Category: Politics

  • I made the Epstein cookies

    Is it wrong to bake cookies from a recipe addressed to a pedophile and sex trafficker? When I found the recipe for chocolate chip cookies on page 169 of Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book, I read and re-read it expecting there to be some sinister inside joke, perhaps a hidden dash of adrenochrome or instructions to “massage” the dough. The surrounding page contains a woman’s redacted photograph and references Epstein’s “mentorship,” while the other 237 feel like a cross between various expressions of human depravity: part ransom letter, part porn magazine and part teenage girl’s diary. Where does an innocent cookie recipe fit in among this?

    It is a prodigious recipe which makes about four times the amount of dough a sensible home baker should attempt, unless you happen to have a commercial grade stand mixer – the writer estimates between 60 and 80 cookies, depending on size. I managed somewhere around 100, enough to feed a small private island or all your “best pals.”

    They’re actually quite good. The addition of five cups of ground oatmeal tempers the sweetness of the cookies and gives them a more substantial chewiness than your standard flour base. A half-cup of cocoa powder is a bit cosmetic, turning the cookies dark instead of their usual light brown, but adds a very slight bitter edge enhance the semi-sweet chocolate (I recommend a mix of chips and chunks). The recipe also instructs the baker to “mix all ingredients together in a large bowl,” but you should really cream your sugars and butter first to aerate and lift the dough. 

    The recipe appears to be taken from an urban legend passed around via chain mail in the 90s. “This is not a joke – this is a true story,” insists the tale of the Neiman Marcus Cookie recipe. It is a revenge story at its heart, about a customer wanting to get back at a waitress who sells him the recipe for “two-fifty” and adds a $250 charge to the tab. When the department store refuses to refund him, he sends the recipe to everyone he knows: “I’m sorry but this is the only way I feel I could get even, and I will.” It reads unnervingly like something out of the birthday book.

    Perhaps all it means is that Epstein had a sweet tooth. His receipts from the jail commissary during his sentence in 2008 to 2009 seem to indicate he did. He purchased all sorts of sickening things, Business Insider reported: “Baby Ruths, Hershey’s bars with almonds, peanut M&M’s, Kit Kats, Almond Joys, Jolly Ranchers, PayDays, Milky Ways, Root Beer Barrels, and a Reese’s Crispy Crunchy Bar… chocolate cupcakes, chocolate cream cookies, fudge brownies, Oreos, Pop-Tarts, butterscotch drops, lemon drops, cinnamon graham crackers, bear-claw pastries, honey buns, apple-cider mix, and peanut-butter squeezers.” A grown man with a grocery list like this must be shamelessly perverse.

    Despite knowing the recipe’s annoying but harmless origins, I feel the need to issue a disclaimer about the Epstein ties to everyone I offer them to. I told my roommates as they were mid-bite, as if I’d poisoned them and suddenly lost the courage to follow through with it. I wonder if I should leave it in a note by the plate for the workmen at my house: “Jeffrey Epstein cookies, take some.”

    Still, it wouldn’t feel quite fair to say these cookies are spoiled by association. Hang on… isn’t this all just a horribly glib metaphor for the innocuousness of certain entries in the birthday book? Not exactly. Many of the innuendo-loaded letters from friends, girlfriends and “assistants” – who were instrumental in recruiting underage girls for sex work – do complicate things. The book raises questions about how much, exactly, the contributors knew about Epstein’s life, and whether they were aware of his crimes. Leave the cookies out of it.

    The birthday book “Chocolate Chip Cookies”:

    Ingredients:

    • 2 cups butter
    • 2 ½ cups sugar
    • 2 cups brown sugar
    • 4 eggs
    • 2 tbl vanilla
    • 4 cups flour
    • 5 cups oatmeal (before grinding)
    • 1 tsp salt
    • 2 tsp baking powder
    • 2 tsp baking soda
    • ½ cup unsweetened cocoa
    • 1 24oz bag chocolate chips (semi-sweet)

    Directions:

    Preheat oven to 350°. Grind 5 cups oatmeal in blender (will reduce to approximately 4 cups ground). Mix all ingredients together in a large bowl. Drop dough in rounded spoonfuls onto non-stick cookie sheet. Bake 8-10 minutes. (Makes approx 60-80 cookies depending on size.)

