J.D. Vance: The Vice President Who Should Have Stayed Silent

If ignorance had a face, it would be J.D. Vance, the man who thinks foreign policy is about throwing tantrums in the Oval Office. In plain English, J.D. Vance is proof that when you mix arrogance with ignorance, you get a Vice President who thinks he knows everything but understands nothing.

J.D. Vance just proved that he is the dumbest Vice President America has ever had. There is no sugarcoating it—his embarrassing interjection during President Trump’s meeting with President Zelensky on February 28 was not only unnecessary but a clear sign that he doesn’t understand the job he was elected to do. Vice Presidents are supposed to sit down, shut up, and only speak when directed by the President. But Vance, in his infinite ignorance, decided to jump in and spew nonsense when two actual leaders were having a conversation. What a disgrace.

The meeting between Trump and Zelensky was already tense, with Ukraine desperately trying to secure continued military aid while Trump toyed with the idea of cutting it off. Then, out of nowhere, Vance decided to open his mouth and attack Zelensky, accusing him of being disrespectful for defending his country’s survival. “I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,” Vance blurted out like a clueless intern who had wandered into the wrong meeting. Instead of sticking to his role, he made himself the main character and botched the entire discussion.

Vance's incompetence isn’t surprising—his entire political career has been one long contradiction. He used to call Trump “America’s Hitler” before shamelessly groveling for his approval. Now, he's playing the tough guy on Ukraine, but all he did was embarrass himself on the world stage. Even Trump seemed caught off guard by his Vice President’s outburst, likely realizing that the guy he picked for the job doesn’t understand the basics of diplomacy.

To be clear, no one expects Vance to be a genius—he was chosen to be a loyalist, not a leader. But there are levels of stupidity, and this was a new low. The Vice President of the United States is supposed to be like someone in a witness protection program: silent, invisible, and only speaking when absolutely necessary. Instead, Vance jumped into a conversation he had no business being in, like a drunk wedding guest trying to give an impromptu speech.

The fallout was immediate. Zelensky left the White House humiliated, Trump stormed off fuming, and Vance walked away smirking like he had accomplished something. Meanwhile, European leaders scrambled to reassure Ukraine that the U.S. wasn’t abandoning them, while Russia celebrated Vance’s remarks as proof that America was turning its back on its allies. If this was some sort of power move, it backfired spectacularly.

And let’s not forget what Vance said next. When Zelensky asked if he had ever even visited Ukraine, Vance dismissed visits from world leaders to the war-torn country as “propaganda tours.” This from a man who spent his entire career flip-flopping on issues, now suddenly acting like he has authority on foreign policy. The only propaganda here is J.D. Vance pretending to know what he’s talking about.

Even Trump, who loves chaos, seemed caught off guard. “Don’t tell us what we’re gonna feel,” he snapped at Zelensky, feeding into Vance’s nonsense. At that moment, it became clear: this wasn’t a serious diplomatic meeting anymore. It was a disaster. The minerals deal that Ukraine and the U.S. were supposed to sign? Dead. The chances of getting Ukraine the security guarantees it needs? Gone. All thanks to J.D. Vance, the man who should have stayed quiet but instead made sure everyone knew just how out of his depth he really is.

The world is watching, and what they saw was a Vice President who doesn’t know his place. His job is not to pick fights in the Oval Office. It’s not to grandstand for the cameras. It’s certainly not to alienate allies at a time when America’s credibility is already fragile. His job is to support the President. Period.

Vance is like the guy who shows up to a championship game, sits on the bench, and then tries to take credit for the win. Only in this case, he managed to tank his own team’s chances before the game even started. If he thought this moment would make him look strong, he miscalculated. All he did was expose himself as a clueless amateur who doesn’t understand the most basic rule of his office: the Vice President is only as relevant as the President allows him to be.

The biggest irony? The one person in the room who actually handled himself with dignity was Zelensky—the man Vance was trying to humiliate. Zelensky has been fighting for his country’s survival for years while Vance was busy failing upwards in American politics. If anyone deserved respect in that room, it was him. But instead, Vance threw a tantrum and helped Putin’s propaganda machine in the process.

For a man who has spent his career trying to prove how smart he is, J.D. Vance just gave the world undeniable proof that he is, in fact, very, very dumb. And if this is how he handles himself in an Oval Office meeting, God help America if he ever gets real power.

The Day Zelenskyy Proved to Trump That Ukraine Is Not for Sale

Zelenskyy is the first leader in modern history to remind the White House that loyalty is not bought with dirty deals—America is no longer Ukraine’s master, and Trump is learning that the hard way. Let me put it as simple as I can: Trump’s attempt to treat Ukraine like a mafia-controlled territory just backfired—Zelenskyy has shown the world that Ukraine will never be a vassal state under a "Don Corleone" wannabe.

In a dramatic showdown that felt more like a scene from a mafia movie than a diplomatic meeting, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made it clear to U.S. President Donald Trump that he wouldn't be bullied into submission. Unlike France's Emmanuel Macron and Britain's Sir Keir Starmer, who have often taken a more conciliatory approach with Trump, Zelenskyy stood his ground, rejecting what many are calling a "Don Corleone" style offer from the U.S. administration. Trump may have expected Zelenskyy to kneel and kiss the ring, but instead, he got a leader who refuses to be treated like a vassal.

The crux of the confrontation was a controversial proposal from President Trump. The U.S. demanded ownership of 50% of Ukraine's rare earth minerals as "payment" for continued military and financial aid—a move that smacks of colonial exploitation. Zelenskyy, recognizing the long-term implications for his nation's sovereignty and economy, refused to acquiesce. This bold stance underscores a significant departure from the approaches of other Western leaders, who have often opted for appeasement in their dealings with Trump. Macron, known for his theatrical displays of friendship with world leaders, had previously played the role of the fawning ally, while Starmer, trying to establish Britain as still relevant in global politics, had taken the path of quiet submission. But Zelenskyy is a wartime president, a leader who understands that survival depends on backbone, not bowing.

The meeting, intended to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations, quickly devolved into a heated confrontation. President Trump, accompanied by Vice President J.D. Vance, accused Zelenskyy of ingratitude and recklessness, suggesting that Ukraine was "gambling with World War III." Zelenskyy, undeterred, retorted with a pointed critique of Russia's history of broken agreements, questioning the efficacy of the proposed diplomacy. In a moment that will likely go down in history, Zelenskyy looked directly at Vance and asked, "What kind of diplomacy are you speaking about?" The sarcasm was thick enough to cut with a knife.

This confrontation underscores a significant departure from the approaches of other Western leaders. Emmanuel Macron and Sir Keir Starmer, during their recent visits to Washington, opted for conciliatory tones, seemingly placating Trump's demands. In contrast, Zelenskyy's defiance signals a refusal to be coerced into unfavorable agreements, especially those reminiscent of a "Don Corleone" offer—where gifts of weapons morph into debts demanding repayment. Did Trump really think he could come back years later, like a debt collector with a bat in hand, demanding Ukraine’s natural resources? Zelenskyy made it clear: Ukraine is not a mafia-controlled neighborhood, and Trump is not its godfather.

The crux of the dispute lies in a controversial proposal from the Trump administration. Reports indicate that the U.S. demanded ownership of 50% of Ukraine's rare earth minerals as "payment" for continued support. Rare earth minerals, crucial for technology, military applications, and the global economy, are not just commodities—they are leverage, power, and security. Giving half of them away to the U.S. would have been nothing short of economic servitude. Zelenskyy, recognizing the exploitative nature of this demand, rejected the proposal, emphasizing the need for genuine security guarantees rather than transactional exploitation.

This standoff highlights a broader issue: the expectation that military aid equates to political subservience. The notion that a nation defending its sovereignty should later repay its allies in resources is not only unprecedented but also undermines the very principles of international solidarity. If military assistance now comes with a bill to be settled in minerals, should Israel start paying back decades of U.S. military aid with its own resources? Should South Korea and Japan start transferring their industries over to Washington as "thank you" notes? As the Ukrainian proverb goes, "When you give, do not remember; when you receive, do not forget." Zelenskyy's stance embodies this ethos, reminding the world that genuine assistance should not come with strings attached.

