This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🚨 JUST IN: @NickShirleyy says “THERE’S A LOT MORE SOMALI FRAUD TO BE EXPOSED” after his latest bombshell REPORT on Minnesota’s so-called “TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES” 🚨
“It feels like it’s all sort of almost like a big community that is trying to HIDE from the fraud” 🔥
“89% of the fraud that’s happening inside Minnesota is from the Somalians” 💣🔥
“If you make a phone call to any of these locations, just going to the addresses, there was not anyone there… There were not even signs. There were apartment buildings” 🤯
“It feels like it’s all sort of almost like a big community that is trying to HIDE from the fraud” 🔥
“89% of the fraud that’s happening inside Minnesota is from the Somalians” 💣🔥
“If you make a phone call to any of these locations, just going to the addresses, there was not anyone there… There were not even signs. There were apartment buildings” 🤯
🤬37❤6
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🚨 HOLY CRAP! FIGHTS broke out as Minnesota students staged a "walk out" to protest against ICE arresting illegals
Somalis were heavily involved in the fighting
Minneapolis-St. Paul is a 3rd world freaking country right now!
Somalis were heavily involved in the fighting
Minneapolis-St. Paul is a 3rd world freaking country right now!
💩67🤯10🔥6❤2👍2😁1😢1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
What a joke....🤣🤣 just 30 troops.
🤣60❤4😁3👍1
HORROR: Minnesota Daycare Worker with History of “Erratic Behavior” Toward Children Murders Baby Boy and Tries to Strangle Another Infant to Death
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/horror-minnesota-daycare-murders-baby-boy-tries-strangle/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/horror-minnesota-daycare-murders-baby-boy-tries-strangle/
The Gateway Pundit
HORROR: Minnesota Daycare Worker with History of "Erratic Behavior" Toward Children Murders Baby Boy and Tries to Strangle Another…
A daycare worker murdered a baby boy and tried to strangle another infant to death at the Rocking Horse Ranch daycare facility in Savage, Minnesota.
🤬61💩12👍2🔥2
Greenland: A Strategic Crossroads for the Future
As the world changes rapidly, certain places are becoming more important than ever. Greenland is one of them.
Positioned at the gateway between North America, Europe, and the Arctic, Greenland sits along emerging shipping routes, critical defense corridors, and some of the planet’s most promising untapped natural resources. Its geographic location alone makes it a cornerstone of future global stability.
But geography is only part of the story.
Beneath Greenland’s ice lie significant reserves of rare earth elements, strategic minerals, and energy resources. These materials are essential to modern life:
smartphones, renewable energy technologies, medical equipment, satellites, and national infrastructure all depend on them. As demand grows, access to reliable and ethically managed supply chains becomes one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
At the same time, global production of many of these critical resources has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few powerful nations. This concentration creates economic vulnerabilities and geopolitical tensions. Diversifying supply through regions like Greenland offers an opportunity to promote stability, transparency, and long-term resilience in the global system.
This is not simply about economics. It is about:
Strengthening global cooperation
Reducing dependency on fragile supply chains
Supporting technological progress
Ensuring that development happens responsibly and sustainably
Handled thoughtfully, Greenland’s future could represent a model for balancing environmental stewardship, economic opportunity, and international partnership.
The choices made today about regions like Greenland will shape the security, prosperity, and technological progress of generations to come.
As the world changes rapidly, certain places are becoming more important than ever. Greenland is one of them.
Positioned at the gateway between North America, Europe, and the Arctic, Greenland sits along emerging shipping routes, critical defense corridors, and some of the planet’s most promising untapped natural resources. Its geographic location alone makes it a cornerstone of future global stability.
But geography is only part of the story.
Beneath Greenland’s ice lie significant reserves of rare earth elements, strategic minerals, and energy resources. These materials are essential to modern life:
smartphones, renewable energy technologies, medical equipment, satellites, and national infrastructure all depend on them. As demand grows, access to reliable and ethically managed supply chains becomes one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
At the same time, global production of many of these critical resources has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few powerful nations. This concentration creates economic vulnerabilities and geopolitical tensions. Diversifying supply through regions like Greenland offers an opportunity to promote stability, transparency, and long-term resilience in the global system.
This is not simply about economics. It is about:
Strengthening global cooperation
Reducing dependency on fragile supply chains
Supporting technological progress
Ensuring that development happens responsibly and sustainably
Handled thoughtfully, Greenland’s future could represent a model for balancing environmental stewardship, economic opportunity, and international partnership.
The choices made today about regions like Greenland will shape the security, prosperity, and technological progress of generations to come.
❤21🔥10🥱3
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: New World Order with China GFY...