  • Why the French fear the far left

    Why the French fear the far left

    A caller to a French radio station on Monday morning said he supported Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. However, he added, he wouldn’t vote for them in an election. Why? asked the host. The man said he feared that if the National Rally came to power the far-left would turn France “into a real mess”.

    I have heard similar anxiety other middle-class French people who are tempted to vote for Le Pen’s party. They may not agree with her economic policies but they do share her concerns about mass immigration and insecurity.

    But what frightens them most is the far-left, which as a history of violence going back to 1789. In 2023 the constitutional historian Christophe Boutin explained that violent disorder “is in the DNA of a certain French left”. He blamed “the myth of the Revolution… and a Marxist doctrine according to which capitalism can only end in violent revolution.”

    This history accounts for the difference between the British and French far-left. The people being arrested at Palestine Action protests in London are predominantly middle-class, as are the members of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, and the counter-protestors at demonstrations against migrant hotels.

    Some of today’s far-left in France are middle-class, getting their kicks from confrontations with the police. One such was Antonin Bernanos, who was jailed for his part in torching a police car during a protest in Paris in 2016. The 23-year-old Bernanos was the great grandson of the celebrated Catholic writer Georges Bernanos.

    But there are also many working-class extremists on the far-left in France. Three years ago a man who had stood as a National Rally candidate in the legislative election was attacked by a mob of far-left extremists in Bordeaux. Six of his assailants belonged to a notorious gang of hooligans who follow the city’s football club. Olympic Marseille also has a few thuggish far-left supporters, although as with Bordeaux they prefer the name “antiracist” to “hooligan”.

    The far-left in France is arguably the most organized of any western country. Two years ago a journalist called Anthony Cortes published a book about his time living undercover with a far-left organization. He dispelled the myth of spaced-out hippies and crusties. Today’s far left is a disciplined and determined mix of anti-fascists, Trotskyists, anti-capitalists, anarchists and eco-warriors.

    It is believed that the far-left sabotaged France’s rail network on the eve of last summer’s Paris Olympics. It was an audacious and well-planned guerrilla operation, for which no one has yet been brought to book.

    “Sabotage” was one of the words on the lips of Laurent Nuñez on Tuesday morning. In an interview the Paris police chief said his force were braced for “blockades” and “sabotage” on a day of protest on Wednesday billed as Bloquons tout (block everything).

    The protest movement was initially the inspiration of a small collective of white-collar Millennials whose rallying cry was “It’s Nicolas who pays”. Fed up with working hard only to be taxed to the hilt, these Millennials called for a day of protest on September 10.

    But it has since been hijacked by hard-left unions and Jean-Luc Melenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise. “We will block everything to get Mr Macron himself to leave,” Mélenchon said last week, adding that he wants a peaceful protest. “The anger is legitimate and deep-seated…the powerful need to see it and hear it.”

    Intelligence points to upwards of 100,000 protestors taking to the streets today, among whom will be violent elements from Antifa and Black Bloc. Around 80,000 gendarmes and police officers have been mobilized across the country, some to patrol the streets and others to guard what Nuñez described as “key areas of interest”. These include fuel depots, nuclear power plants, railway stations, airports and public transport. “We are expecting shock operations,” said Nuñez.

    One centre-right senator, Claude Malhuret, has warned that September 10 threatens to become a day of “absolute nihilism”. He pointed a finger at the far-left and accused them of “practically calling for riots”.