Moreover, the timing of this confrontation is critical. As Trump engages in dialogues with Russian President Vladimir Putin, questions arise about the U.S.'s commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty. The optics of Trump "breaking bread" with Putin while admonishing Zelenskyy are troubling. It raises the question: Did President Trump genuinely expect accolades from Zelenskyy while simultaneously courting Ukraine's aggressor? If Trump thinks that he can sit at a table with Putin while demanding loyalty from Kyiv, he is gravely mistaken. Zelenskyy made it clear today that Ukraine is not a country that bends to intimidation.

The international community has taken note of this discord. European leaders, alarmed by the potential shift in U.S. policy, have reiterated their support for Ukraine. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk promptly issued a message of solidarity, stating, "Dear Zelenskyy, dear Ukrainian friends, you are not alone." Such declarations underscore the growing rift between the U.S. administration's stance and that of its traditional allies. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the reaction was predictable. Russian officials, including Dmitry Medvedev, gloated over the encounter, calling it a humiliation for Ukraine. But what they fail to understand is that standing up to Trump, refusing to be cowed, refusing to sign away half of Ukraine’s resources for a short-term deal—that is the opposite of humiliation. That is resilience.

This episode also serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of transactional diplomacy. The expectation that financial or military aid should yield immediate political concessions not only strains alliances but also erodes trust. Zelenskyy's refusal to acquiesce to such demands sets a precedent for other nations facing similar pressures. It sends a clear message: sovereignty and national dignity are not for sale. If Trump expected Ukraine to roll over and say "thank you" while it handed over its future, he miscalculated. This is a country that has fought and bled for its independence. That is not a debt to be repaid in minerals.

In the grander scheme, this confrontation may redefine U.S.-Ukrainian relations. The potential cessation of military and financial aid could have severe repercussions on Ukraine's defense capabilities, especially as Russian forces maintain their aggression. However, Zelenskyy's unwavering stance suggests a readiness to seek alternative alliances and support systems, potentially pivoting towards European partners who have shown steadfast commitment to Ukraine's cause. If Washington pulls back, it may find itself watching as Europe steps forward. It may also find itself on the wrong side of history.

In essence, President Zelenskyy's actions today embody the spirit of a leader unwilling to compromise his nation's integrity for the sake of appeasement. While the path forward remains fraught with challenges, one thing is clear: Ukraine, under Zelenskyy's leadership, will not be strong-armed into submission. As the saying goes, "Better to die standing than to live on your knees." Zelenskyy has chosen to stand tall, and in doing so, has redefined the narrative of international diplomacy.

In the theater of global politics, where power dynamics often overshadow principles, today's events serve as a stark reminder that not all leaders are willing to play by the unspoken rules of subservience. President Zelenskyy has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging not only President Trump's approach but also the broader international community to reconsider the true meaning of alliance and support. It's a bold move, and as the dust settles, the world watches with bated breath, eager to see how this high-stakes drama unfolds.

After all, in the game of thrones that is international relations, it's refreshing to see a leader who refuses to be cast as a pawn. Trump expected submission; instead, he got defiance. And that, more than anything, is what terrifies him.

Betrayal in Broad Daylight: Trump Sides with Russia While America Watches in Disbelief

Trump’s foreign policy is a masterclass in betrayal: he’s abandoned NATO, insulted America’s allies, and handed Russia everything on a silver platter. If this isn’t the definition of selling out your own country, what is?

In a move that has left allies aghast and adversaries amused, President Trump has chosen to waltz with Russia on the global stage, casting aside decades-old alliances. Recently, to the consternation of its European allies, America voted with Russia against a UN resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. This decision isn't just baffling; it's a stark reminder that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The absurdity of this vote cannot be overstated. Russia, a country with a long history of aggression, deceit, and betrayal, is now being treated as a partner while America's real allies—those who have stood by the United States in times of crisis—are being sidelined.

The UN General Assembly resolution, introduced by Ukraine and backed by the UK and most EU members, demanded Russia’s immediate military withdrawal from Ukraine and an end to attacks on civilians. Despite the U.S. siding with Russia, the resolution passed with 93 nations in favor, 18 against, and 65 abstentions. President Trump declined to elaborate on the U.S. vote, while officials emphasized a desire for a peace-focused resolution. An alternative U.S. resolution calling for lasting peace was also passed, but only after EU amendments were added. Notably, Trump administration officials avoided directly blaming Russia, with some suggesting the conflict was provoked by other factors. Trump expressed his desire to resolve the conflict and normalize U.S.-Russia relations, including economic cooperation.

This isn't the first time Russia has outfoxed the United States. The historical record is littered with instances where Russia, or its predecessor, the Soviet Union, has acted against American interests. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the Soviet Union secretly deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba, just 90 miles off the U.S. coast. This clandestine operation, known as Operation Anadyr, brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and showcased the lengths to which Russia would go to challenge U.S. security. Had it not been for the Kennedy administration’s strategic brinkmanship, the world might have seen a catastrophic escalation.

Another glaring example is the 1960 U-2 incident. The Soviet Union shot down an American U-2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers, capturing him alive. The U.S. initially denied the plane’s purpose, but the Soviets exposed the cover-up, leading to a significant diplomatic embarrassment for the Eisenhower administration. This was not an isolated event but part of the larger Cold War chess game in which the Soviets used deception and aggression to gain an upper hand.

Moreover, in the 1970s, the KGB orchestrated Operation PANDORA, aiming to incite racial tensions within the United States. This covert operation sought to exploit societal divisions, further destabilizing the nation from within. The idea was to pit Americans against each other, using propaganda and disinformation to erode trust in democratic institutions. This was one of many Soviet-era operations designed to weaken the U.S. from within, a tactic that has found new life in the digital age with Russian cyber campaigns aimed at disrupting American elections and sowing discord among its people.

These historical episodes underscore a consistent pattern: Russia, whether under the guise of the Soviet Union or its current leadership, has repeatedly acted in opposition to U.S. interests. Labeling Russia as a friend or ally is not only a misrepresentation but a dangerous oversight. The idea that America should turn its back on NATO and cozy up to Putin’s Russia is not just foolish—it is reckless.

In stark contrast, NATO members have stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States through numerous global challenges. While it’s true that some European allies have lagged in meeting their defense spending commitments, this shortfall doesn’t equate to enmity. The transatlantic alliance has been a cornerstone of global security, fostering cooperation and mutual defense. NATO was formed not just to deter Russian aggression but to ensure collective security among democratic nations. Weakening that alliance in favor of closer ties with an authoritarian regime is nothing short of geopolitical malpractice.

Instead of cozying up to President Putin, President Trump should be urging NATO members to bolster their defense budgets, ensuring a robust deterrent against any aggressive moves from Moscow. French President Emmanuel Macron, during a recent Oval Office meeting, emphasized Europe’s substantial contributions to Ukraine, countering Trump’s assertions that European nations weren’t pulling their weight. Macron highlighted that Europe has provided more than half of the total aid to Ukraine, including loans, guaranteed grants, and real money. He also pointed out that Europe holds $230 billion in frozen Russian assets, which could potentially be used to finance further aid.

The recent U.S. vote alongside Russia has not gone unnoticed. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces the daunting task of persuading President Trump of the strategic importance of supporting Ukraine and maintaining strong alliances. Starmer has pledged to increase the UK’s defense budget, signaling a commitment to shared security interests. His efforts, however, will likely face resistance from an American president who seems more interested in placating a dictator than strengthening alliances.

Even within the United States, there’s a growing chorus of concern. A majority of Trump voters believe the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine, yet they also sympathize with Ukraine over Russia. Recent polls show 52% of Trump voters want decreased military aid, but a majority still view Russia negatively and are against ceding Ukrainian territory for peace. Trump’s support for Russia, particularly voting against a UN resolution condemning the invasion, diverges from his voters’ preferences, potentially endangering his political agenda if he doesn’t align with their pro-Ukraine sentiments.

The adage “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” rings especially true in this context. President Trump’s overtures to Russia, at the expense of longstanding alliances, not only betray historical lessons but also jeopardize current geopolitical stability. It’s imperative to recognize that while diplomatic engagements are essential, they should not come at the cost of forsaking trusted allies and ignoring the transgressions of adversarial nations.

