitter.com/DoQ0OekoQT

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 22, 2025

And back when Texas sued the first Trump Administration after Congress reduced the Obamacare penalty to $0, the DOJ also declined to defend the law—instead joining Texas' side in court.

Why couldn't Pam Bondi's DOJ decide not to defend the National Firearms Act? She could—and that's why gun owners are so upset. Pam Bondi and the DOJ made the conscious decision to defend federal gun registration.

When Pam Bondi was selected as Attorney General, Gun Owners of America sounded the alarm. We warned that she was responsible for pushing gun control in Florida, and there was a chance that she would not take a hard stand for the Second Amendment. 

As it stands, we were correct. 

This isn't new either. Since Pam Bondi was made Attorney General, the Department of Justice has been fighting against GOA, preventing us from securing judgments in our cases against Biden administration policy, which would, in turn, keep gun owners safe from future infringements. 

Instead, the Department of Justice has attempted to moot our cases, arguing that there's no basis for thinking that ATF will return to their past behavior.

??@TheJusticeDept told the court today:

"I don't think there is ANY BASIS for believing that the conduct @GunOwners are challenging is going to occur, and certainly not in the foreseeable future."

Do you trust @ATFHQ won't infringe on our 2nd Amendment again in the future? https://t.co/0hX1Kt4JHB pic.twitter.com/j80Z5c8A0H

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 27, 2025

And while the DOJ has certainly worked towards some pro-gun policy, these moves by the DOJ against the Second Amendment and against gun owners fly in the face of what President Trump promised to gun owners during his campaign, and in his pro-gun executive order. 

Gun Owners of America is asking our members to call the White House. Please urge President Trump to force Pam Bondi and the Justice Department to stop fighting GOA and instead to work with us to overturn gun control and restore the Second Amendment. 

In the past five years the institutional discussions surrounding climate change have shifted noticeably from "net zero" goals (zero net carbon emissions from target countries) to a more mercenary debate over carbon taxation.  The question on everyone's mind is this:  Who gets the most access to those delicious climate funds?

Who gets access to the cash is less important than who gets to manage the cash, but we'll get to that issue in a moment.

The recent COP30 event held last week in Brazil was largely focused on wealth redistribution with a lesser emphasis on carbon reductions.  Climate "financing" is the name of the game, and COP30 was largely a squabble over which countries will get the most access to the various carbon taxes and donations collected by global intermediaries.  In fact, the conference was largely considered a failure.  From The Guardian:

"The sticking point was fossil fuels. As science has told us for well over a century, the carbon dioxide that burning them produces is heating up the planet, now to dangerous levels.  But in more than 30 years of annual climate meetings, the need for that to halt has been mentioned only once..."

"...Meanwhile, developing countries desperately wanted to move forward on securing the money that would help them cope with the already disastrous impacts of extreme weather.  By the early hours of Saturday, some delegates were ready to walk out and force a collapse. “It was on the edge for us,” said Ed Miliband, the UK energy minister. “I was prepared to walk away.”"

The meaninglessness of the climate apparatus becomes evident at these kinds of events; flush with thousands of bureaucrats who serve no purpose, clamoring for money that is essentially stolen in the name of a crisis that doesn't exist. 

At COP30, developing countries secured a tripling to $120bn of annual finance to help them adapt to the impacts of extreme weather, but that sum will not be delivered in full until 2035.

Developing nations have already garnered billions in climate financing.  India, for example, receives around $30 billion annually in climate funding which is meant to help third-world countries reduce their reliance on oil and coal while developing "green tech."  The dramatic inefficiency of green energy aside, it's unlikely that much of this financing is actually going into improving carbon emissions in India or anywhere else. 

The biggest beneficiaries are NGOs and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) working closely with the World Bank.  These organizations collect the carbon funds and then redistribute that money according to their own guidelines.  Carbon taxes also represent a fresh revenues source for various governments in the first-world, with some of this money being transferred to intermediaries in the name of "Climate Reparations."   

