Oops, he said it again. Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to deploy his newly developed nuclear-armed antisatellite weapon. Biden’s words were sent secretively through his NSA Jake Sullivan and his CIA Director William Burns among others.

Tellingly, Biden only spoke to Putin—even then only through surrogates—after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R, OH) exposed the Russian weapon a week ago.

What’s the or else, you might ask. What will Biden do if Putin goes ahead with his deployment? It seems the paper pussy cat in our White House has no consequences in mind, only his words of Don’t. Don’t. Don’t.

Even were Putin to say he agreed to not deploy his nuclear weapon in space, how would us ordinary Americans know whether he did or not? This is the same Biden administration, after all, that tried to hide a PRC spy balloon from us until a Montana citizen spotted it and exposed it. Putin’s space-based weapon system will be much harder for us citizens to spot.

Fronton Island is American territory, a Texas island in the Rio Grande near the Texas town of Fronton and across from the Mexican towns of Los Guera and Ciudad Miguel Alemán.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has been refusing to defend our southern border his entire term, and his decision ultimately led to his surrendering Fronton Island and ceding it to Mexican drug cartels. Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham:

This island before it was claimed, was literally a law enforcement free zone for the cartels to do whatever they wanted[.]

Last fall, in an operation little reported on since, Abbott’s administration, in the form of Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham’s Texas Land Office in partnership with Texas’ Department of Public Safety corrected Biden’s utter failure. In an action named Operation Flat Top, elements of the Texas DPS and Texas Military Department swept over the island and seized it, restoring it to American sovereignty (or at least to Texas sovereignty since Biden has so evidently washed his hands of it).

The Texans seized major caches of weapons, explosive devices [and] drugs as they cleared the island (I’m reminded of a prior Progressive-Democratic administration’s Operation Fast and Furious under which that administration peddled firearms to Mexican cartels), then began the process of securing the island with the Biden-hated concertina wire on the Mexico facing side. An additional outcome: Buckingham noted that since Texan sovereignty over the Texas island has been restored there are zero people coming across from Mexico from that part of the border.

We need to remember Biden’s failure refusal to act this fall.

The Wall Street Journal spilled a lot of pixels and ink in an opinion piece masqueraded as news that purported to answer its question of whether loose lips can sink an alliance.

[Republican Primary Presidential candidate Donald] Trump’s recent broadsides against European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for not spending sufficiently on defense raised the question of whether shaming allies strengthens or weakens the alliance.

And this, an opinion masqueraded by the article’s writer as fact—all too typical in this article:

Trump’s recent comments crossed a line, even if they were inflated with campaign-trail hyperbole.

I’ll leave aside the salutary effect Trump’s harshly blunt rhetoric has had on NATO readiness—more member nations have stepped up and begun honoring their 10-year-old(!) spending commitments as a direct result of his words and NATO commensurately more capable of supporting non-NATO member Ukraine in its fight for survival in the barbarian’s war on it. This, after 50 years of “pretty please” has merely encouraged European member nations to break their promises, shirk their duties to their fellow members, and thereby betray those fellow members.

As I’ve written just a bit ago, 13 NATO member nations continue to refuse to honor their commitments to NATO: they continue to refuse to spend even a paltry 2% of their GDP on NATO.

That’s 13 members who are shirking their duty, who are betraying their fellow members by consciously and with careful forethought rendering themselves incapable of meeting their Article V commitment to those members in any concrete way. That’s 13 members who are deliberately imposing risks on their fellow members by choosing to freeload off them, rendering themselves so plainly incapable of resisting an attack that they tacitly invite one, requiring their fellow members to spend their blood and their treasure to rescue them.

That’s 13 members who are risking destabilizing NATO, who are sinking the alliance.

Trump says he said the following to a major NATO member head of state who asked him whether, given his nation had not honored its fiscal promise vis-à-vis NATO, we would protect him.

“You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.

Indeed, neither should any other NATO member move to protect this nation that had shirked its own duty, broken its own promise, so cravenly betrayed the rest of its fellow member nations.

Trump’s was not an empty threat, nor an unjustified one. Why, indeed, should we, or any NATO member, gush out blood, throw away hard-won treasure on nations that are so willing—and so active at—betraying their fellows in the alliance?