Russia is not a reliable partner. It has proven this time and time again, from its annexation of Crimea in 2014 to its continued interference in U.S. elections. The Kremlin’s objectives are clear: weaken NATO, divide the West, and expand its sphere of influence. By aligning U.S. policy with Russian interests, Trump is playing right into Putin’s hands.

What makes this situation even more absurd is that Putin is a leader whose days are numbered. His economy is crumbling under the weight of sanctions, his military has suffered significant losses in Ukraine, and his grip on power is slipping. The Russian people are growing increasingly restless, and internal dissent is rising. Aligning U.S. policy with a faltering regime is not just misguided; it’s a perilous gamble that risks the nation’s credibility and security.

Trump may think that by siding with Putin, he is demonstrating some grand act of diplomacy. But history tells a different story. When America and Britain provided the Soviet Union with weapons and air cover to fight Hitler, what did Stalin do? As soon as Hitler was defeated, Stalin took over half of Germany—Eastern Germany—without consulting President Roosevelt or Prime Minister Churchill. The Cold War that followed saw Russia constantly working against American interests, from funding communist uprisings to waging proxy wars against U.S. allies.

At the end of the day, no matter how much he tries, President Trump cannot save Putin. Putin is all but finished—it’s just a matter of time. The world is moving forward, and those who side with Russia’s doomed leadership will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

As the world watches this unfolding drama, one can’t help but wonder: Is President Trump auditioning for a role in a Russian ballet, or has he simply forgotten which country he leads?

Fraud, Lies, and Stolen Billions: The Real Reason the Establishment Wants DOGE Shut Down

The loudest critics of DOGE aren’t worried about the American people; they’re terrified that their golden fountain of wasted taxpayer dollars is finally drying up.

It seems the watchdog has become the top dog in sniffing out government waste. I recently visited the website of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and what I discovered was nothing short of astonishing. The filth and waste that have been festering in federal departments for decades are finally being exposed. For instance, DOGE uncovered that thousands of individuals over 150 years old are still collecting Social Security benefits—a clear indication of systemic fraud and mismanagement.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. DOGE has brought to light even more shocking examples of government inefficiency and financial abuse. One of the most absurd revelations is the fact that federal employee retirements are still being processed manually in an old limestone mine in Pennsylvania. Over 700 workers operate 230 feet underground, handling approximately 10,000 applications per month, all stored in manila envelopes and cardboard boxes. In an era where artificial intelligence and automation could streamline these operations in seconds, the government has opted to continue using a system that belongs in a 19th-century archive. This outdated process doesn’t just slow down retirements; it wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary labor and obsolete filing systems.

Then there’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been found to have misplaced over $20 billion in taxpayer funds. These funds were in the control of just eight agencies, each of which had full discretion to distribute billions at will, with little oversight. The lack of accountability in handling such an enormous sum of money is staggering. This is not just a case of mismanagement—it is a scandal of epic proportions. If a private business were run this way, executives would be facing lawsuits, and heads would roll. But in Washington, bureaucrats simply shrug and move on to the next budget cycle, expecting taxpayers to foot the bill for their incompetence.

Another jaw-dropping discovery involves the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which allocated over $59 million to house illegal immigrants in luxury New York City hotels. These were not standard accommodations—some of these hotel rooms cost up to $500 per night, featuring amenities that many hardworking American citizens could never afford for themselves. Meanwhile, thousands of homeless veterans sleep on the streets, forgotten by the very government that should be prioritizing their well-being. The irony here is almost too much to bear: while Americans struggle with skyrocketing housing costs, FEMA is throwing taxpayer money at hotel chains for people who entered the country illegally.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has also found itself in the spotlight, with DOGE uncovering that it had misplaced nearly $1.9 billion that was earmarked for financial services that were no longer needed. This isn’t just a rounding error—this is $1.9 billion vanishing into the bureaucratic ether. Thanks to DOGE’s intervention, these funds have been recovered and returned to the Treasury, but one has to wonder: how many more billions are still floating around in government agencies, unnoticed and unaccounted for?

These revelations are not just statistics; they represent a profound betrayal of the American people. Every dollar wasted is a dollar that could have been used to fix our infrastructure, improve education, or provide real aid to struggling families. The "chemotherapy model" that President Trump and Elon Musk are implementing through DOGE is a necessary treatment for a government that has been plagued by inefficiency for far too long. Some Americans are worried about the aggressive approach, but the truth is, when the disease is this severe, a soft touch simply won’t cut it.

Critics argue that DOGE's methods are too extreme, likening them to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But when the nut has a shell reinforced by decades of complacency and corruption, perhaps a sledgehammer is exactly what’s needed. The traditional, more lenient approaches have failed time and time again, allowing waste and fraud to proliferate without consequence. If history has taught us anything, it’s that bureaucracies do not willingly reform themselves. They resist change, and they fight to protect their bloated budgets at all costs.

The backlash against DOGE is not surprising. The proverb holds true: "When you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." The loudest voices crying foul are the very individuals and organizations that have benefitted from this corruption. They are desperate to discredit DOGE because its success exposes their own failures.

Efforts to curb government waste are nothing new, but past initiatives have been weak and ineffective. The Clinton-Gore administration made some attempts in the 1990s to streamline operations, but their efforts were ultimately toothless in the face of bureaucratic inertia. Unlike those half-hearted measures, DOGE’s approach is unapologetically direct, cutting through layers of red tape with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel.

Some lawmakers, even within the Republican Party, have expressed concerns over DOGE's growing power. Senators Thom Tillis, John Thune, and Susan Collins have suggested that more authority should be given back to agency chiefs. But this argument conveniently ignores the fact that these very agency chiefs have allowed mismanagement to thrive for decades. Why should the same people who lost track of billions suddenly be trusted to fix the problem?

The scale of the waste uncovered by DOGE is nothing short of staggering. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified trillions of dollars lost to improper payments in programs like Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. These are not minor accounting errors—this is money being siphoned away from essential services and into the pockets of fraudsters. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has failed audits for seven consecutive years, exposing systemic issues in financial management. Secretary Hegseth, in collaboration with DOGE, is now taking decisive action to address these deficiencies, aiming to bring accountability to one of the government’s most notoriously opaque institutions.

While DOGE’s efforts have been groundbreaking, they have not been without hiccups. Some early reports of savings were found to be exaggerated due to administrative errors, such as an $8 billion "saving" for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that turned out to be a miscalculated $8 million. However, these errors were quickly corrected, and the commitment to transparency remains intact. Unlike traditional agencies, DOGE is not interested in covering up mistakes—it is committed to getting things right.

The question that lingers is this: why did it take so long for an initiative like DOGE to emerge? The answer lies in a toxic combination of bureaucratic inertia, political infighting, and a sheer lack of accountability. DOGE is a paradigm shift, challenging the entrenched norms that have allowed waste to flourish unchecked.

As President Trump put it, "We're not just cutting the fat; we're going straight for the jugular." That is precisely what America needs. A government that doesn’t just talk about efficiency but actually takes action to make it happen.

As DOGE continues its mission, it is more important than ever for the American people to stay informed and engaged. Transparency is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and every revelation from DOGE brings us one step closer to a government that serves its citizens instead of squandering their hard-earned money.

The road ahead will not be easy. The bureaucratic machine will fight tooth and nail to preserve itself. But with unwavering resolve, the malignant tumors of waste and fraud can and must be excised from the body politic.

If exposing government waste makes some people uncomfortable, perhaps that discomfort is a sign that the right people are finally feeling the heat. The swamp is being drained, the rats are scattering, and the watchdog has sunk its teeth in. The only question left is: who’s next?

Trump’s Market Bloodbath: Why Short-Term Traders Are Failing While Value Investors Feast

Market volatility under Trump is just another payday for long-term investors who know history always rewards those who stay patient—while the gamblers and speculators get slaughtered like naive tourists in a shark tank. In plain English, while short-term traders cry over market swings like children denied candy, seasoned value investors are scooping up discounted stocks and setting themselves up for massive gains when the dust settles.