    No far-left politician has called for riots or violence of any description. But they have urged people to take to the streets in what they hope will be a show of force. It will underline that the left still “own” the streets in France. It was the case seven years ago during the Yellow Vest protests. What started as a peaceful howl of despair from the silent majority was soon hijacked by violent far-left agitators. They came to Paris not to protest against the cost of living crisis but to fight the police and pillage brand shops.

    So it is with today’s Block Everything protest. Most ordinary working- and middle-class people who were thinking of coming out to express their dissatisfaction with the political class will stay at home. Why run the risk of getting caught up in a riot?

    Indeed, why the run the risk of voting for Marine Le Pen when it will only provoke the far-left extremists?

  • Trump treads a fine line on Qatar and Israel

    Oops. The White House is claiming that President Trump directed the ubiquitous Steve Witkoff to warn Qatar that Israel was going to strike Hamas headquarters in Doha. But Qatari officials denied that they received any such warning.

    “What happened today is state terrorism and an attempt to destabilize regional security and stability, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the region to an irreversible level,” Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani stated in a televised address. “These missiles were used to attack the negotiating delegation of the other party. By what moral standards is this acceptable?”

    Trump himself has been a study in inconsistency on the Israeli effort to target the Hamas leadership. On the one hand, he declared on social media that “unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals.” On the other, he averred that “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”

    The reason Trump is trying to spit the difference is, of course, that he wants to placate an aggrieved Qatar without openly denouncing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s caution may also be ascribed to the fact that there is no evidence that the attack was successful. Hamas is claiming that none of its senior leaders were killed. If so, the move was worse than a crime, to borrow Talleyrand’s famous phrase. It was a blunder.

    Trump has indicated to Al Thani that there will be no second strike, thereby ensuring that Hamas can operate with impunity. White House spokesman Karoline Leavitt says that Trump told Al Thani, “such a thing will not happen again on their soil.” Meanwhile, the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looks even more tenuous.

    Writing in the Washington Post, David Ignatius pointed out that “By undermining diplomatic options for ending the conflict, Israel has narrowed its path forward. Its only choice now might be military reoccupation of most of Gaza – something that Israeli officials say they badly want to avoid.” Some members of Netanyahu’s cabinet may be jonesing to occupy Gaza and extrude its inhabitants into Egypt. But whether Netanyahu himself wants to pursue that path is an open question. He may have reckoned that he could score a big success by blasting the leadership of Hamas into oblivion, then claim a grand victory over the terrorists who have been menacing Israel.

    Instead, he has created a chorus of international obloquy, as France, Germany and Great Britain, among others, denounce the Israeli move. In Trump’s own MAGA base dissatisfaction with Israel is mounting. At the recent National Conservatism conference in Washington, for example, American Conservative editor Curt Mills created something of a furor with his criticisms of the close ties between Israel and America. Mills asked, “Why are these our wars? Why are Israel’s endless problems America’s liabilities? Why are we in the national conservative bloc, broadly speaking, why do we laugh out of the room this argument when it’s advanced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy but are slavish hypocrites for Benjamin Netanyahu? Why should we accept America First – asterisk Israel? And the answer is, we shouldn’t.”

    With his attack on Doha, Netanyahu has ensured that the debate over Israel and America will only intensify. Quo vadis, Donald Trump?

  • Don’t watch the murder video of Iryna Zarutska…

    Don’t watch the murder video of Iryna Zarutska…

    There are precious few people who should watch the video released yesterday of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska slowly dying as she cowered in bewilderment and abject fear on a train carriage in Charlotte, NC, after being slashed three times in the neck by a violent repeat offender. Certainly not rubberneckers on the internet whose depraved interest will only intrude on her family’s private grief. And absolutely not her family, for them it is the worst nightmare they could imagine come alive. A jury will have to. Two other groups who should: Democrats and the media.  They created this nightmare so they should be forced to see the uncomfortable truth and direct result of what they have done. 

    If this horrifying act doesn’t finally force them both to confront the deadly consequences of their support for “soft on crime” and open border policies, then what will? 

