It has been one year since Vice President JD Vance laid a smackdown on European nations over the issue of free speech. You may remember that last year, when Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference (MSC), he castigated the countries in attendance for their interpretation of freedom of speech, among other things.

JUST IN: Vice President JD Vance rips European leaders to their faces at the Munich security conference, calls them out for criminalizing free speech.

 Vance specifically called out the United Kingdom for being the worst of them all. “I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no… Free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

The BBC remembers that Vance told the audience that the “greatest threat the (European) continent faces comes from within,” and that “the audience were visibly stunned.”

Since then, Europe has intensified its enforcement of the oppressive and Orwellian Digital Services Act (DSA), which mandates the censorship of speech over allegations of “illegal content,” “hate speech,” and “disinformation.”

Against this backdrop, Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski showed up at this year’s MSC and, during a panel discussion, offered his own rebuttal of sorts to what Vance said last year.

NOW – Poland’s FM Radosław Sikorski says the U.S. should not impose its free speech values on Europeans: “In the U.S., it’s almost absolute… whereas in Europe, for good historical reasons… we believe in freedom of speech with responsibility.”

That’s a lot to “unpack,” as the kids say, but it’s something we need to do in order to better understand where Europe is coming from and just how wrong they are even by their own so-called standards.

We have a genuine civilizational difference on how we understand freedom of speech. In the United States, it’s almost absolute. It’s almost impossible to win a case of defamation or libel…In Europe, for good historical reasons, for example, in Poland it is forbidden to speak up on behalf of fascism and communism for very good historical reasons, Sikorski said.

Listening to Sikorski, it feels like he either forgot about Walesa’s words, or he wants us to do so.

Using Sikorski’s logic, and that of the people who made it illegal to praise fascism and communism, if you allow people to openly praise that thing you don’t like, your own values and systems of governing aren’t capable of mounting an effective defense. Therefore, you must suppress these things.

To arrive at these conclusions, you have to ignore the timeless messages that Lech Wałęsa shared: that you cannot have freedom or democracy if you do not allow people to say what you dislike; that you will likely lose the truth once you start down the path of governmental censorship.

We believe in freedom of speech with responsibility. And what happened here a year ago was that the vice president of the United States was telling us that our notion of free speech was censorship, and I just don’t accept that. So, the difficulty we now have is that one side of the Atlantic is trying to impose on the other side, Sikorski added.

For an American to read that or to hear that, it would be easy to misunderstand where “freedom of speech with responsibility” comes from. At first, it sounds like a trite justification for the unjustifiable denial of free speech rights, but the term does have a history.

Viktor Frankl was a Holocaust survivor and the author of the classic Man’s Search for Meaning. He was held in Nazi concentration camps, including Auschwitz (in Sikorski’s Poland) and Dachau (in Germany, not that far from where Sikorski made his comments) between 1942 and 1945.

Frankl said two things about “responsibleness” that may provide necessary context for Sikorski’s comments. First, he said, “Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness.” And second, he stated, “Responsibleness is the very essence of human existence.”

When Frankl talked of “responsibleness,” he was saying that with freedom comes responsibility – not responsibility in the form of following rules or being prepared to take blame – but something deeper. He was talking about something that must come from within each of us and cannot be imposed on us. If we want freedom, we must personally accept responsibility for how we handle that freedom. This is a natural counterbalance he often described.

What Frankl did not mean was that if the government grants you a freedom – like free speech – it should then assign certain responsibilities and conditions for the exercise of that freedom.

When Sikorski described “freedom of speech with responsibility,” he was jumping to the wrong conclusion about what Frankl intended. Sikorski doesn’t see free speech as a right, but as a privilege granted by government that can be taken away by government. He sees free speech “with responsibility” as a compliance issue, not a freedom issue.

Last year, when Vance took the whole of Europe out to the woodshed to make the point that it’s not government’s job to interfere with free speech rights, that wasn’t absolutism. He was simply recognizing that there are certain limits to government power – such as censorship – in a healthy democracy.

Sikorski heard that and now says that when Vance was telling Europe that its “notion of free speech was censorship,” he didn’t accept that.

That’s where Sikorski totally exposed his ignorance on the very issue of free speech as a human right. When you advocate for controls and limits on speech, that is by its very nature censorship. It doesn’t matter what your history is or your stated intent now. It’s still censorship. If you believe in the meaning of words and logic itself, you have to accept that. But Sikorski and the rest of Europe do not.