The U.S. stock market has been on a wild ride since President Trump's inauguration in January 2025. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average managed a modest gain of 4.8% in January, the broader S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite have struggled, with gains of 2.8% and 1.7% respectively. This disparity raises a critical question: Is this volatility a temporary blip, or are we facing a prolonged market downturn?

Central to this market turbulence is the uncertainty surrounding President Trump's aggressive trade policies. In February 2025, the administration imposed a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, effective February 1, 2025. These tariffs, aimed at addressing illegal immigration and drug trafficking, have prompted swift retaliation. Canada and Mexico announced their own tariffs on U.S. goods, setting the stage for a trade war that could disrupt supply chains and inflate consumer prices across North America. The immediate effect of these tariffs has been a sharp increase in the cost of imported raw materials, which has put manufacturers and businesses under pressure. Higher input costs inevitably get passed down to consumers, leading to inflationary pressures that could eat into disposable incomes and slow economic growth.

The agricultural sector has also taken a direct hit from the trade standoff. American farmers, who rely heavily on exports to Canada, Mexico, and China, now face dwindling demand and falling prices for their products. With retaliatory tariffs making U.S. agricultural goods more expensive in foreign markets, farmers are finding themselves in a difficult position, unable to compete with cheaper alternatives from countries not caught in the tariff war. The long-term impact of such disruptions could be devastating, forcing some farms out of business while others struggle under mounting debt.

The tech sector, once the market’s shining star, is now feeling the heat. The “Magnificent Seven” tech giants—Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Tesla, Nvidia, and Meta—have seen their growth stall. In early 2025, this elite group has eked out a mere 1% increase, with some heavyweights like Tesla, Microsoft, and Alphabet posting losses. Investors are growing wary of high valuations and the uncertain impact of escalating trade tensions on these global behemoths. Tech companies, which depend on international supply chains and overseas markets, are particularly vulnerable to trade disruptions. If President Trump expands his protectionist policies, major players in Silicon Valley could see their margins shrink, their products become more expensive, and their market share eroded by foreign competitors.

President Trump’s foreign policy moves are adding fuel to the fire. The administration’s suggestion to expel Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance has raised eyebrows and questions about the stability of long-standing alliances. Such actions inject a dose of geopolitical uncertainty that markets typically abhor. Investors tend to react negatively to instability, and when America appears to be unraveling its traditional partnerships, confidence in the U.S. market takes a hit. Furthermore, the possibility of weakened intelligence-sharing networks raises concerns about national security, which in turn fuels speculation about increased defense spending and its potential impact on the already ballooning national debt.

Domestically, the administration’s fiscal policies are also under scrutiny. Proposals for sharp tariff increases, mass deportations of undocumented migrants, and significant budget cuts are on the table. While aimed at bolstering domestic industries and reducing the federal deficit, these measures could have unintended consequences. For instance, sharp tariff increases can create artificial scarcity in certain industries, leading to price surges and economic stagnation. The construction sector, for example, heavily depends on imported materials such as steel, aluminum, and lumber. Higher tariffs on these imports will translate into more expensive housing and infrastructure projects, slowing down growth in a critical segment of the economy.

Meanwhile, the proposed deportation of millions of undocumented migrants could lead to labor shortages in industries that depend on immigrant labor, such as agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare. The immediate effect would be a rise in wages as employers struggle to fill positions, but this could also drive businesses to automate or relocate operations to countries with more stable labor markets. While this might appear beneficial to American workers in the short term, in the long run, it could lead to job losses as companies find ways to circumvent labor shortages through technological advancements and outsourcing.

Amidst all this uncertainty, the market is becoming a stock picker’s playground. With over 49% of S&P 500 stocks outperforming the index’s 2.4% increase this year, active managers are finding opportunities to shine. This dispersion suggests that while the broader market grapples with volatility, individual stocks with strong fundamentals offer a beacon of hope. Companies with domestic supply chains and resilient business models are better positioned to withstand the uncertainty. Defensive stocks, such as those in healthcare, utilities, and consumer staples, are drawing increased investor interest as they tend to perform well in uncertain times.

For long-term and value investors, this environment, while challenging, is not insurmountable. History has shown that markets are resilient, often rebounding from periods of uncertainty and turmoil. The key lies in focusing on companies with solid balance sheets, sustainable earnings, and competitive advantages. These stalwarts are more likely to weather the storm and emerge stronger on the other side. Long-term investors understand that volatility presents opportunities. When stock prices fall due to panic selling and uncertainty, those with a keen eye can identify undervalued stocks that have strong fundamentals but are trading at a discount.

In contrast, short-term traders chasing quick profits may find themselves on shakier ground. The current volatility, driven by policy shifts and geopolitical tensions, can lead to sharp, unpredictable market swings. Without a long-term perspective, these traders risk being whipsawed by the market’s erratic movements, potentially sustaining significant losses. Day traders and speculators who attempt to time the market could find themselves caught in a whirlwind of conflicting headlines, with prices fluctuating wildly in response to political statements, economic data releases, and policy shifts.

As the adage goes, “In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.” While the market’s current state may seem tumultuous, it also presents a chance for discerning investors to identify undervalued assets and position themselves for future gains. However, this requires a steady hand, thorough research, and, perhaps most importantly, patience. Investors who panic and sell at the first sign of trouble often miss the rebounds that follow market dips. Those who stay the course and continue to invest in fundamentally strong companies can capitalize on the eventual recovery.

In the end, while President Trump’s policies have undoubtedly introduced a new layer of complexity to the investment landscape, they have also underscored the importance of a disciplined, long-term approach to investing. Those who can navigate the noise and focus on intrinsic value are likely to find themselves not just surviving, but thriving, in this new era of market dynamics. The market will eventually adjust to new policies, and businesses will adapt to changing circumstances. What matters most is the ability to remain level-headed, make calculated investment decisions, and recognize that short-term volatility is a natural part of the economic cycle.

So, while short-term traders may be left licking their wounds, long-term investors can take solace in the knowledge that, with careful strategy and a bit of fortitude, they can ride out the storm and sail into calmer, more prosperous waters. The market has been through worse, and those who keep their eyes on the horizon rather than the storm will be the ones who emerge victorious.

When a Killer Becomes a Cult Hero: The Sick Worship of Luigi Mangione

If Luigi Mangione deserves sympathy, then every murderer on death row should demand a fan club—because apparently, America now believes that killing the "right" person makes you a celebrity.

Justice is blind, but it seems some supporters of Luigi Mangione are blindfolded by misguided admiration. Last week, I watched in disbelief as Mangione attended a hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 21, 2025. Outside the courthouse, a large crowd cheered, and signs of sympathy and support for Mangione dotted the scene. This spectacle is both sickening and ridiculous. What has gone wrong with America? Why can't some people in this country understand that supporting or validating a cold-blooded murderer like Mangione is indefensible? It's plain common sense that a murderer should be punished for his crime, not adored. I will continue to watch and see how this Mangione case plays out. Evil must not be allowed to grow stronger than good.

Mangione, a 26-year-old from Towson, Maryland, stands accused of the December 4, 2024, murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Midtown Manhattan. Arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, Mangione was found with a 3D-printed gun, a suppressor, and a falsified New Jersey driver's license. Authorities also discovered a handwritten manifesto criticizing the American healthcare system. Despite the gravity of these charges, Mangione has inexplicably garnered a significant following.

The crowd outside the courthouse was not just any group of onlookers; it comprised over 100 supporters, predominantly young women, some donning "Free Luigi" merchandise and even Luigi caps from the Super Mario Bros franchise. This display of adoration for an accused murderer is not only baffling but also deeply troubling. How did we reach a point where an individual charged with such a heinous crime is celebrated as a folk hero?

This phenomenon isn't entirely new. History has seen instances where criminals are romanticized, often due to a combination of charisma, media portrayal, and public disillusionment with societal systems. From Bonnie and Clyde to Ted Bundy, America has long had a problem with lionizing outlaws and murderers. However, the case of Mangione takes this to a disturbing level. The internet has become captivated by him, with social media platforms flooded with memes, merchandise, and calls to "Free Luigi." This online fandom praises Mangione's appearance and supports his criticisms of the healthcare industry, despite the violent nature of his alleged actions.