    For years they have both looked away, excused, or even celebrated policies that empower predators and silence victims. The result has been predictable: more grieving families, more stolen lives and communities forced to live in fear.

    Even worse, Democrat politicians and mainstream media journalists pretend this tragedy – and the countless others like it – don’t even exist. They ignore the victims, downplay the crimes and allow these failings to fester year after year.

    These tragedies are the inevitable result of Democrat policies that put the “rights” of criminals over the safety of the innocent. And they have taken a terrible toll not just on strangers, but on my own life – forcing me to leave New York and nearly relocate to Charlotte, North Carolina, before realizing that I would have been walking into the same danger all over again.

    Decades after my boyfriend and his best friend were killed by three brothers – two of whom walked free despite criminal records and the third was sentenced to only a few years – I had to flee New York after watching my quality of life crumble under the weight of failed policies that empowered criminals and punished victims. When it came time to relocate, I carefully weighed my options. One was Rock Hill or Fort Mill, South Carolina – close to Charlotte. The other was Florida.

    I knew Charlotte was volatile and unsafe, just like so many other Democrat-run cities across the country. Why would I uproot my family from one blue state that endangered us only to live near another city infected by the same “bail reform” and “social justice” nonsense? I chose Florida, and I am grateful every day that I did.

    In Mecklenburg County, home to Charlotte, criminals are routinely released on unsecured bail. That means they can walk free without posting a dime. Where is the accountability? Police risk their lives to put violent offenders behind bars, only for judges to turn them loose again. Officers re-arrest the same predators and the cycle repeats – until someone innocent pays the ultimate price, like Iryna.

    And let’s be clear: this isn’t about race, no matter how desperately some will try to frame it that way. It’s about right and wrong. Predators belong behind bars. Every time they’re released, another victim is created.

    As a victim advocate, I worked with a rape victim who came here illegally, believing America would give her a better life. Instead, she was brutalized by two gang members – both minors at the time. They nearly killed her, and afterward, one of them sought out her three-year-old daughter. She only survived by the grace of God.

    Her attackers received little more than a slap on the wrist. Justice failed her so completely that she returned to her home country because it was safer there. Think about that: a woman who came to America for protection fled back home to escape our so-called “justice system.”

    And she is not alone. Twenty-three-year-old Iryna Zarutska should still be alive. Laken Riley should still be alive. Rachel Morin should still be alive. Jocelyn Nungaray should  still be alive. The list grows every week.

    These young women are not statistics. They are daughters, friends, loved ones who were stolen because lawmakers valued “equity” for criminals over the lives of innocent victims.

    I’ve seen this cycle play out more times than I can count. I’ve watched law enforcement agents put violent offenders in jail, only to watch a judge decide they’re “not a threat” and release them. Days or weeks later, they would be arrested again – and the same judge would send them back out into the community.

    How many times do we allow this to happen before admitting the truth? At some point, society has to draw a line. Deterrence matters. Whether through long prison sentences or even harsher measures, there must be real consequences for those who intentionally harm others.

    Democrats’ policies follow a predictable and destructive pattern. Bail reform ensures criminals are released almost immediately. Sanctuary policies shield dangerous offenders from deportation. Open borders flood communities with unvetted individuals, some of whom go on to commit horrific crimes.

    And yet, Democrats stand at podiums calling these policies “progressive” and “compassionate.” Tell that to the families planning funerals. Tell that to the parents laying flowers on their children’s graves.

    This is not partisan for victims. It is life or death. Enough is enough. We need policies that prioritize public safety over ideology. We have to end unsecured bail for violent offenders.Scrap sanctuary policies that protect criminals over citizens. Enforce immigration laws to prevent tragedies before they happen. Demand accountability from judges and lawmakers who enable repeat offenders.

    Democrats like to call their “soft on crime” and open border agendas compassionate. But there is nothing compassionate about women being raped, students being murdered, or families burying their loved ones because repeat violent offenders are allowed to roam free. These policies aren’t abstract experiments – they are deadly. And Democrats have blood on their hands.