This is the mindset that enables Europe to slide from censoring speech on fears over the potential for a return of another Hitler or Stalin, to arresting and censoring a man who’s praying to himself in public over the loss of his unborn son. Only a European could miss the absurdity of this and the potential peril that comes with it. When you suppress the populace in the name of combatting fascism, you become that thing you hate.

Tim O’Brien  | 3:18 AM on February 15, 2026

Source: Poland’s Foreign Minister Exposes Europe’s Ignorance on America and Freedom of Speech – PJ Media

Lillian, a senior at the University of Virginia, is taking a step that has scandalized her parents, peers, and professors.

It has nothing to do with her performance at UVA. Lillian is killing it academically. She is a dedicated volunteer in Charlottesville, and looks primed to make her mark on the world. In these ways, she is a typical student at Mr. Jefferson’s university. But what makes her really stand out from the crowd at UVA is that she is planning on getting married this year, in November, at the age of twenty-two.

Her early marriage plans did not go over well with her parents, at least not initially. When Lillian told her parents, they “weren’t immediately supportive”—in fact, they were “angry, maybe heartbroken.” She added, “They want what’s best for me, and they defined that as seeing the world, working for [awhile], and ‘realizing my full potential’ before settling down. While I understand the appeal of that [conventional] path—and sure, a random weekend trip to Spain sounds nice—it simply doesn’t measure up to the importance of marriage for me.”

Her parents’ concerns about her marrying young were echoed by many of her professors, friends, and other family members. “Marrying young is [viewed as] abnormal” for many of her college friends and mentors, she said. They think your twenties are for “figuring out who you are,” having fun, and—above all—getting your career launched. One professor at UVA put it this way: “You’re throwing your whole life away. Why would I help you get a job if you’re not going to work that long? You could be something really cool on Wall Street, and you’re choosing marriage instead.”

The pushback has been profound because so many of her peers and professors are devoted to what I’ve called the “Midas Mindset”—the idea that what matters most in your life is building your own individual brand, seeing work as the summit of your life, and steering clear of the encumbrances of family life in your twenties. Your twenties are supposed to be devoted to education, work, and fun. This decade is for self-development and having the freedom and independence to do what you want, when you want. Only after you have gotten all your ducks in a row, around the age of thirty, are you supposed to even think about something or someone beyond yourself—to lean into love, marriage, and family life.

“I’ve had to fight off [so much] unsolicited ‘advice’ and cling to what I know to be true: I am ready to be married,” she told me. Her relationship is strong, she and her boyfriend are mature, she is eager to start a family, and she is devoted to her Christian faith. What matters most to her (besides her faith) is marriage and family and she’s ready to get started on both. “Why should I delay the life I truly want and know is right just because society calls it ‘abnormal’?”

Although Lillian is in the minority at UVA, her pursuit of early marriage is supported by a growing chorus of voices on the right. From online influencers such as Riley Gaines to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, from conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro to tech billionaires like Palmer Luckey, young marriage is getting renewed attention as a valuable option. But no one has given voice to the case for young marriage more prominently and insistently on the right than Charlie Kirk, who was killed five months ago.

To be honest, I had not paid a lot of attention to Kirk prior to his assassination on September 10, beyond knowing that he was a prominent Republican political organizer and campus activist. But after he was killed, I learned that besides being a big player in politics, Kirk had also been a powerful and prophetic voice on behalf of something bigger than politics: the American family. I also came to learn that this man, a man who never even graduated from college, was possessed of more wisdom than many academics when it came to our most fundamental social institution, marriage. Not only did he frequently and eloquently articulate the value of marriage and family in general, but he also made the case for young marriage in particular. In fact, Lillian named Kirk as one of the thinkers who shaped her decision to embrace young marriage.

Kirk’s case for twenty-something marriage to young adults was three-fold. First, the culture is telling you to lean into work and travel. But working for the man and “traveling to Thailand” is not going to bring you the fulfillment you think it will. Second, you will minimize your odds of being miserable and maximize your odds of living a meaningful and happy life by getting married and having kids. So, don’t wait to embark on life’s most important journey. Third, do not assume that you can wait until your thirties to find a spouse and start your family. If you wait, you may miss out.

Of course, as Lillian’s experience indicates, Kirk’s view is by no means the majority view today. Most professors, peers, and parents encourage young adults to steer clear of a trip down the altar and focus instead on money and work. A recent Pew survey found that nearly nine in ten parents say financial independence and career fulfillment are crucial for their kids. But when it comes to marriage and children? Only one in five think those are extremely or very “important” for their kids when they reach adulthood. As Kay Hymowitz observed, “college-educated professionals and devoted parents [prod] their kids to prepare for the Big Career. When it [comes] to that other crucial life goal—finding a loyal, loving spouse, a devoted parent for their grandchildren—their lips [are] sealed.”