USA TIME TO TAKEOVER CANADA
20 Potential Impacts on the United States
Divergence in tariff policy on Chinese EVs — Canada reducing its EV tariff from 100% to 6.1% breaks alignment with U.S. restrictions, complicating coordinated North American approaches to Chinese subsidies.
Increased competition for U.S. automakers — Up to 49,000 low-tariff Chinese EVs entering Canada annually could pressure pricing and market share for U.S.-built vehicles in the integrated North American market.
Risk to auto sector jobs — Potential shifts in investment or production within shared USMCA supply chains could affect U.S. manufacturing jobs, particularly in border states like Michigan.
U.S. national security concerns — U.S. officials have called the EV quota "problematic," citing risks of Chinese-made vehicles with connected technology near the shared border.
Strain on USMCA review negotiations — The deals signal Canada's trade diversification, potentially weakening U.S. leverage in ongoing or future trilateral trade talks.
Potential indirect market access for Chinese EVs — Though U.S. borders block direct entry, supply chain integration raises long-term risks of Chinese components influencing U.S. vehicles.
Reduced Canadian economic dependence on U.S. — Aiming for 50% export growth to China by 2030 diminishes U.S. bargaining power in bilateral relations.
Possible U.S. retaliatory measures — Reports indicate U.S. threats of countermeasures against Canadian goods if Chinese EVs are seen as circumventing U.S. tariffs.
Competition in clean energy technologies — Expanded Canada-China cooperation in batteries, solar, wind, and storage could challenge U.S. dominance in these sectors.
Diversion of Canadian energy exports — Plans to scale LNG exports to Asia (targeting 50 million tonnes by 2030) may redirect resources away from U.S. markets.
Impacts on critical minerals supply — Encouraged Chinese investment in Canada's EV and battery sectors could affect secure supply chains relied upon by U.S. industry.
Geopolitical wedge in U.S.-Canada alliance — Analysts note the deals exploit U.S.-Canada tensions, potentially eroding unified Western stances on China.
Agricultural market displacement — Canada's regained access to China's canola and seafood markets (~$3-4 billion value) could indirectly reduce demand for similar U.S. exports.
Broader trade barrier reductions — Removal of Chinese tariffs on Canadian agri-products sets precedents that might pressure U.S. to adjust its own China trade policies.
Enhanced Chinese influence in North America — New MOUs on energy and investment provide avenues for greater Chinese economic presence near the U.S. border.
Complications for U.S. decoupling strategy — Canada's pragmatic engagement contrasts with U.S. efforts to decouple from China in strategic sectors.
Financial dialogue implications — Revived Canada-China financial working groups (e.g., on capital flows, stability) could influence regional monetary dynamics affecting the U.S.
Tourism and cultural exchange effects — Promoted Chinese tourism to Canada (including visa facilitation) may shift visitor spending patterns with spillover economic effects.
Public safety cooperation risks — Joint efforts on narcotics and crime, while beneficial, raise U.S. concerns about information sharing with China.
USA TIME TO TAKEOVER CANADA
20 Potential Impacts on the United States
Divergence in tariff policy on Chinese EVs — Canada reducing its EV tariff from 100% to 6.1% breaks alignment with U.S. restrictions, complicating coordinated North American approaches to Chinese subsidies.
Increased competition for U.S. automakers — Up to 49,000 low-tariff Chinese EVs entering Canada annually could pressure pricing and market share for U.S.-built vehicles in the integrated North American market.
Risk to auto sector jobs — Potential shifts in investment or production within shared USMCA supply chains could affect U.S. manufacturing jobs, particularly in border states like Michigan.
U.S. national security concerns — U.S. officials have called the EV quota "problematic," citing risks of Chinese-made vehicles with connected technology near the shared border.
Strain on USMCA review negotiations — The deals signal Canada's trade diversification, potentially weakening U.S. leverage in ongoing or future trilateral trade talks.
Potential indirect market access for Chinese EVs — Though U.S. borders block direct entry, supply chain integration raises long-term risks of Chinese components influencing U.S. vehicles.
Reduced Canadian economic dependence on U.S. — Aiming for 50% export growth to China by 2030 diminishes U.S. bargaining power in bilateral relations.
Possible U.S. retaliatory measures — Reports indicate U.S. threats of countermeasures against Canadian goods if Chinese EVs are seen as circumventing U.S. tariffs.
Competition in clean energy technologies — Expanded Canada-China cooperation in batteries, solar, wind, and storage could challenge U.S. dominance in these sectors.
Diversion of Canadian energy exports — Plans to scale LNG exports to Asia (targeting 50 million tonnes by 2030) may redirect resources away from U.S. markets.