  • What Israel’s Qatar strike reveals

    What Israel’s Qatar strike reveals

    “We are ready to accept a deal (with Hamas) that would end this war, based on the cabinet decision,” Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar said this morning. Yet whatever diplomatic momentum existed evaporated into thin air hours later. In an unprecedented Israeli operation in Qatar, Israel targeted the very Hamas officials they were supposed to be negotiating with. In the blink of an eye, smoke was rising from a building in the Qatari capital, Doha. Hamas’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, was targeted in the attack. Israel said the raid was in response to this week’s Jerusalem bus attack and the atrocities of October 7.

    The Qataris are livid; Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only made a mockery of the diplomatic process but ordered what could arguably be called a hostile act against a country in the Middle East whose diplomatic services are in high demand.

    “While the State of Qatar strongly condemns this assault, it confirms that it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security, nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty,” Qatari government spokesman Majed al-Ansari wrote on X.

    Operations like this aren’t new for Israel, of course. The Israelis are known to have some of the best intelligence assets available; the Mossad is one of the most sophisticated, capable and impressive intelligence services in the world. The list of successful tactical strikes like the one that took place in Qatar today is long, from the years-long campaign against the Black September terrorist group, the 2008 assassination of Hezbollah military official Imad Mughniyeh in Syria to the 2010 killing of Mahmoud al-Mabbouh in Dubai. The message is as clear as day: if Israel wants you dead, you will eventually be dead.

    The difference between those cases and today, however, is that Israel wasn’t technically engaged in negotiations with those groups at the time.

    The latest draft ceasefire to end the war in Gaza, put together in part by Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, was tabled days just a few days ago. The proposal would have compelled Hamas to release all of the remaining 50 or so hostages on the first day of a 60-day truce, mandated a gradual Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza and establish a process whereby negotiations would continue until the two sides finally reached a permanent ceasefire. But that deal now lies in tatters, if it was a serious proposal to begin with.

    If Israel’s latest hit tells us anything, it’s that Netanyahu and his government aren’t interested in a negotiated resolution to the war in Gaza. This relatively mundane observation won’t come as a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention to the conflict for the last two years, but it’s worth pointing out nonetheless. Indeed, despite the Trump administration’s sporadic attempts to mediate between Israel and Hamas – and Trump’s own boasts about solving a bitter conflict his dim-witted predecessor couldn’t – the Trump White House hasn’t been any more successful in its diplomatic endeavors than the Biden White House was. Palestinian civilians are still dying. Israeli hostages, in dreadful conditions, are cowering in Hamas’s tunnel network. A humanitarian disaster is getting worse by the day. And Israel, its international reputation at its lowest in history, is drilling further down.

    Of course, a big part of this can be chalked up to the stubbornness of the combatants and their propensity to treat diplomacy as gamesmanship. Getting the two sides to agree on anything is more difficult than herding cats. The positions of Israel and Hamas remain poles apart. Whenever one side appears open to the certain peace framework, the other throws wrenches into the works. Following the October 7 attack, Israel remains committed to defeating Hamas as an institutional, political and military force, essentially wiping out the movement in totality. Yet Hamas isn’t going to sign its own death warrant, and Netanyahu knows this perfectly well. Describing this entire process as trying to jam a square peg into a round hole would be an understatement.


    The Americans, though, deserve a portion of the blame as well. Trump vacillates between wanting peace in Gaza and then enabling Israel’s military strategy, with the end result being incoherence. At times, Trump rightly wags his finger at Netanyahu and contradicts the Israeli premier in public, particularly on the subject of what is happening in Gaza. But the next day, he basically writes off Gaza as Israel’s problem and suggests that whatever the Israelis decide to do, he will unabashedly support it.