This helps explain why students such as Holly, a recent UVA graduate, told me that “UVA students are definitely more focused on their education and getting their career started than getting into a serious relationship,” adding: “If it happens, great, but the focus is definitely on building our own brands first. The thought process is, relationships and love are a risk, but you will always have your career and success to fall back on—­ at least while you are young.” She’s not alone. Young adults overwhelmingly prioritize the Midas Mindset over marriage: while 75 percent of eighteen- to forty-year-olds consider making a good living crucial to fulfillment and 64 percent say the same about education, according to one recent poll, just 32 percent view marriage as essential.

But the path to living a meaningful and fulfilling life, as Kirk realized, is much more likely to run through marriage and family than it is through money and work, not to mention traveling to Thailand. Of course, there are plenty of voices in mainstream and social media today telling young women and men otherwise. From the left, we have writers like Amy Shearn in The New York Times insisting that “married heterosexual motherhood in America … is a game no one wins.” From the right, online influencers like Andrew Tate assure us that “the problem is, there is zero advantage to marriage in the Western world for a man.”

Elizabeth, a thirty-four-year-old lawyer living in Texas, would beg to differ with these marriage and family naysayers. She’s living the dream valorized by the Midas Mindset—she has graduated from a top college in the South, gotten a fancy law degree, works for Big Law, and pulls down a large six-figure salary. But financial and professional success have not been enough. She is feeling alone and dissatisfied with a life that hasn’t yet led to marriage and motherhood.

A recent visit to her sister’s home crystalized her sense of dissatisfaction. “My sister just had her third baby,” she told me, also noting that her sister and her husband are struggling financially to stay afloat supporting their growing family. Meanwhile, on the very day she was visiting them, Elizabeth got news from her boss that she had received a promotion and salary boost at the Texas law firm where she works.

But visiting with her sister and newest niece at their home that day, Elizabeth didn’t feel happy about her promotion; she just felt sad about the absence of family in her life. “I sat there on the stairs in the house with her [and the baby],” she said, continuing, “And I would have given every dollar in my bank account to have my sister’s life… How empty the promotion felt when my sister has her third baby.”

Charlie Kirk would not be surprised by Elizabeth’s dissatisfaction. He knew young adults’ faith in the Midas Mindset was mistaken. In a podcast the day before he was killed, Kirk said that young women without families were more likely to be “miserable.”

Kirk’s way of framing the issue is off-putting to many. But he is onto something. Young women (aged 22-35) who are single like Elizabeth are indeed more likely to report that they are lonely and unsatisfied with their lives. Fifty-five percent report that they are frequently lonely compared to 36 percent who are married; likewise, 47 percent of unmarried young women say they are “not satisfied” with their lives, compared to just 18 percent who are married, according to the American Family Survey.

It’s not just women. Young men (22-35) who are single and childless are also more likely to be lonely and unsatisfied with their lives. Unmarried young men are 23 percentage points more likely to be frequently lonely and more than twice as likely to be unsatisfied with their lives compared to their married peers. One thirty-something man pulling in a healthy six-figure salary in New York City underlined his frustrations with his love life in this way: “Even for those of us who are successful in other areas of life, the [way] these dating apps [rate us] feels futile and transactional,” adding he had not been able to find a good relationship. “The experience is immensely lonely.”

The inverse is also true. Kirk was a big booster of twenty-something marriage in part because he saw it as the best path to forging a meaningful and happy life for young adults. He noted the “happiest women in America are married with children” and encouraged his followers to “Live life to the full” by forming families.

Here again, Kirk knew what he was talking about. You might not guess it from watching the latest episode of Emily in Paris, but the happiest young women (22-35) today are not footloose and fancy free, they are married moms. And the ones least likely to be happy are single and childless. Data from the General Social Survey indicate that 41 percent  of young married moms (22-35) are “very happy” with their lives, compared to just 14 percent  of their female peers who are single and childless. That’s a big gap.

What is particularly striking about this gap is that it flies in the face of conventional wisdom among single women today. A majority (55 percent) of unmarried women today believe that single women are typically happier than married women, according to a recent poll from the Survey Center on American Life. Conditioned by social and mainstream media to view marriage and family as constraints on women’s freedom, exposed to one pop cultural offering after another depicting urban single life as the best, and occasionally frustrated by lackluster dating experiences, many young women have grown skeptical of our oldest social institution.