Impacts on critical minerals supply — Encouraged Chinese investment in Canada's EV and battery sectors could affect secure supply chains relied upon by U.S. industry.
Geopolitical wedge in U.S.-Canada alliance — Analysts note the deals exploit U.S.-Canada tensions, potentially eroding unified Western stances on China.
Agricultural market displacement — Canada's regained access to China's canola and seafood markets (~$3-4 billion value) could indirectly reduce demand for similar U.S. exports.
Broader trade barrier reductions — Removal of Chinese tariffs on Canadian agri-products sets precedents that might pressure U.S. to adjust its own China trade policies.
Enhanced Chinese influence in North America — New MOUs on energy and investment provide avenues for greater Chinese economic presence near the U.S. border.
Complications for U.S. decoupling strategy — Canada's pragmatic engagement contrasts with U.S. efforts to decouple from China in strategic sectors.
Financial dialogue implications — Revived Canada-China financial working groups (e.g., on capital flows, stability) could influence regional monetary dynamics affecting the U.S.
Tourism and cultural exchange effects — Promoted Chinese tourism to Canada (including visa facilitation) may shift visitor spending patterns with spillover economic effects.
Public safety cooperation risks — Joint efforts on narcotics and crime, while beneficial, raise U.S. concerns about information sharing with China.
🔥17❤8🤯8
Inflation dropping like a stone.
Powell Fed is late again. Another mistake.
Powell Fed is late again. Another mistake.
💯37👎4❤1
NATO: Funding Realities and Hypothetical Impact of U.S. Withdrawal and Funding Cutoff
NATO's direct common funding is relatively modest compared to the massive national defense budgets of its members. For 2026:
Civil budget: €528.2 million.
Military budget: €2.42 billion.
Total common-funded budgets: Approximately €2.95–3 billion (around $3.2–3.5 billion USD).
Contributions to these common budgets are based on a GDP-based formula, with the U.S. share consistently around 16% in recent years (not the often-misstated higher figures related to total allied spending). This means the U.S. direct contribution is roughly $500–550 million annually for shared costs like headquarters operations, joint commands, and some infrastructure.
The bulk of NATO's strength comes from national defense spending (total allied ~$1.3–1.5 trillion annually), where the U.S. accounts for about 68–70% due to its large military. The 2% GDP guideline (now moving toward higher pledges like 5% in some discussions) is national, not common-funded.
If the U.S. withdraws (requiring 1-year notice under Article 13) and stops all funding:
The $500–550 million hole in common budgets is manageable. Remaining members (combined GDP larger than the U.S. in some metrics) could reallocate shares or increase contributions within months. Historical precedent: When members fall short, NATO adjusts via diplomatic agreements.
No immediate "crumbling" from funding alone. The common budgets represent <0.3% of total allied defense spending—losing 16% would require cuts (e.g., delayed programs), but operations could continue with adjustments in 1–2 years.
The real crisis is operational/strategic: Loss of U.S. forces, intelligence, logistics, nuclear umbrella, and command roles would severely weaken deterrence, especially against Russia. Expert analyses (e.g., RAND, Atlantic Council, Cato Institute) suggest Europe could ramp up spending and cooperation, but gaps in airlift, ISR, and high-end capabilities would persist for 5–10+ years. Some argue a "stronger Europe" could emerge long-term, but short-term vulnerability is high.
Timeline for "crumbling" (defined as dissolution or ineffectiveness): Unlikely in under a decade. NATO could persist as a reduced European alliance (similar to post-Cold War debates). Full collapse would require multiple members to follow suit—probable weakening over 3–7 years, not rapid funding-driven failure.
UN: Funding Realities and Hypothetical Impact of U.S. Funding Cutoff + Headquarters Expulsion
The UN has two main assessed budgets:
Regular budget (2026): $3.45 billion—for core operations, staff, etc.
Peacekeeping budget (separate, FY 2025–26 scale): ~$5.4–6 billion.
U.S. assessed contributions:
Regular: 22% (capped rate for largest economy)—about $759 million for 2026.
Peacekeeping: Higher scale (~25–28%)—roughly $1.5–1.7 billion annually.
Total assessed: ~$2–2.5 billion/year, plus voluntary contributions (variable, often billions more historically).
The UN Headquarters in New York operates under a 1947 Host Country Agreement with the U.S., which could be terminated with notice, forcing relocation.