Mangione's case has also drawn comparisons to the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, where public opinion was sharply divided. However, Rittenhouse’s supporters, whether rightly or wrongly, argued self-defense. Mangione, on the other hand, stands accused of premeditated murder. This is not a case of self-defense, a tragic accident, or a wrongful conviction; this is a case of cold-blooded, intentional violence. And yet, there he was, greeted outside the courtroom as if he were a misunderstood activist rather than a man accused of assassinating a corporate executive.

The support for Mangione seems to stem from widespread frustration with the American healthcare system. Many view Thompson, as the CEO of a major health insurance company, as a symbol of a system that prioritizes profit over patient care. The UnitedHealthcare Group, like many insurance giants, has long faced scrutiny over denying claims, overcharging patients, and putting financial gain over human well-being. This sentiment has been amplified by public figures like Chelsea Manning, who attended Mangione's court appearance, stating she was exercising her Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. While criticisms of the healthcare system are valid and necessary, channeling this frustration into support for an accused murderer is a perverse and dangerous misdirection.

Financial backing for Mangione's legal defense has also surged, with over $500,000 raised through crowdfunding platforms. Supporters argue that this is a stand against a corrupt and profit-driven healthcare system. However, this rationale is deeply flawed. Supporting systemic reform is one thing; glorifying an individual accused of a violent crime is another. This conflation undermines legitimate efforts for healthcare reform and sets a dangerous precedent where violence is seen as a justified means of protest. If we begin to excuse murder simply because we dislike its victim, we will find ourselves in a lawless society where every grievance justifies bloodshed.

Social media has played an outsized role in Mangione's rise to infamy. TikTok and Twitter (or X, as it’s now called) have exploded with debates, fan theories, and even "stan accounts" dedicated to Mangione. Some claim he is being framed, while others go as far as calling him a "revolutionary hero." This absurd glorification brings to mind the phenomenon of the "hot felon" Jeremy Meeks, whose mugshot earned him modeling contracts. But Mangione is no model—he is a man accused of taking another person's life in cold blood.

The legal proceedings against Mangione are ongoing, with both state and federal charges that could lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. His defense attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, has raised concerns about evidence handling and constitutional rights violations during his arrest. While every defendant is entitled to a fair trial and competent defense, the public's role is not to idolize but to allow the justice system to function without undue influence.

This case raises critical questions about our society's moral compass. When did we start celebrating individuals accused of heinous crimes simply because their actions resonate with our personal grievances? This dehumanization and glorification of violence reflect a dangerous shift in societal values. As a nation, we must recognize that while our systems are flawed and in need of reform, resorting to violence and elevating perpetrators to hero status is not the path to meaningful change.

Some argue that Mangione's case is symbolic of larger issues in America—corporate greed, political corruption, and the struggles of the working class. But symbolic or not, murder is murder. Thompson, for all the criticisms against his industry, was a husband, a father, and a man with a right to life. If we condone murder as a method of protest, where do we draw the line? Should every executive, politician, or authority figure who makes unpopular decisions fear for their life? Should every corporate CEO sleep with one eye open because someone out there believes their death would be "justice"?

In the words of an old proverb, "He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself." By supporting individuals like Mangione, we are not only undermining the rule of law but also eroding the moral fabric that holds our society together. It's imperative that we address systemic issues through peaceful and constructive means, rather than glorifying acts of violence.

As I continue to watch how the Mangione case unfolds, I am reminded that allowing evil to be celebrated only serves to embolden it. We must stand firm in our commitment to justice and ensure that good prevails over misguided adulation of wrongdoing. After all, in a society where murderers are hailed as heroes, one must wonder: has the line between right and wrong become so blurred that we need glasses to see it? Or worse, are we staring at a world where the only ones who see clearly are those looking through the barrel of a gun?

The U.S. Built the Walls Against Territorial Conquest—And Trump Can’t Tear Them Down

Every dictator and wannabe emperor in history has dreamed of tearing down the American-led world order—but all they’ve ever gotten is a front-row seat to their own downfall. Trump’s flirtation with Putin’s land-grab fantasies will end up as nothing more than a footnote in the annals of American dominance. In plain terms, Trump can scream all he wants about NATO being ‘obsolete,’ but it’s the only thing standing between Europe and the wolves at the door.

In a political theater where the stakes are as high as the rhetoric is sharp, President Donald Trump’s recent maneuvers on the global stage have raised eyebrows and questions about the very fabric of international order. It's as if he's attempting to rewrite the rulebook that the United States itself helped pen in the aftermath of World War II—a rulebook that firmly opposes the forceful acquisition of territory by stronger nations from their weaker counterparts. But history is a stubborn thing, and the script of American global leadership is not so easily rewritten.

The United States, emerging from the ashes of the Second World War, took a definitive stance against imperialistic expansions. This commitment was enshrined through the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, an institution built with the primary aim of fostering international cooperation and preventing aggressive territorial conquests. The U.S. had witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences of unchecked ambition, from Hitler’s Anschluss with Austria to Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. It was determined that no such expansionist aggression would be tolerated again. This was codified in the UN Charter, which declared that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Even before the United Nations, the groundwork for this policy had been laid with the Atlantic Charter of 1941, a pivotal document co-authored by the U.S. and the U.K., explicitly stating that they sought "no territorial aggrandizement" and that they supported the right of all peoples to choose their own form of government. This was a clear denunciation of territorial expansionism and a promise to uphold the sovereignty of nations, something that would later become one of the key principles guiding American foreign policy.

In tandem, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949, creating a collective defense pact that stood as a bulwark against any attempts to redraw borders through force. The principle was simple: an attack on one member was an attack on all. This deterrent was crucial in preventing another world war and in solidifying the global order that had been so carefully constructed. The Soviet Union understood this deterrence well—its ambitions to extend communist influence in Europe were kept in check, at least in part, by the knowledge that any territorial aggression against NATO members would be met with overwhelming force.

Historical precedents underscore this doctrine. In the 1950s, when North Korea, backed by Soviet and Chinese support, invaded South Korea, the U.S. led a United Nations coalition to repel the aggression, reinforcing the message that forceful territorial expansion would not be tolerated. The Korean War was a bloody and prolonged conflict, but it cemented an important lesson: the United States and its allies would stand against any attempt to alter international borders by force.

Similarly, in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait under Saddam Hussein’s orders, the U.S. spearheaded Operation Desert Storm under a UN mandate, liberating Kuwait and reaffirming the international community's commitment to sovereign integrity. This was yet another moment where the U.S. demonstrated that it would not tolerate stronger nations preying upon weaker ones. It was not just about Kuwait; it was about reinforcing the principle that might does not make right, and that the rules-based order established after World War II would be enforced.

Fast forward to the present, and President Trump’s actions appear to be at odds with this long-standing U.S. policy. His administration’s overtures towards Russian President Vladimir Putin have been particularly contentious. Reports suggest that Trump has entertained the idea of recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea, a move that would starkly contrast the U.S.’s previous condemnation of the act and its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. Such a shift could be perceived as tacit approval of territorial conquest, undermining the very principles the U.S. once championed. Putin, who has long lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,” has already demonstrated an eagerness to reclaim lost influence. From the annexation of Crimea in 2014 to the ongoing war in Ukraine, his strategy has been clear: expand, destabilize, and consolidate.

Trump’s dismissive attitude towards NATO has only added fuel to the fire. By questioning the alliance’s relevance, hinting at a potential U.S. withdrawal, and even describing NATO as “obsolete,” he risks unraveling a security fabric that has deterred aggression in Europe for decades. His reluctance to fully endorse Article 5, NATO’s collective defense clause, has raised serious concerns among U.S. allies. If the U.S. abdicates its leadership role, what is to stop nations like Russia from testing the resolve of smaller NATO members such as the Baltic states?

Critics argue that Trump’s actions serve to benefit adversarial leaders like Putin, who has long sought to weaken NATO and expand Russia’s sphere of influence. By undermining international institutions and alliances, Trump may inadvertently—or perhaps deliberately—be paving the way for a resurgence of imperialistic pursuits, reminiscent of a bygone era where might dictated right. This is precisely the kind of world order that the U.S. has spent decades trying to prevent.