The woke vernacular of the climate agenda is no coincidence.  Calls for reparation, equity and "climate justice" reveal the globalist/socialist roots of the global warming scam.  Environmental groups were quick to promote wealth redistribution in the name of imaginary climate crimes and "colonialism".  COP30 partially adopted this language by supporting the Belém Package - An agreement to integrate "equity" into climate financing decisions. 

"There can be no true climate justice without reparatory justice," say climate activist groups in a letter sent to COP30. 

"The climate crisis did not arise recently — it is a continuation of centuries of greenhouse emissions, extraction, dispossession, and racial violence," the letter said, urging COP30 to address historical injustices and the need for reparations as part of any negotiation on climate.

The melding of woke activism and climate hysteria is part of a larger progressive cultism that, until recently, has been infecting global politics like a plague.  There are obviously millions of true believers when it comes to global warming doom, just as there were millions of people that embraced the pandemic hysteria of covid.  However, the main thrust of climate governance is still mostly about cold hard cash.  

There is, of course, no science that supports the claim of a causation relationship between man-made carbon emissions and global warming.  As we have noted many times in the past, climate scientists rely on a tiny 140 year window of temperature data to defend their claims.  If we look at a much larger window of hundreds of millions of years, the temperatures today are actually some of the coldest ever recorded.  

Furthermore, when comparing atmospheric carbon content data over the same timeline, it is undeniable that carbon emissions have no relation to planetary temps.  They simply do not match up.

Climate scientists dishonestly ignore this data in preference of a 140 year model; a meaningless timeline which offers no insight into why the Earth warms or cools and when it might do so in the future.  They insist on the assumption that carbon "pollution" created by human industry is the cause of current warming and then adjust their models to support this assumption.  It's not science, it's the opposite, but there's a lot of money to be made by perpetuating the lie.   

Leftist Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota should be investigating the claims of a sprawling welfare-fraud network tied to the state's Somali community - schemes that reportedly funneled taxpayer dollars overseas, including at least one terrorist group. Instead, her office's social media team attempted, one day before Thanksgiving, to launch a propaganda campaign on affordability on X that backfired spectacularly, culminating in a humiliating Community Note that exposed her sheer cluelessness. 

Klobuchar's X post attempted to blame the entire power bill crisis on President Trump, with a graphic showing a parabolic line rising to the right that would alarm anyone.

"Under President Trump, electricity prices are surging — up 11%! — leaving millions behind on their utility bills, with past-due balances at an all-time high," Klobuchar wrote on X, adding, "American families deserve better."

The Community Note read, "Joe Biden was President from January 20, 2021 - January 20, 2025. Also, this chart is not representing the cost of electricity. It is showing the average past-due balances of Americans, which soared since 2022 under Joe Biden's presidency."

However, many X users quickly called out her malarkey. One user, who writes for Townhall, doctored the chart to show the power bill crisis's blame actually lies with former President Biden rather than President Trump.

You really thought you were doing something here, didn’t you? pic.twitter.com/oxKyb6U0wA

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) November 26, 2025

Kyle Bass, founder and chief investment officer of Hayman Capital Management, pointed out that the entire post mirrors the same blunder the Democratic Party made with grocery prices propaganda earlier this year on X - what an epic screw up that was.

Do you understand what you are showing here? It’s identical to grocery prices. ?? pic.twitter.com/8PpfJSniUX

— ???? Kyle Bass ???? (@Jkylebass) November 26, 2025

X users respond:

Really thought you had something here, huh?

— Tony Kinnett (@TheTonus) November 26, 2025

You just showed that bills soared with Biden. You are welcome

— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) November 27, 2025

Who the heck was president from 2022 to 2024?

Because that person obviously did a lot of damage

— Pro America Politics (@Pro__Trading) November 27, 2025

LMAO Klobuchar shows America how big of a failure Biden was

— Cash Loren (@Cashloren) November 27, 2025

For those keeping track: pic.twitter.com/tEAkCtC0LW

— Mark Johnsen (@markjohnsen) November 27, 2025

Perhaps the Democratic Party should keep hiring DEI strategists from woke universities that teach more about Marxist gender ideology than actual statistics or basic chart reading.