The Prime Minister’s message is clear: Christianity is the foundation upon which the nation’s freedom is built.

In her latest stand for Italy’s cultural roots, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has delivered a powerful and unapologetic message that is resonating with believers worldwide. Addressing the growing debate over religious symbols in public life, Meloni firmly declared that the crucifix and the nativity scene are not merely ornaments, but the very heartbeat of the nation’s identity.

'If you feel offended by a crucifix or a nativity scene, then this is not the place where you should live,' Meloni stated. Her words come as a bold rebuke to what she describes as a 'distorted secularism' that seeks to erase the Christian heritage of the West. She pledged to remain a steadfast guardian of the faith, famously reaffirming her commitment to 'defend God, the homeland, and the family.'

For many, Meloni’s stance is a courageous defense of the 'Sacred.' She argues that these symbols represent universal values of dignity and respect that have shaped civilization for centuries. By refusing to 'apologize for our identity,' Meloni is calling on citizens to rediscover the beauty of their roots and stand firm against the 'abyss' of a rootless, consumer-driven culture.

The Prime Minister’s message is clear: Christianity is the foundation upon which the nation’s freedom is built. As she continues to advocate for traditional values, her call to 'be rebels by being conservatives' is igniting a global conversation on the importance of protecting faith in the modern town square.

Photo Source: Italy Presidency of the Council 

IT'S HARD NOT TO CALL NONSENSE

Editorial by Clint Grantham

Every time I hear someone swear we’re suddenly living in a “totalitarian state,” that Donald Trump was some unprecedented tyrant, or that America has never seen heavy-handed immigration enforcement or pressure on the press before, it’s hard not to call nonsense. 

This country has a long, well-documented history of presidents... across parties... who suspended constitutional rights, jailed critics, seized private property, surveilled citizens, interned whole populations, and even killed Americans without trial, yet those episodes rarely trigger the same breathless panic or historical amnesia. 

Compared to what the executive branch has actually done in the past, today’s hysterics... whether about immigration enforcement or high-profile media controversies... sound less like sober constitutional concern and more like selective outrage from people who skipped the history lesson.

Here are just a few examples from our nation's past off the top of my head...

• John Adams (1798) — Alien and Sedition Acts

Enacted during tensions with France, these laws made it a crime to criticize the federal government and allowed the president to detain or deport non-citizens without due process, directly suppressing free speech and press in peacetime.

• Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865) — Suspension of habeas corpus; arrests

During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, allowing military detention without trial, which led to the arrest of journalists, legislators, and civilians suspected of disloyalty, bypassing normal judicial protections.

• Woodrow Wilson (1917–1920) — Espionage Act & Sedition Act

These wartime laws were used to imprison Americans for speeches, publications, and protests opposing World War I, criminalizing dissent and dramatically narrowing First Amendment protections.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933) — Executive Order 6102 (gold seizure)

Required Americans to surrender most privately held gold to the federal government under threat of fines and imprisonment, effectively voiding gold-backed contracts and concentrating monetary control in the executive branch.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt (1942) — Executive Order 9066 (Japanese-American internment)

Authorized the forced removal and incarceration of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans—most of them U.S. citizens—without charges, trials, or evidence of wrongdoing, based solely on ancestry.

• Harry S. Truman (1952) — Seizure of steel mills

Attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War to prevent a labor strike, asserting executive power over private property; the action was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

• Richard Nixon (1969–1974) — Surveillance and targeting of opponents

Used federal agencies for warrantless surveillance, intelligence abuses, and intimidation of journalists and political enemies, culminating in the Watergate scandal and resignation.

• George W. Bush (2001–2008) — USA PATRIOT Act & warrantless surveillance

Expanded federal surveillance and intelligence powers after 9/11, enabling mass data collection and reduced judicial oversight, significantly narrowing privacy protections for Americans.

• Barack Obama (2010s) — Drone strikes on U.S. citizens:

Authorized a drone strike killing Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without indictment or trial, and later a separate strike that killed his minor son, raising profound due-process and executive-power concerns.