It’s a perplexing scenario: the United States, once the architect of a world order designed to prevent territorial conquests, now appears to be dismantling its own creation. This paradox raises profound questions about the future of international relations and the potential resurgence of aggressive expansionism. One can’t help but wonder: is Trump merely ignorant of history, or is he deliberately trying to rewrite it?

As the world watches this political drama unfold, one can’t help but recall the adage: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The institutions and alliances forged in the mid-20th century were born from the crucible of global conflict, with the explicit purpose of ensuring such devastation would not recur. To undermine them now is to forget the lessons written in the blood and toil of generations past. The risk is not theoretical—when international law is disregarded, chaos follows. Just look at Russia’s war on Ukraine, a conflict that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions.

In the grand tapestry of history, leaders come and go, but the principles that underpin global stability must endure. President Trump’s attempts to reshape the international order may well falter against the resilience of these institutions, which have weathered countless storms. After all, while individuals may wield power temporarily, the ideals of justice, sovereignty, and collective security are far more enduring. NATO has survived Cold War tensions, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the shifting sands of global politics. It will likely outlast Trump as well.

One would think that a man who built his brand on erecting tall, glittering towers would appreciate the value of strong foundations. Yet here he is, chipping away at the very bedrock of international security that America helped lay. Perhaps someone should remind him that when you weaken the foundation, the whole house comes tumbling down.

Ajaokuta and Delta Steel: National Treasures or Political Money Laundering Machines?

Nigeria’s unemployment crisis is not caused by a lack of opportunities but by a government that refuses to let go of industries it has already run into the ground. Ajaokuta and Delta Steel are nothing more than billion-naira burial grounds for corruption while millions of Nigerians remain jobless. To be clear, Nigerian politicians have mastered the art of economic sabotage, keeping strategic industries under state control, not to develop them, but to milk them dry while leaving the youth to roam the streets jobless.

In the grand theater of Nigeria's industrial ambitions, the Ajaokuta Steel Company and Delta Steel Company have long stood as monumental set pieces—grand in design but hollow in execution. These state-owned enterprises, conceived with the promise of propelling Nigeria into the league of industrialized nations, have instead become emblematic of bureaucratic inefficiency and systemic corruption. For decades, they have remained dormant, consuming vast sums of public funds without yielding the steel that was meant to build the nation's future.

The tale of Ajaokuta Steel is particularly illustrative. Initiated in 1979 under President Shehu Shagari, the project was envisioned as the bedrock of Nigeria's industrialization. By 1994, it was reportedly 98% complete, with 40 of its 43 plants constructed. Yet, despite this near-completion, the facility has never produced a single sheet of steel. Instead, it has become a financial black hole, with successive governments allocating billions of naira to its resuscitation, only to see these funds vanish without tangible results. As of 2024, the Nigerian government had appropriated a staggering N4.2 billion ($2.8 million) for the personnel costs of Ajaokuta Steel, even though the plant remains non-operational. Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, expressed her bewilderment: "Despite the huge amount of money spent as personnel cost by the steel company on yearly basis, no steel has been manufactured and no mill rolled."

Delta Steel Company (DSC) offers a similar narrative. Commissioned in 1982, DSC was designed to produce 1 million tonnes of liquid steel annually. However, it never achieved its intended capacity. By 1995, operations had ceased entirely, plagued by mismanagement and corruption. In a bid to revitalize the moribund facility, the Nigerian government privatized DSC in 2005. Unfortunately, this move did little to restore its functionality, as the privatization process was marred by irregularities and failed to attract competent investors.

The persistence of these failures raises pressing questions about the role of government in business. The Nigerian government's tight grip on key sectors, including steel production, has often stifled private investment and innovation. The Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree of 1972, for instance, restricted foreign participation in various industries, aiming to promote indigenous control. While well-intentioned, such policies have frequently led to monopolies, inefficiencies, and a lack of competitiveness.

This restriction has had dire consequences for job creation. The human cost of these policy missteps is profound. Nigeria, a nation rich in natural and human resources, grapples with high unemployment rates. The World Bank reported that as of 2023, Nigeria's unemployment rate stood at a staggering 33%. The steel industry, with its potential to create millions of jobs, remains incapacitated, its promise unfulfilled. The government's reluctance to fully embrace private sector participation in this and other critical industries has deprived countless Nigerians of employment opportunities and stymied economic growth.

Beyond unemployment, the closure of these steel companies has had ripple effects across the economy. Without a functional steel industry, Nigeria continues to depend on imported steel products, further draining the nation's foreign reserves. Industries that rely on steel for production, such as automobile manufacturing, construction, and infrastructure development, are forced to operate under uncompetitive conditions, relying on costly imported raw materials. This not only weakens local industries but also raises the cost of goods and services for the average Nigerian.

Moreover, the culture of paying salaries to idle workers exacerbates the problem. At Ajaokuta Steel, despite its inactivity, a significant workforce continues to draw regular salaries. This practice not only drains public resources but also fosters a culture of complacency and unaccountability. As Senator Akpoti-Uduaghan pointedly asked, "Who are the workers collecting monthly salaries from the appropriated N4.2 billion? Statistically, if N300,000 is paid to 14,000 people per month for a year, you will get N4.2 billion or N500,000 to 8,400 workers per month in a year. Where are the 14,000 or 8,400 workers in Ajaokuta?"

The entanglement of politics and business has further muddied the waters. Politicians have historically used these enterprises as conduits for patronage and embezzlement. The recent Senate investigation into the alleged unlawful payment of $496 million to Global Infrastructure Holdings Limited (GIHL) in 2022 underscores the depth of corruption associated with these projects. Such scandals erode public trust and deter potential investors, both domestic and foreign.

The Nigerian government's monopoly over steel production has blocked private investors who could have turned these plants around. Many Nigerian entrepreneurs and foreign investors have expressed interest in reviving the sector, but bureaucratic red tape and political interests have kept them out. The government's protectionist stance has done nothing but worsen the decay in the sector, proving once again that public sector-led industries in Nigeria often end in disaster.

In contrast, countries like China and India have demonstrated the transformative power of a robust steel industry. China's meteoric rise to industrial prominence was significantly bolstered by its steel production capabilities. By investing heavily in this sector and encouraging private participation, China has become the world's largest steel producer, fueling its infrastructure boom and economic expansion. Similarly, India's liberalization of its steel industry has attracted private investment, leading to increased production and job creation. Nigeria has all the necessary resources to replicate these successes, yet corruption and government interference continue to hold it back.

For Nigeria to emulate these successes, a paradigm shift is imperative. The government must recognize that its role should be that of a regulator and facilitator, creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive, rather than being an operator. This involves enacting policies that encourage private investment, ensuring transparency in transactions, and holding individuals accountable for mismanagement and corruption. Without genuine reform, the steel industry will remain a bottomless pit of government expenditure, enriching politicians and bureaucrats while leaving the country in economic stagnation.

It is often said that a man who refuses to learn from his past mistakes is bound to repeat them. The Nigerian government has had decades to learn that it cannot successfully run a business, yet it stubbornly holds onto failing enterprises like Ajaokuta Steel and Delta Steel. How long will this charade continue? How much more money will be wasted before common sense prevails? The time for action is now. The government should step aside and allow private investors to take over these moribund steel plants, inject new capital, and create the jobs Nigerians desperately need.

The proverb, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs," rings true here. Bold, and perhaps painful, decisions are necessary to dismantle the entrenched inefficiencies and corrupt practices that have long plagued Nigeria's steel industry. Privatization, when conducted transparently and with the right safeguards, can inject the much-needed capital and expertise to rejuvenate this sector.

In the end, the saga of Ajaokuta and Delta Steel serves as a cautionary tale of what transpires when government overreach, corruption, and mismanagement converge. It's a stark reminder that for Nigeria to harness its vast potential and alleviate the scourge of unemployment, it must relinquish its stranglehold on key economic sectors and pave the way for private enterprise to lead the charge. After all, in the theater of economic development, it's high time for the government to step backstage and let the real actors take the spotlight.