    To the extent the Trump administration has a Gaza policy, it’s akin to throwing various peace proposals into the ether – all of which eventually die on the vine – that are designed more to convince Washington’s Arab partners that the United States is doing something than to actually end a war in which tens of thousands of people have been killed.

    One thing is for sure: with this latest strike on Hamas in Qatar, Netanyahu has dealt a serious blow to a diplomatic process that was already on life support. And this was likely the goal all along.

  • Could Epstein’s birthday book trip up the British Ambassador?


    In May, Sky News asked Lord Mandelson, Britain’s Ambassador to the United States of America, if it was true that he’d stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse in June 2009, when the financier was in jail for soliciting prostitution from a minor. He replied flatly that he refused to answer any questions about Epstein. “I wish I’d never met him in the first place,” was all he would say on the subject. 

    No doubt Mandelson would rather forget – and that we all now ignore – how he used to lavish praise on Epstein. “Wherever he is in the world, he remains my best pal!” Mandelson, aka “the Prince of Darkness,” gushed in a birthday note to Epstein in 2003, which has now been revealed under the auspices of the Congressional Democratic House Oversight Committee. Mandelson even illustrated the note with a photo of himself wearing only a bathrobe in conversation with his greatest friend, who is fully dressed. 

    “Happy birthday, Jeffrey. We love you!!” the note concludes. 

    We all make mistakes. But it might be good if his lordship would now answer the question directly about whether he stayed with Epstein in 2009 – after Epstein had been given a weirdly lenient 13-month work-release sentence rather than the maximum 45-year jail sentence for the crime of raping girls as young as 14. 

    You’ll remember Prince Andrew stayed with Epstein in Manhattan in December, 2010. And it was good enough for royalty, surely it was good enough for a mere Labour party politician.  

    There is so much about the Epstein scandal that stinks to high heaven, no matter how grimly President Trump – who once described Epstein as “a terrific guy” and “a lot of fun to be with” – tells us the whole thing is a Democratic hoax. 

    There’s the question of whether Epstein did or did not kill himself – a question the FBI recently failed to settle recently when it confusingly released hours of camera footage from outside his cell. 

    And then there’s the question of how Epstein, a school teacher, became so obscenely rich. From whom or where did the money come? Also, isn’t it odd that modeling agent and frequent Epstein companion Jean-Luc Brunel, who like Epstein stood accused of raping and trafficking children, also apparently committed suicide while in prison in Paris in 2022 – also by hanging?

    Add to that the recent transfer of Esptein’s close companion Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison, apparently in contravention of Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations relating to the confinement of convicted sex offenders. The transfer was made just days after she had told Department of Justice officials she had never seen President Trump doing anything nefarious with Epstein. “They’re offering her something to keep her mouth shut,” DoJ Acting Deputy Chief Jospeh Schnitt told an undercover reporter shortly afterward. 

    The belief many people hold – too many, surely, to any longer be dismissed as just the fanciful imaginings of conspiracy theorists – is that the charismatic Epstein was running an industrial-scale honey trap operation on behalf of a foreign or domestic intelligence agency for the purpose of secretly recording highly influential people indulging whatever their particular perversion is in order later to exert control over them by means of blackmail. 

    “Thinking of voting against sending more arms to [REDACTED], senator? Fine, then presumably you also won’t mind your wife and constituents seeing this footage of you ecstatic in a gimp outfit/being fellated by a teenager/having acrobatic sex with an underage girl…” You get the gist. It doesn’t take much imagination to see why shadowy intelligence agencies might like to operate in this way. It’s relatively cheap, for one thing, and presumably highly effective.

    The alternative, and the version of events we are now asked by the likes of FBI Director Kash Patel to believe, is that Epstein was simply history’s wealthiest and most prolific pedophile – indeed, that he, and he alone, molested “over one thousand young women,” according to the official report – but that when he wasn’t indulging in this depravity he liked nothing more than to throw swell parties for the rich and famous. 