But these marriage skeptics haven’t met Samantha. This young woman met her future husband in New York City in her early twenties, while working in the theater. At that point, she was “eat, sleep, and breathe Broadway” and living in a world where most of her friends put “career first, family second.” But after meeting and falling in love with Joey, who shared her Catholic faith and love of family, she decided to forge a different path. Samantha got married, left New York for the more family-friendly environs of Texas and started a family.

“I don’t miss that season, because I love the season that I made,” said this twenty-nine-year-old wife and mother of two young children, who now works part time in the theater. “I don’t want to miss a moment with the kids and with Joey, and it brings me even more joy to sit down and be able to have dinner with my husband every night than to be off on a stage every night” without them. Samantha is clearly happy amidst the hubbub of family life.

What about young men? Kirk once observed that for men, getting married amounted to a kind of death—“It’s the death of the bachelor mindset. It’s the death of the wondering eye. It’s the death of ‘I get what I want to do.’ It’s the death of playing video games until 1 a.m..” That may seem off-putting to some young men, but Kirk went on to say, of marriage and men, that “it’s the birth of a man” who now finds meaning, direction, purpose in something larger than himself, and is happy for it.

Samantha’s husband, Joey, whom I taught when he was an undergraduate at UVA, would certainly agree with the idea that twenty-something marriage has involved sacrifices, though not quite the ones Kirk mentioned. Once they decided to get married, Joey left his high-flying finance job in New York City for a more “family-oriented” firm in Dallas that would give him more time with Samantha and the kids they hoped to have.

This twenty-nine-year-old finds family life in Texas much more meaningful than his single phase in New York. “When you’re single, there’s a lot of excitement. But it’s all individual, right? Everything is experienced just by yourself,” he said, adding, “The world opens up so much more when you have a life partner, and a family that you can experience it with together.” Getting married and having kids, for Joey, means “experiencing their joy on top of your joy—it is exponential.”

Indeed, young married men (22-35) who are married with children are almost three times as likely to be “very happy” with their lives compared to their peers who are single and childless. Only 14 percent of young men who are single and childless are “very happy” compared to 37 percent of their peers who are married fathers. Not only are young adults who put a ring on it happier with their lives in general, the research also suggests they enjoy marriages that are somewhat happier and more sexually satisfying than those who marry later. These data suggest young men and women who take their cues from pop culture—whether classic shows like Friends or contemporary series like Adults, both celebrating single life in New York City—may be in for a rude surprise. Because the reality is that today’s young men and women who reject this path, like Joey and Samantha, are the ones truly thriving.

Most of the students that I teach at the University of Virginia are planning on waiting until around thirty to marry and start a family. One reason this is their plan is that it is the current social convention—the median age at first marriage is close to thirty for today’s young adults, according to the census. Another is that most of their parents expect them to wait until around thirty to put a ring on it.

Zach’s experience with his parents is typical. Although the twenty-two-year-old senior at UVA is personally hoping to marry his long-term girlfriend in the next two years, his parents had more conventional expectations for him. Their message to him was “you’re very young, definitely don’t tie yourself down,” he told me, adding that from their perspective “obviously college and career are the important things to focus on right now.” Like most parents, they assumed Zach could focus on building a relationship in his late twenties and then get married as he approached thirty.

This was Elizabeth’s view, as well, when she was in college and law school in her early and mid-twenties. She had dated successfully in high school growing up in Texas, describes herself as “reasonably attractive” and “friendly” and simply assumed that it would be easy to date in her twenties, after she had finished law school. Back in her early twenties, she said, “I was thinking more about just, you know, education and work,” adding, “I wanted to get married, but pursuing it wasn’t a priority.” She thought she had time to focus on education and work in her early twenties and then pivot to finding a husband in her late twenties. This approach to sequencing education, work and marriage that “was in the air” when she was in her twenties. Hence, she did not “feel any urgency in pursuing a relationship” in her early twenties.

She now regrets that. Because after graduating from law school in her mid-twenties, she spent almost two years in New York City working long hours at a big law firm until she was twenty-seven. She found the New York dating scene difficult, in part because her job required “insane” hours that did not leave much time for socializing. But when she returned to Texas, she did not find dating—primarily through online platforms—much easier in her late twenties. In fact, online dating was hard, because there is no easy “way of figuring out chemistry” through online profiles. And she was getting nervous in her late twenties, realizing that she would have to find a good guy, establish a relationship, marry, and start having kids before her biological clock might make getting pregnant more difficult.