• Joe Biden (2021–2023) — Vaccine mandates and employment consequences

Used executive authority to impose nationwide vaccine mandates, resulting in service members being discharged from the military—many later reinstated with back pay—and nurses and other essential workers being permanently forced out of their professions, with courts later limiting or overturning parts of these actions

I don’t agree with every decision Donald Trump makes, and I don’t know anyone who does. But the narrative that he is some unprecedented tyrant or monster... something America has never seen before... is just plain foolishness. Our history is full of presidents who exercised far greater executive power and caused far more direct harm to constitutional rights, yet that context is conveniently ignored when outrage is selective rather than informed.

Spoken like a true military guy!

Title by Paul Ayres editorial by Jeff Allen

Let me explain this in plain terms, because most people have never seen this up close. I spent decades as an intelligence operator in Special Operations, during the Cold War and after. I worked on 5 continents and spent time in counterinsurgency and counterintelligence environments, tracking organized resistance groups and separating them from the people supporting them. There are certain patterns you see over and over, no matter the country or ideology. Organized resistance does not start with gunfights. It starts with structure. You see observers, intermediaries, hidden drop points or digital equivalents, disciplined communication, people assigned specific roles, and a strategy built around slowly wearing down a stronger force while staying just below the threshold that triggers a full response. That is why what I am seeing in Minneapolis concerns me. This is not just people showing up to protest. There are reports of spotters, structured communication groups, people assigned to follow vehicles, others logging license plates into shared databases, dispatch style coordination directing teams across the city, and standardized reporting on federal units and movements using easily accessible technology. Messages rotate and auto delete. New participants are vetted. Some locals are providing cover and support. There are coordination points and rapid escalation from observing to physically interfering. That is organization. That is command and control. That is basic operational security. Any experienced intelligence operator would recognize the framework. If you swap out federal agents for coalition forces, the layout looks very similar to what we dealt with in the middle east, Bosnia, and other places in the early phases of insurgent networks. The most serious issue is that this is happening inside the United States. Americans organizing against American law enforcement with parallel intelligence and response systems is a different category from protest. Doxxing, coordinated vehicle tracking, harassment, and physical obstruction cross into organized resistance behavior, whether people like that label or not. This model is well known. You stay low level most of the time, push authorities into overreacting when possible, control the public narrative, and avoid presenting a single target that can be dismantled. It is how decentralized movements survive and expand. For many years, we have dismantled these networks. Seeing pieces of that framework show up in US cities, sometimes with support or tolerance from local institutions, should concern anyone who cares about stability. I am not advocating violence or escalation. I am stating a historical pattern. Once this kind of infrastructure exists, it rarely fades away on its own. If the organizers believe they are winning the narrative battle, they entrench. If they believe they are losing, escalation becomes more likely leading to physical instigation. We can recognize what we are looking at and address it honestly, or we can keep calling it spontaneous activism while the networks mature and spread. The United States Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to “protest.” The First Amendment protects the right of the people to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, along with freedoms of speech, religion, and the press. The operative legal language is “peaceably assemble,” which historically refers to orderly gatherings for discussion, expression, and petitioning the government, not disruptive, violent, or coercive actions. Courts have consistently held that while expressive conduct is protected, the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and may prohibit violence, obstruction, and disorderly conduct. In short, the Constitution protects peaceful assembly and expression, not unlimited protest behavior. From my perspective, this is no longer normal political tension. These are early internal conflict dynamics that nations usually only confront overseas, not at home.

FROM JIHADIST TO JESUS (I came to America to plan for zero hour.)

 

You won't be reading it in history books, you'll be an eye witness

Their ultimate goal is power/control over the populace and destroy any notion that this is one nation under God. Which was once pushed by the Humanists * of the early 20th century that it would take several generations to take the long term approach for a successful takeover of the Republican form of government...the same mindset of both Maoist and Marxist ideology.

*1933 -- The first Humanist Manifesto is published. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and "a socialized and cooperative economic order." Co-signer C.F. Potter said in 1930:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?

If allowed to continue, we are less than one generation away from dominance by the slave masters.  This means you won't be reading it in history books, you'll be an eye witness.  Before they passed into eternity, several of my deceased elderly relatives have stated, "I'm glad I'm on my way out."  They're gone now and I'm witnessing the end of the movie.  But I have faith the editor (aka Donald Trump) will somehow culminate this into a happy ending. ~ Norman E. Hooben