If the U.S. stops all funding and expels the HQ:
Immediate impact: Loss of ~22% regular + ~27% peacekeeping funding creates a severe liquidity crisis. The UN has faced this before—e.g., 1980s–1990s U.S. arrears peaked at over $1–2 billion, leading to borrowing from peacekeeping funds, delayed payments, hiring freezes, and program cuts. In 1990s–2000s crises, the UN survived multi-year shortfalls by prioritizing essentials and pressuring other payers.
Reserves and adjustments: The UN holds working capital (~$200–300 million) and can borrow internally. Other members (China ~15–18%, Japan, Germany, EU collectively) could increase voluntary/assessed shares over time. Historical examples show recovery: U.S. paid down arrears in phases (e.g., 2000s Helms-Biden deal).
HQ expulsion: Disruptive (costly relocation to Geneva/Vienna/Nairobi possible; past contingencies exist).
WE DONT NEED THEM, THEY NEED US.
NATO's direct common funding is relatively modest compared to the massive national defense budgets of its members. For 2026:
Civil budget: €528.2 million.
Military budget: €2.42 billion.
Total common-funded budgets: Approximately €2.95–3 billion (around $3.2–3.5 billion USD).
Contributions to these common budgets are based on a GDP-based formula, with the U.S. share consistently around 16% in recent years (not the often-misstated higher figures related to total allied spending). This means the U.S. direct contribution is roughly $500–550 million annually for shared costs like headquarters operations, joint commands, and some infrastructure.
The bulk of NATO's strength comes from national defense spending (total allied ~$1.3–1.5 trillion annually), where the U.S. accounts for about 68–70% due to its large military. The 2% GDP guideline (now moving toward higher pledges like 5% in some discussions) is national, not common-funded.
If the U.S. withdraws (requiring 1-year notice under Article 13) and stops all funding:
The $500–550 million hole in common budgets is manageable. Remaining members (combined GDP larger than the U.S. in some metrics) could reallocate shares or increase contributions within months. Historical precedent: When members fall short, NATO adjusts via diplomatic agreements.
No immediate "crumbling" from funding alone. The common budgets represent <0.3% of total allied defense spending—losing 16% would require cuts (e.g., delayed programs), but operations could continue with adjustments in 1–2 years.
The real crisis is operational/strategic: Loss of U.S. forces, intelligence, logistics, nuclear umbrella, and command roles would severely weaken deterrence, especially against Russia. Expert analyses (e.g., RAND, Atlantic Council, Cato Institute) suggest Europe could ramp up spending and cooperation, but gaps in airlift, ISR, and high-end capabilities would persist for 5–10+ years. Some argue a "stronger Europe" could emerge long-term, but short-term vulnerability is high.
Timeline for "crumbling" (defined as dissolution or ineffectiveness): Unlikely in under a decade. NATO could persist as a reduced European alliance (similar to post-Cold War debates). Full collapse would require multiple members to follow suit—probable weakening over 3–7 years, not rapid funding-driven failure.
UN: Funding Realities and Hypothetical Impact of U.S. Funding Cutoff + Headquarters Expulsion
The UN has two main assessed budgets:
Regular budget (2026): $3.45 billion—for core operations, staff, etc.
Peacekeeping budget (separate, FY 2025–26 scale): ~$5.4–6 billion.
U.S. assessed contributions:
Regular: 22% (capped rate for largest economy)—about $759 million for 2026.
Peacekeeping: Higher scale (~25–28%)—roughly $1.5–1.7 billion annually.
Total assessed: ~$2–2.5 billion/year, plus voluntary contributions (variable, often billions more historically).
The UN Headquarters in New York operates under a 1947 Host Country Agreement with the U.S., which could be terminated with notice, forcing relocation.
If the U.S. stops all funding and expels the HQ:
Immediate impact: Loss of ~22% regular + ~27% peacekeeping funding creates a severe liquidity crisis. The UN has faced this before—e.g., 1980s–1990s U.S. arrears peaked at over $1–2 billion, leading to borrowing from peacekeeping funds, delayed payments, hiring freezes, and program cuts. In 1990s–2000s crises, the UN survived multi-year shortfalls by prioritizing essentials and pressuring other payers.
Reserves and adjustments: The UN holds working capital (~$200–300 million) and can borrow internally. Other members (China ~15–18%, Japan, Germany, EU collectively) could increase voluntary/assessed shares over time. Historical examples show recovery: U.S. paid down arrears in phases (e.g., 2000s Helms-Biden deal).
HQ expulsion: Disruptive (costly relocation to Geneva/Vienna/Nairobi possible; past contingencies exist).
WE DONT NEED THEM, THEY NEED US.
❤18💯11🔥2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Is macron officially a reptilian now?
He sent 15 troops to Greenland
He sent 15 troops to Greenland
🤣32😁9😱6❤2