Her concerns about the timeline for forming a family were legitimate. That’s because even though she did find a serious boyfriend in her early thirties, that relationship recently ended when he made it clear he did not want children. So, right now, at the age of thirty-four, Elizabeth has no clear path towards marriage and motherhood.

Looking back, Elizabeth wishes she had dated seriously in college. The students in her selective college were smart and hard-working; she thinks she could have found a guy back then who would have been a good fit for her—both “roughly the same intelligence” and the “same nerdy personality” that she has. But her parents did not encourage her to date when she was in college or law school “because I think they just had no idea how difficult it actually would be” to date later. In fact, “they’re very surprised that I’m not married.”

What her parents—and many other parents, professors, and peers of today’s young adults—don’t know is that dating has become much more difficult now than it used to be. A new Wheatley-Institute for Family Studies (IFS) report finds that about two-thirds of young adults (22-35) who are not married but interested in marrying had not dated or dated only a few times in the last year, in part because they lack the confidence to approach the opposite sex. Another survey from Pew found that more than one-third of single young adults (18-39) are not looking to date. Trends like these help explain why a record share of today’s young adults—one-in-three—are projected never to marry.

They also explain why Charlie Kirk made this provocative claim about young women’s odds of having a child: “If you don’t have kids by the age of thirty, you have a 50 percent chance of not having kids.” His comment struck even me as a stretch, and I’ve been studying the American family for the last twenty-fix years. But, again, he was onto something. An analysis of retrospective demographic data by Grant Bailey at IFS found that women who are middle-aged today and reached thirty without starting a family did indeed have only a 52 percent chance of having children. It’s true that delayed motherhood is increasingly common, and that may nudge the statistics in a slightly more optimistic direction for women reaching thirty childless. Still, the fundamental calculation remains: Cross that threshold without children, and your odds of having children fall closer to almost one-in-two.

Statistics like this can seem abstract, but they’re not for women and men like Elizabeth who are struggling to find love and get started on a family in their mid-thirties. This is even more so for the record share of never-married adults in their forties. One never-married female colleague at UVA who falls into this demographic jokingly told me that more college students need to start thinking again about the BA as the place to find a Mrs. or Mr. degree.

She’s onto something. In my sociology of family class at the University of Virginia, I tell my students that they’ll never again be surrounded by such a large pool of eligible dating prospects as they are in college. What’s more: Given the difficulties so many young adults face when it comes to dating today, I add, they should be extra attentive to seizing the manifest opportunities college presents to find a potential mate.

This is not to say there are no risks associated with twenty-something marriage or that everyone should marry their college love. The biggest risk is divorce, given that couples who marry in their early twenties are more likely to land in divorce court, in part because they are more likely to be immature. But those risks can be minimized, I also tell my students, by focusing on finding a mate who is a good friend, as well as by embracing a common faith and avoiding cohabitation. Younger couples who are religious and do not cohabit prior to marriage are less likely to divorce.

But marrying in your twenties also has upsides that don’t get enough play in today’s culture. It maximizes your odds of forging a meaningful life as a young adult, and of having the number of kids you would like to have. It minimizes the odds that your own parents’ “time as grandparents is shortened,” as Elizabeth told me. And, by lending direction, meaning, and a sense of solidarity to your life, it gives you a much better shot at succeeding in the classically American “pursuit of happiness.”

Of course, marrying in your twenties is predicated on finding the right someone. I was fortunate enough to spot the woman who would become such a friend in a UVA classroom more than thirty years ago. It took Danielle and I three years after our first date at Mr. Jefferson’s University to find our way to the altar, at the age of twenty-four. But one thing is certain: Graduate school, work, and parenthood in our twenties and thirties were immeasurably happier and more meaningful because we had marital love as the foundation of our young adult lives.

The value of a young marriage doesn’t just matter for young adulthood. It extends into mid-life. As we head into this Valentine’s Day, I’m so grateful that I did not hesitate to pursue and marry Danielle in our early twenties. I cannot imagine mid-life without her and our kids.

This is another reason that I tell my students they need not wait until thirty. If you find the right person in your twenties, don’t hesitate to commit—or risk missing what may be the most important opportunity of your life: building a marriage and family.

Source: Get Married Young | Compact

Analysis of GOP strategies and accountability from Benghazi to current political challenges.

Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the arrest of Zubayr Al-Bakoush, one of the alleged leaders of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the US Mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Fourteen years after the deaths of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods, and serious injuries to mission security personnel David Ubben and Mark Geist, this is accountability far too long in coming, though nonetheless greatly welcome.

In 2014, I was part of a group that pressed for answers to the Benghazi disaster. We dubbed it the “Benghazi Accountability Coalition,” and through a “select” House committee that was established to investigate the attack and in many months following, we pursued that “accountability,” but mainly to little effect against an arrogant Obama administration and a wholly — and typically — unconcerned mainstream press.

This month’s apprehension is a perfect microcosm of the maddening and incessant frustration — not just of conservative activists such as myself — but of the American people. And it’s that elite arrogance and dismissiveness (as has been frequently noted in these intervening years) that led to the 2016 political primal scream that elected Donald Trump.

The egregious leadership failure on the part of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama led directly to the Benghazi debacle. They have yet to answer for it. Or Hillary’s email scandal. Or the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Or the DOJ “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal. Or the Russia Hoax. Or take your pick of a good half-dozen or more euphemized scandals.

So, forgive me if Pam Bondi and D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro making shop-worn declarations to hunt down the violators rings hollow. Where is the indictment of John Brennan? James Clapper? Peter Strzok? (In the interim, Strzok has even secured a settlement from the government for invading his privacy!) His co-FBI conspirator/adulterous snuggle-bunny Lisa Page? The promised re-indictment of James Comey? Again, the list is seemingly never-ending.

Republicans in Washington are in the typical mid-term panic of a majority party. They’re pinning their hopes on a rebounding economy carrying them in November. A couple little inconvenient reminders – bad economies didn’t torpedo Barack Obama in 2012 or produce the highly-touted anti-Biden mid-term “red wave” in 2022.

People are tired of seeing the “big shots” get away with it. Some commentators noted that it was perhaps not a coincidence that this arrest was announced the same day as Hillary and Bill Clinton made a deal to testify on their Epstein dealings before Congress. Maybe – maybe not. But as we’ve seen in his two terms now, Donald Trump is the embodiment of the little guy’s middle finger to the establishment. If Republicans know what’s good for them, they’d better hold Bill and Hill’s feet to the fire on Epstein, and that testimony had better be broadcast far and wide. And Trump, via Bondi, must get the political hacks in the dock and roll out the subpoenas and indictments, and in sufficient time to see some results – ideally, verdicts. You might call it Republican Lawfare.

A recovering – and ideally – booming economy is the standard political cure-all. But we’re not living in standard times – THAT is certainly an “80 percent poll question,” as is the popular reference today. Trump as middle-finger is no longer available as a choice this November, so for Republicans to become his proxy, voters must see some evidence.

As the president frequently inveighed during his first run, it’s HIGH time for him and the Republicans to “lock them (the Democrats) up!”

That is the REAL Republican turnout machine.

By Tommy Sears  | 7:00 AM on February 14, 2026

Source: From Benghazi to Bondi – the New GOP Turnout Machine – RedState

Greenpeace challenges a US court verdict via EU laws, raising issues of judicial sovereignty and transatlantic legal trust.

In a troubling departure from longstanding legal norms, the environmental activist group Greenpeace has turned to the European Union in an effort to undo an unfavorable verdict rendered against it in the United States. If successful, the implications would extend well beyond the nullification of a judgment unanimously decided by a jury of our peers.

At the center of the dispute is the landmark Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace decision handed down in March 2025 by a North Dakota district court. A jury found Greenpeace International and several of its affiliates liable on several counts related to their involvement in the destructive Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016. Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s owner, was initially awarded $667 million in damages. Although the trial judge later reduced to $334 million, Greenpeace’s response was not confined to the ordinary appellate process.

Instead, during the trial, Greenpeace International filed a separate lawsuit in the District Court of Amsterdam, where the organization is headquartered. Invoking the EU’s newly enacted Anti-SLAPP Directive – a legal directive intended to deter lawsuits designed to suppress lawful public speech – Greenpeace accused Energy Transfer of pursuing an “unfounded and abusive” lawsuit, despite offering no new evidence beyond what had already been presented in the North Dakota proceedings.

Setting aside the shaky merits of the EU case, Greenpeace’s pursuit of parallel litigation represents an affront to judicial sovereignty. Our legal system provides established mechanisms for contesting adverse judgments, including post-trial motions and appellate review. Allowing any litigant to pursue a more favorable forum once a lawful judgment has been rendered undermines confidence in the judiciary by weakening its ability to provide finality. A nation’s courts must retain the authority to adjudicate disputes under their own laws without foreign second-guessing.

