Solomon Bunker 🇺🇸🦅

No dooming. America will be AI DOMINANT! Whoever wins AI, WINS! 🇺🇸

Bill Maher SLAPS AROUND the artist that PULLED out of the Freedom 250 Concert: “They all pulled out. This is a question of what looks best for the Democrats because I don’t think that looks good. It looks like you are just what people say about you: you don’t really love America. It looks like you think that Trump is more important than the country itself.” “Now it’s just a big MAGA rally… because they all pulled out.” “Wouldn’t it have been better to play this gig?… Just celebrating America. Can’t we all just celebrate America itself and leave Trump out of it?”

This “merge” narrative is a hyperbolic misrepresentation. It’s a proposal that aims to expand joint research, development, testing, production and the co-manufacturing of weapons & technology, all of whose elements are already in place and have been for decades.

Unfortunately, we live in a dangerous world and our enemies are relentless. America needs innovation partners - like Israel - who help keep us safe and give us, and our troops, every possible advantage. Section 224 of the NDAA strengthens a partnership that strengthens America.

This video should unsettle anyone who takes the United States seriously as a nation. Because it exposes something dangerous: the trivialization of the world's most consequential office. It shows how carelessly the power, credibility, and accumulated moral authority of a superpower can be squandered for a few seconds of viral attention. In any other major democracy, this behavior from a head of state would trigger a constitutional crisis. Paris would burn. Berlin would convene emergency sessions. In the Nordic countries, resignation would follow within hours. Across functioning democracies, the public, institutions, and political class would recognize this for what it is: an assault on the dignity of the state itself. Leaders are not free to perform as entertainers without consequence. National honor is not personal property, it's held in trust. But the United States is not just another country with a provocateur in charge. It is the linchpin of global order. It maintains formal alliances and security guarantees with forty to fifty nations. It underwrites the financial architecture, trade systems, and diplomatic frameworks that billions of people depend on daily. When the American president speaks—or posts—it doesn't land as satire, meme, or personal whim. It reads as a signal about what the country is becoming. American power has never relied solely on carrier strike groups or economic output. It has rested on something more fragile and more valuable: trust. The belief that beneath domestic turbulence lies institutional seriousness, predictability, and a baseline commitment to dignity. That belief is now disintegrating in real time. Millions of American companies operate globally. They negotiate multibillion-dollar contracts in environments where reputation is currency. Boardrooms in Frankfurt, Singapore, and Dubai aren't debating whether a post was clever—they're asking whether the United States remains a reliable partner. Whether agreements signed today will be honored tomorrow. Whether American leadership has devolved from institutional to purely theatrical. Consider tourism, which sustains millions of American jobs—airlines, hotels, restaurants, museums, entire regional economies. Soft power isn't an abstraction. It materializes in flight bookings, conference locations, study-abroad programs, and decades of accumulated goodwill. A quiet, decentralized boycott doesn't require government action—only a collective sense that a nation no longer respects itself. Now picture this image being studied by foreign ministers, central bank governors, defense strategists, and sovereign wealth fund managers. Picture them asking a coldly rational question: How do we write binding thirty-year agreements with a country whose public face will be this, relentlessly, for years to come? How do we plan for the long term when the tone is impulsive, mocking, and unbound by the gravity of office? This is where the real calculus begins. Trillions in foreign capital depend on confidence that America is stable, credible, and rule-governed. That confidence is now being traded for what, exactly? Applause from an online mob? A dopamine rush from manufactured outrage? Content designed to dominate the news cycle rather than serve the national interest? Every serious nation eventually confronts this choice: burn long-term credibility for short-term spectacle, or safeguard the reputation previous generations bled to build. The United States spent eighty years constructing an image of reliability, restraint, and leadership under pressure. That image wasn't born from perfection—it came from a visible commitment to standards that transcended impulse. This isn't a partisan issue. Europeans who value democratic norms recognize something ominously familiar here. Americans—Democrat and Republican alike—who believe in responsibility and restraint should see it too. Power attracts scrutiny. Leadership demands discipline. A superpower cannot behave like a reality TV contestant without paying a price. The presidency is not a personal broadcast channel. It's a symbol carried on behalf of 330 million people and countless international partners who never voted but whose lives are shaped by American decisions anyway. Every post either reinforces or erodes the idea that America can be counted on when it matters most. So the question is no longer whether this is offensive. The question is whether this is who America chooses to be: a nation that trades a century of hard-won reputation for viral moments. A country that replaces statecraft with content creation. A republic governed like a season of reality television. History offers a harsh lesson here. Great powers don't fall because enemies mock them. They collapse when they begin mocking themselves—publicly, proudly, and without grasping the cost until it's far too late. Stay connected, Follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

Hey @HiltonHotels — why did your team in Minneapolis cancel our federal law enforcement officer and agents' reservations?

Update on our Epstein files review: DOJ lawyers from Main Justice, FBI, SDFL, and SDNY are working around the clock through the holidays, including Christmas and New Years, to review documents in compliance with federal law. It truly is an all-hands-on-deck approach and we're asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain. Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released. The Attorney General’s and this Administration’s goal is simple: transparency and protecting victims.

The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the FBI have informed the Department of Justice that they have uncovered over a million more documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The DOJ has received these documents from SDNY and the FBI to review them for release, in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, existing statutes, and judicial orders. We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible. Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks. The Department will continue to fully comply with federal law and President Trump’s direction to release the files.

President Trump ordered action — and the Department of War is delivering. Today, I’m announcing Operation SOUTHERN SPEAR. Led by Joint Task Force Southern Spear and @SOUTHCOM, this mission defends our Homeland, removes narco-terrorists from our Hemisphere, and secures our Homeland from the drugs that are killing our people. The Western Hemisphere is America’s neighborhood – and we will protect it.

The person who wants cancel culture is Tucker. He has explicitly said he wants Christian Zionists eradicated from the movement. He has suggested Jewish Trump supporters are not loyal to America. He could have easily said his views without saying that. If we all want what’s best for America, why is he so hostile to those who don’t share all of his views? Tucker isn’t as pro-free speech as he says he is.