    Which do you think is more likely? Whatever the reality, it seems increasingly likely we will never be told. Perhaps ultimately that’s all the answer we need.

  • Is it really ‘clear’ the Trump-Epstein birthday letter is fake?

    Is it really ‘clear’ the Trump-Epstein birthday letter is fake?

    The “bawdy” birthday letter from Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, which the Wall Street Journal reported the existence of in July, has been released for all to see. The bawdiness is somewhat wanting – the “small arcs” of the naked woman’s breasts which the Journal described are indeed very small. There’s nothing explicit in its imaginary dialogue between the two men, which begins with a pensive “voice over” saying “There must be more to life than having everything.” It’s creepily cryptic, at worst. 

    Trump said in July that the letter was a “fake thing’ and a “fake Wall Street Journal story.” He filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Journal after the initial story, which did not feature a picture of the letter, calling it “fake and defamatory.” 

    J.D. Vance tweeted, “Where is this letter? Would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it? Does anyone honestly believe this sounds like Donald Trump?” And last night, Trump’s Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tweeted, “The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false. As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”

    Is it so clear? The letter has not been authenticated, though the “Donald” signature resembles Trump’s signature on other documents from around the same time and the sketch resembles Trump’s thick, Sharpie style. Even if the letter is real, it wouldn’t alone be an indictment of Trump, whose friendship with Epstein in the early 2000s is already well known. Like the overconfident and unfulfilled promise to release the Epstein client list, a similarly proud approach of “deny, deny, deny” has left the President in a difficult position now that the letter has been released.

    The “birthday book” containing the letter, which the Journal said was seen by the Justice Department during its investigation of Epstein years ago, also features letters from Epstein’s family members and public figures including Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz. It’s one among several documents subpoenaed by Representative James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee. These include Epstein’s last will and testament, contacts from his address book and a non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office for Florida’s Southern District.

    “It’s appalling Democrats on the Oversight Committee are cherry-picking documents and politicizing information received from the Epstein Estate today,” Comer said of the bipartisan committee. “President Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing and Democrats are ignoring the new information the Committee received today.” Despite the eagerness on the left to draw easy interpretations from a very cryptic letter, it alone doesn’t tell us very much beyond offering an insight into the President’s mind, which was as perplexing in 2003 as it is today: as Trump writes in the letter, “Enigmas never age – have you noticed that?”

  • Magnificent – but is it war?

    Magnificent – but is it war?

    When Donald Trump made building a “big, beautiful” wall along the southern US border a priority in his first term, he was widely derided. There wasn’t enough concrete or steel to build such a structure. Anyway, it was futile because migrants would find some way over or around it. It was a heartless and evil project being promoted to distract from other failures. When shutting off immigration from Mexico became an unrealized project from that first term, Trump’s critics enjoyed themselves.

    Campaigning for his second term, Trump hardly mentioned the wall. Yet something remarkable has happened. Undocumented migration across the border has all but ceased. In the four years to Inauguration Day this January, under President Joe Biden’s watch, there were an average of 155,000 illegal crossings every month. In February it fell to 28,000 and in March to just 7,000.

    Crossings have remained at very low levels in the months since. Despite some protests on the Democratic left, Trump has achieved what he promised to do nearly a decade ago: he has closed the border. And by doing so, he has proven that the arrival of large numbers of illegal migrants is not some inevitable fact of modern life. It is a political choice.

    The President needs to move on from the insurgency stage of his second administration

    How has Trump achieved what many said was impossible? He handed the job of policing the border over to the military. This required a little inventiveness to get around the law, but no steamrolling over human rights. Under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the government is forbidden from deploying the armed forces to keep order in civilian situations, except with the express permission of Congress. But there was a loophole. The military was still allowed to police the boundaries of military installations. Trump’s solution? Designate the most critical and vulnerable parts of the US-Mexico border as military sites – or extensions of existing military sites – and the Army would be allowed to patrol them regardless. As a result, hardly any migrants are now prepared to chance the crossing.