The doctrine of res judicata exists precisely for this reason. As a doctrine of finality, res judicata exists to bar parties from relitigating claims that have already been decided by a competent court. While limited exceptions do exist – most commonly where new evidence emerges or where enforcing a judgment would result in a clear and grave injustice – Greenpeace satisfies neither. The absence of new evidence is plain, and any claim of injustice is hindered by the court’s careful post-trial review and partial reduction of damages, which largely reaffirmed the jury’s findings.

As concerning are the ripple effects Greenpeace’s actions would have on transatlantic trust and commercial relations. According to Texas-based attorney Charles Meyer, transatlantic judicial respect has served as a bedrock principle of international law for centuries. When legal principles are weaponized for political retribution, that trust erodes, along with the willingness to honor mutually beneficial agreements like the $750 billion EU-US energy pact.

Faced with the prospect that lawful U.S. judgments can be undone abroad, it is no surprise that American energy companies would think twice before aiding our closest allies.

Our courts have a duty not only to deliver justice to those who appear before them, but to safeguard the authority of the judicial system itself. Judicial sovereignty is not a discretionary principle; it is a constitutional necessity. Allowing foreign courts to second-guess duly rendered American verdicts would weaken the rule of law at home, erode confidence abroad, and reward those who seek to evade accountability rather than respect it.

George Landrith | Feb 14, 2026

Source: Greenpeace, Europe, and the Challenge to American Courts

Sen. Kennedy humorously criticizes Schumer over Democrats’ DHS bill demands and ICE restrictions amid funding battles.

Democrats and Republicans are still battling over the funding for the Department of Homeland Security bill as Democrats demand restrictions on ICE.

They didn’t give a darn about ICE under Barack Obama or Joe Biden, but suddenly they care because they want to attack President Donald Trump.

Friday is the deadline when we will go into a partial shutdown, according to DHS, unless they pass a further stopgap/extension.

The funny thing is that because of the One Big Beautiful Bill passed last year, ICE was already given a lot of money to pursue its mission, so this might not truly affect them. What it would affect is the other agencies in the DHS, like FEMA, TSA, and the Secret Service. But for Democrats, what do those facts matter? It’s all about posturing to their base that they’re being tough on ICE.

But Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) had a very direct message to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about the Democrats’ demands about ICE, which include things like not wearing masks, as well as no immigration enforcement at places like schools, courts, and polling places. The Democrats really tell on themselves when they say they don’t want ICE around polling places. Why would illegal aliens be around polling places – unless they were trying to vote?

https://twitter.com/i/status/2021723072269549711

“The Karen wing of the Democratic Party wants to defund ICE, just like they wanted to defund the police,” Kennedy explained.

“And we know how that vampire movie turned out. The Karen wing of the Democratic Party is in control of the Democratic Party. Even if we agreed to every one of Sen. Schumer’s conditions – and I wouldn’t vote for ’em – he couldn’t deliver the Democratic votes. Because the Karen wing will punish any Democrat who votes to keep the DHS open.”

Kennedy said that’s why Schumer was kind of “wandering around” like a “roomba, looking like a man who has just lost his luggage.” That’s a pretty perfect description of Schumer, who always seems to be in a perpetual state of confusion when it comes to decisions about his own party. He can’t deliver the votes, even if we agree, Kennedy said. “And we wouldn’t agree anyway.”

The DHS did agree to body cams, but the minute they did so, the Democrats flipped on a dime and then started terming it “mass surveillance” and started demanding that their use face certain restrictions to protect “privacy.”

Translation? The Democrats realized that body cams weren’t going to help their narratives, and it was likely to nail leftists doing bad things.

So if Democrats want to play this game of demonizing ICE here, they’re going to hurt the other agencies far more than ICE. That’s going to come back on them, and their base should realize they’re being played.

By Nick Arama  | 12:10 PM on February 12, 2026

Source: Sen. Kennedy Delivers a Humorous and Direct Message to Schumer About Those DHS Bill Demands – RedState

Immigration is reshaping political parties in Britain, Europe, and the US, challenging longstanding party stability.

As British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces calls to resign for his appointment of Epstein-tied Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States, one is struck by the sudden instability of British governments. In the 28 years between 1979 and 2007, Britain had only three prime ministers, while in the 19 years since 2007, it has had seven, and may soon have eight. Only one of those, David Cameron, carried his party to a reelection victory, and he resigned a year after being beaten in the Brexit referendum.