Calling Zelensky a Dictator While Praising Putin? Only the Historically Illiterate Would Fall for That Nonsense

If  President Trump and his followers believe Zelensky started this war, then they might as well believe that Pearl Harbor bombed itself, that Poland invaded Germany in 1939, and that the Twin Towers collapsed on their own.

When it comes to international agreements, I see Vladimir Putin treating them like New Year’s resolutions—made to be broken. In invading Ukraine, Putin violated the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, not once but twice: first with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and again with the full-scale invasion in 2022. Yet, despite these clear violations, I hear people like President Donald Trump claiming that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy started the war. I don’t know whether to laugh or be shocked at such ignorance. Either these people have no knowledge of history, or they are simply losing their memory.

I remember that the Budapest Memorandum was signed on December 5, 1994, by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It was a simple deal—Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and in return, Russia and the other signatories promised to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders. Back then, Ukraine had the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It could have kept those weapons, but it didn’t. It trusted the agreement. Now, I see how that trust was misplaced because Putin trampled on that promise.

I watched as Putin first violated the agreement in 2014 by seizing Crimea. I remember Russian soldiers—without insignias—occupying key locations, while Putin stood before the world and lied, saying they were not his men. The world condemned the invasion, but what did Putin do? He kept going. He fueled the conflict in eastern Ukraine, backing separatists in the Donbas, and I saw how the war slowly escalated. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but Putin didn’t care. He took what he wanted, and the world let him get away with it.

Then came 2022, and I watched as Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This wasn’t some “special military operation,” as he called it. This was war. I saw entire cities bombed, hospitals destroyed, and civilians murdered. Millions of Ukrainians fled their homes, while those who stayed fought to defend their country. And yet, even as I watched these horrors unfold, I heard Trump and others blaming Zelenskyy for the war. I don’t know what history book they are reading, but I know for a fact that it’s not based on reality.

I heard Trump call Zelenskyy a “dictator without elections.” I had to shake my head at that one. I wonder if Trump forgot that Ukraine is literally fighting a war. I don’t remember the British holding elections while bombs were raining down on London during World War II. Maybe Churchill should have been called a dictator too? What I do remember is that Ukraine is defending itself against an unprovoked attack, and Zelenskyy has done what any leader would do—fight for his country. But somehow, Trump and his supporters twist the facts and act as if Ukraine is the problem.

I have seen how most world leaders stand by Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have both spoken in support of Ukraine, and I know that many U.S. officials also recognize Putin as the aggressor. Even former Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican like Trump, has publicly stated that “Ukraine didn’t start this war. Vladimir Putin did.” That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact. But instead of accepting the truth, some people prefer to spread lies that benefit Putin. I see them shifting the blame, and I recognize this tactic—it’s like the old proverb, “Throwing stones and hiding one’s hand.” Putin started this war, and now his defenders want to pretend someone else is responsible.

I see the danger in these lies. If people believe them, public support for Ukraine will weaken. If public support weakens, Ukraine won’t get the help it needs. And if Ukraine falls, I know what happens next—other aggressors around the world will take notes. If Putin can break international agreements without consequences, what stops China from doing the same in Taiwan? What stops North Korea from ignoring treaties? What stops Iran from expanding its influence? I know that if we let Putin get away with this, we are opening the door for more wars.

That’s why I believe we need to go back to the commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum. The United States and the United Kingdom made a promise to Ukraine. It wasn’t just some empty piece of paper. It was a guarantee. If Russia can violate it, and the world just shrugs, then I have to ask—what’s the point of making agreements at all? If a country can sign a deal one day and break it the next, then every treaty, every peace agreement, every security pledge becomes meaningless.

I watch this war, and I see the stakes. The choices world leaders make right now will determine the future. Will they stand up for Ukraine, or will they let Putin rewrite history? I know what happens when people ignore aggression. I’ve read about it in history books. Appeasement didn’t stop Hitler. Looking the other way won’t stop Putin either.

And yet, I still hear people like Trump blaming Ukraine. I find it ridiculous. It’s like blaming a homeowner for a fire because they tried to stop an arsonist from burning their house down. Putin is the one who started this war. The world knows it. The facts prove it. But I guess for some people, history is just an inconvenience.

I can’t help but wonder—are these people genuinely confused, or are they just pretending not to know? Either way, I suggest they pick up a history book before they embarrass themselves any further.

Loot, Steal, Repeat: How 'Soft-on-Crime' Policies Are Killing American Businesses

Thanks to the Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, thieves now have more job security than store employees—one keeps stealing, the other gets laid off.

Yesterday, February 21, 2025, I went to my neighborhood dollar store in Essex, Baltimore, Maryland, to buy an envelope. But what I saw shocked me. The store looked almost empty, with many shelves bare and workers packing up merchandise into large cartons. Something was clearly wrong. At the checkout counter, I asked the cashier what was going on, and she told me, “We’re closing up for good.” That was the last thing I expected to hear.

Alarmed, I asked her why they were shutting down. She sighed and said, “Since 2023, groups of boys, grown men, and even some ladies have been coming in, filling their carts, and running out without paying. They do it almost every week.” The police were called many times. Some of these criminals were arrested, but they were let go within a year, either because they were juveniles or because of Maryland’s so-called “justice reform” laws that favor criminals over victims. “They just keep coming back,” she said. “It’s no longer worth it to stay open.”

And just like that, another business was gone.

This is not just one store’s story. It is the reality of businesses across America under the Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies. Stores are closing, workers are losing their jobs, and communities are being abandoned—all because the government refuses to do its job and punish criminals properly.

In Maryland alone, over 37 pharmacies shut down between 2023 and 2024, and one of the biggest reasons was rampant theft. In December 2024, a CVS in Bowie Plaza closed its doors, with company officials admitting that retail theft played a major role in the decision. If major corporations like CVS can’t even survive, what hope does a small dollar store have?

Retail theft in Maryland has reached insane levels. In 2022 alone, retailers lost over $1 billion to theft. And thanks to weak laws, criminals know they can get away with it. Maryland only considers theft a felony if it exceeds $1,500 in one location. That means criminals have figured out a loophole—steal just under that amount in multiple places, and the law treats it like a minor offense. No real consequences. No real deterrence.

State Senator Ron Watson is trying to change that by introducing a bill to combine theft totals across locations over 90 days. This would finally allow repeat offenders to be charged for what they really are—serial criminals. But will the Democratic-controlled legislature let it pass? Don’t hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s retail workers are living in fear. As stores lock up their merchandise behind plexiglass to prevent theft, customers get frustrated and stop shopping there. This drives down sales, forcing stores to close. And the people who suffer most are the workers who lose their jobs and the communities left without access to essential goods.

All of this could be stopped tomorrow if politicians actually cared about law-abiding citizens instead of criminals. Instead, they act shocked when businesses close. They pretend it’s because of “changing shopping habits” or “corporate decisions.” They refuse to admit the truth: criminals are driving businesses into the ground.

This problem is not unique to Maryland. Across the country, major retailers like Walgreens, Target, and Walmart have shut down stores in crime-ridden cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York. In California, shoplifters casually walk out of stores with armfuls of stolen goods because they know they won’t be arrested. Even when they are, they’re quickly released and back on the streets.

Just look at San Francisco. Once a thriving commercial hub, it has become a national embarrassment. Major chains like Whole Foods, Nordstrom, and Old Navy have all fled the city, citing skyrocketing crime and rampant shoplifting. Walgreens alone has shut down at least 17 locations in the last three years, with one store reportedly losing $1,000 a day to theft. Employees described having to call the police multiple times a day, only for thieves to be let go within hours.

It’s the same story in Chicago. In 2023, Walmart closed four stores in the city, blaming “millions in losses” due to theft. In New York City, some grocery stores have resorted to hiring armed guards, while others have simply given up and left.

What happens when businesses shut down? Jobs disappear. Local economies collapse. Neighborhoods turn into ghost towns. And the people who relied on these businesses—the elderly, the disabled, the working poor—are left stranded.

Democrats say they care about working people, but their policies do nothing but destroy jobs. They let criminals terrorize businesses, refuse to enforce the law, and then act surprised when businesses flee. They claim to fight for the “little guy,” but they’re the ones making life harder for struggling small business owners.