Similarly, elsewhere in Europe, France’s historic socialist, communist and Gaullist parties have more or less disappeared, and the National Rally, dismissed as unthinkable, to the point that the judicial establishment disqualified it from the ballot, still leads the polls under its 30-year-old successor.

Germany’s Social Democrats, founded in the 1880s, were swept in and promptly swept out of office, while the Christian Democrats, the descendants of the anti-Nazi Catholic Center party, have barely been holding their own against the oft-denounced AfD.

Italy’s dominant asymmetric duo, for two generations after World War II, the Christian Democrats and the Communists, fell on bad times in the 1990s, with the fading of belief in their founding faiths, Catholicism and communism. Dominant since then have been media millionaire Silvio Berlusconi, the Five Star Movement party, founded by a comedian, and the current prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, whose party’s roots were once dismissed as neo-fascist.

The two American political parties, the oldest and third-oldest in the world, have shown more stability. In the first half of the 20th century, Democrats survived the landslide rejection of Woodrow Wilson in 1920, and Republicans survived the landslide rejection of Herbert Hoover in 1932.

The two parties’ resilience prevented Americans from succumbing, as many feared they would, to the totalitarian temptations that swept much of continental Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

In the volatile years after what was then called the Great War, communists took over Russia in 1917 through 1920, fascists took over Italy in 1922 through 1924, and Nazis took over Germany in 1933 through 1934. No one could be sure that a similar upheaval would not succeed in France, Britain or America.

Before that war, American presidents opposed restrictions on immigration, confident that assimilation efforts, such as big-city public schools and Henry Ford’s English-language classes, would Americanize the Ellis Island generation of 1892-1914. Fears of revolution and the wartime capacity to control people’s movements led to bipartisan majorities for the 1924 law that cut off immigration from eastern and southern Europe.

Now, a century later, immigration is the problem that, more than anything else, is threatening the hold of longstanding political parties. Old parties’ leaders in Britain and Europe, nervous that below-replacement birth rates would halt economic growth and endanger their welfare states, encouraged massive immigration of Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan. Prime example: former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s unilateral decision, without consultation internally or with European Union partners, in 2015 to admit 1 million mostly male Muslims to Germany.

Authorities seemed to regard any qualms about immigrants with unfamiliar customs as equivalent to the bigotry that fed the Holocaust and ignored the obvious moral difference between excluding people from your country and murdering your fellow citizens.

Whether Starmer survives politically is unclear, but it is clear that the Labour Party, like the Conservatives before it, is in perhaps terminal trouble. Conservatives won 44 percent of the popular vote in 2019, and 365 seats (out of 650) in the House of Commons in December 2019; Labour, with only 33 percent of the popular vote, won 411 seats in July 2024.

Despite some campaign rhetoric, neither party staunched the flow of immigrants, and neither has visibly changed government bureaucracies’ bias against those who protest it. Unsurprisingly, both are now polling below 20 percent, well behind Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, founded in 2018.

The situation in America, and concerning its parties, is less drastic. The nation has a much stronger tradition of assimilation of immigrants, although many American liberals regard that as something like persecution. And our great immigration surge between 1982 and 2007 came primarily from Latin America and Asia. The Christian and European cultures of Latins, and the test-driven literacy and numeracy of Asians, have made them more assimilable than the Muslims thronging Britain and Europe.

Trump has demonstrated that under current legislation, border enforcement, which most Americans support, can work, and his second-term use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has shown that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants can be deported, and that even more may be incentivized to self-deport. But the harsh footage and the two protesters’ deaths in Minnesota suggest that the immigration problem could become a liability for Trump and his party.

Democrats have also changed in response to Trump. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama proclaimed that they were enforcing immigration laws. Former President Joe Biden scarcely bothered, even as his appointees put in place an open-borders policy. Today, most Democratic officeholders are intent on obstructing and, in the tradition of Democrats John C. Calhoun and George C. Wallace, nullifying federal law enforcement. Few Democratic voters seem to mind, but that could become a political liability too.

On both sides of the Atlantic, we are seeing in the 2020s something like reenactments of the 1920s — the overthrowing of political establishments in Britain and Europe, and the sometimes awkward and painful reshaping, but not overthrowing, of the political parties of the U.S.

Source: Immigration Is Shaking Up Political Parties in Britain, Europe and the US