The irony is almost laughable—except it’s not funny when it’s your neighborhood store that’s closing. It’s not funny when it’s your job that disappears. It’s not funny when you’re the one left paying the price for the government’s failure.

And let’s not forget about the impact on consumers. When retailers experience constant theft, they raise prices to cover their losses. That means law-abiding customers are forced to pay more while criminals keep walking away with free goods. It’s the ultimate slap in the face to hardworking Americans.

Big cities have already begun resembling lawless wastelands. Videos of mass looting have become a daily occurrence on social media, yet politicians act as if they don’t see them. Criminals smash glass cases, grab what they want, and stroll out like they own the place. Employees are told not to intervene, and even when police do arrest someone, they’re out of jail before the ink dries on the paperwork.

The result? More businesses shutting down. More jobs lost. More neighborhoods destroyed.

And instead of fixing the problem, Democrats make it worse. Some cities, like Los Angeles and Portland, have decriminalized shoplifting under $950, effectively giving criminals a free pass to steal. If you run a business in these cities, you might as well leave your cash register open and hope for the best.

In Washington, D.C., the city council actually lowered penalties for carjackings and other violent crimes—even as the murder rate surged. In New York, repeat offenders are released under no-cash bail laws, allowing them to commit crimes over and over again with no consequences. The message is clear: criminals run the show.

So where does this end? If stores keep closing, if cities keep descending into chaos, if criminals are rewarded instead of punished—where does it all lead? How many more businesses have to close before politicians wake up? How many more people have to lose their jobs before the government takes this seriously?

There was a time when America valued hard work and honest business. When criminals were afraid to steal because they knew there would be consequences. When police were respected, not defunded. When politicians actually cared about keeping their communities safe. But that time is gone. And if things don’t change soon, it may never come back.

If this continues, the only businesses left standing will be the ones owned by criminals. Maybe they should start accepting stolen goods as currency—after all, they’re the only ones the system seems to be protecting.

Why Nigeria’s Ports Are Failing: Lagos Port is a Nightmare—Only Full Privatization Can Save Nigeria’s Shipping Industry

The Nigerian government has no business running the ports when the private sector can do it better, cheaper, and more efficiently—just like in the U.S. and other developed nations. In plain terms, Lagos is choking, and Nigeria’s economy is bleeding because the government refuses to let the private sector transform the ports into a world-class trade hub.

Nigeria's ports are caught in a whirlpool of rising costs and inefficiencies, causing the nation to lose its once-dominant position in West African maritime trade. Once the heartbeat of regional commerce, Nigeria’s ports are now struggling to keep up, burdened by excessive charges, corruption, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. The Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), established in 1954, has been at the helm of the country's port operations. However, the current operational model has led to escalating charges and a chaotic environment, prompting businesses to divert their cargoes to neighboring countries like Ghana, Togo, and Benin. The result is an economy bleeding revenue while other nations reap the benefits of Nigeria’s failure to modernize. At this rate, Nigeria is not just losing cargo—it is losing relevance.

Port charges in Nigeria have surged by nearly 100%, with the NPA increasing dues and tariffs from 7% to 15%. Terminal operators and shipping companies have followed suit, raising fees by 15% to 45%. Importers now face exorbitant costs, with clearing a 40-foot container escalating from N18 million to N26 million ($11,986 to $17,300), and a 20-foot container from N10.5 million to N20 million. To put this into perspective, it now costs over N4 million ($2,600)  to clear a used Toyota Corolla. These inflated expenses are further compounded by unofficial payments required to expedite clearance processes, turning Nigerian ports into a financial black hole where money disappears without a trace of accountability. Such a burdensome financial landscape has made doing business at Nigerian ports approximately 40% more expensive than in other West African countries, as admitted by the Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, Adegboyega Oyetola.

The repercussions of these challenges are stark. Nigeria, which once attracted 70% of West African-bound cargo, now handles less than two million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs). The diversion of cargo to neighboring countries results in significant economic losses, with an estimated N130 billion lost annually due to inefficiencies and high costs at Nigerian ports. This situation not only reduces government revenue but also encourages smuggling and other illicit trade practices that weaken the economy. The tragedy is that Nigeria has a coastline stretching 800 kilometers, yet the country struggles to compete with landlocked nations when it comes to trade efficiency. How does a nation sitting on vast maritime wealth manage to sink its own shipping industry? It takes a unique level of dysfunction.

A critical examination of the NPA's operational structure reveals that its dual role as both regulator and operator has contributed to these inefficiencies. Historically, the NPA has been inclined to raise tariffs to address internal budget deficits rather than focusing on improving efficiency and productivity. This approach has rendered Nigerian ports among the slowest and most expensive globally. In contrast, countries like the United States have embraced full privatization of port operations, leading to enhanced efficiency, reduced costs, and increased competitiveness. The Port of Los Angeles, for example, remains one of the busiest in the world due to its well-structured and privately managed operations.

The argument for complete privatization of the NPA is further strengthened by the success stories of other nations. For instance, the Port of Antwerp-Bruges in Belgium handled 278 million tonnes of cargo in 2024, including 13.5 million TEUs, generating $33.3 billion in value-added, equivalent to 7% of the country's GDP. Similarly, the Netherlands' ports manage approximately 15 million TEUs annually, earning $27.3 billion in revenue as of 2021. These figures starkly contrast with the NPA and other Nigerian maritime agencies, which collectively generated N850 billion ($562 million) last year. A nation with Nigeria’s economic potential should be setting the standard for port operations, not watching from the sidelines as smaller nations take over its market share.

Privatization could usher in a plethora of benefits for Nigeria's port operations. By transferring port management to private entities, the government can attract investments necessary for modernizing infrastructure, implementing advanced technology, and streamlining operations. The dredging of new ports in locations like Onitsha, Warri, and Calabar would help decongest the overburdened Lagos ports, allowing for smoother and faster cargo movement. Moreover, private sector involvement often brings about a culture of efficiency and transparency, reducing bureaucratic red tape and corruption that have long plagued the NPA. With modern scanning equipment and digital processing, the long delays that force importers to pay exorbitant demurrage fees could become a thing of the past.

The success of the Snake Island Integrated Free Zone (SIIFZ) serves as a testament to the potential benefits of privatization. Established in 2005 as Nigeria's first privately owned free zone, SIIFZ has attracted over $600 million in investments and generated more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. Its strategic location and efficient operations have made it a hub for logistics, trading, and manufacturing, highlighting what private sector management can achieve. This is a prime example of how business-friendly policies can drive economic growth—an approach that should be replicated across Nigeria’s entire port system.

Critics of privatization may argue that it could lead to job losses or reduced government control over critical infrastructure. However, evidence suggests that private sector participation often results in job creation due to expanded operations and increased investments. Additionally, the government's role can transition to that of a regulator, ensuring that private operators adhere to standards that protect national interests while fostering a competitive environment. The truth is, the current structure is failing Nigerian workers just as much as it is failing the economy. If inefficiency and corruption remain unchecked, the only jobs left will be for those willing to grease the right palms in an already bloated and unproductive system.

The saying goes, “A rolling stone gathers no moss,” but in Nigeria, it seems that a static port gathers endless inefficiencies. While global trade is evolving at breakneck speed, Nigeria remains stuck in a time loop of outdated policies, unnecessary tariffs, and rampant corruption. Embracing full privatization of the NPA could be the transformative step needed to revitalize Nigeria's ports, reclaim its status as a regional trade hub, and unlock economic opportunities that have long been stifled. Without immediate reform, Nigerian ports will continue to be nothing more than waystations for inefficiency, places where progress docks only to be held up by paperwork, bribes, and bureaucracy.

In a world where ships sail towards efficiency and profitability, Nigeria's ports remain anchored in bureaucratic inertia. The global economy waits for no one, and if Nigeria fails to act, its maritime sector will continue to sink while neighboring countries reap the rewards. Perhaps it's time to let private sector winds fill the sails and steer the nation's maritime industry towards prosperous horizons. If Nigeria insists on keeping its ports under inefficient government control, it might as well rename them "Lost Opportunity Terminals."