    There is something to admire in a leader who achieves what others said couldn’t be done. Too often, government becomes stuck in a rut of its own making. Now and again, you need someone who’s not afraid to come along and break things.

    There are still plenty of questions to be asked of Trump’s border policy. It is beginning to look a little performative, with more than 100 Stryker armed combat vehicles deployed to police the border, and the heavy talk of deporting up to ten million illegal immigrants has always been far-fetched.

    Yet the President has intelligently joined up border policy and the war on drugs. As Ben Domenech details in our cover piece on p8, the Trump administration is using its military assets in Central and Latin America to fight what Marco Rubio now likes to call “narco-terrorism.” It’s a typically Trumpian win-win: the administration’s neoconservatives can enjoy flexing American muscles and killing bad guys abroad, while MAGA nationalists thrill at the forceful protection of the American people.

    Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are right to argue that the war against the drug cartels cannot be waged at the border alone. But, as ever with Team Trump, the difference between theatrics and serious policy can be hard to decipher. Eliminating a boatload of alleged Venezuelan drug dealers with a missile in the Caribbean makes for good television, especially in the age of social media. But stunts can – and do – go wrong: what if the Trump administration mistakenly launches a fatal attack on an innocent crew or a fishing boat? This White House should not forget the tale of Esequiel Hernández, an American teenager who was herding goats close to the Texas-Mexico border in 1997 when he was shot dead by Marines who mistook him for a member of a drugs gang. The fallout set back efforts to police the border for years.

    Trump has always had a weakness for men in uniform and for military solutions to political problems. He is more than willing to use emergency loopholes to send the National Guard into Washington to curb crime, or Los Angeles to stop violent protests. Such moves are not necessarily unpopular: law-abiding urban residents tend to be grateful for any government which makes them feel safer. Judges may continue to rule against such actions after the fact. But White House spokesmen will call them “rogue” or “activist” for doing so, and round and round the arguments will go.

    The irony is that, in attempting to stop America becoming Latin America, the second Trump administration risks imitating an inept third-world government, endlessly invoking emergency powers and using armed forces to advance its agenda.

    Washington, DC, is the heart of the American government and an important commercial center – a civilian environment if ever there was one. That such places are generally free from military presence in spite of the constant terrorist threat marks a very visible difference between a democracy such as the US and the dictatorships which blight much of the world.

    The President should be applauded for being prepared to look at problems differently and take bold action where his predecessors have not. But he needs to move on from the insurgency stage of his second administration and be a little more careful. Closing the border to illegal immigrants is a triumph. But it is one which will be wasted if Trump ends up offending the citizenry through an overbearing and inappropriate deployment of the military in everyday life.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 15, 2025 World edition.

  • The day I ate a royal love letter

    The day I ate a royal love letter

    Our very own Roger Kimball made it possible. I am referring to The Last Alpha Male, the greatest book ever written except for the Bible, as a Greek critic by the name of Taki put it. It is written by yours truly and owes a lot to Harry Stein, himself a terrific writer, whose father happened to write a musical play by the name of Fiddler on the Roof. My problem was how to justify Don Giovanni behavior while married to a Penelope-like beauty. Roger put me in touch with Harry, who came to my rescue. Presto, the wars in Gaza and the Ukraine stopped overnight. Fighters put down their weapons and read about the last alpha male and his ladies. My spies tell me even the Donald asked for a copy thinking it was about him, but then threw it out as Air Force One took off from Palm Beach.

    Roger and I go way back, to our William F. Buckley days. We both wrote for the man who made conservative politics popular once again. Bill, who died in 2008, gave me my start in his magazine. I saw him daily during our winter months in Gstaad. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the resort was known only to a select few. The first time I arrived by train, aged 21, I thought I had interrupted a Hollywood film set depicting an Alpine village before World War One. Light snow was falling, an oompah band was playing and hardy, wrinkled old men in lederhosen were smoking large curved pipes. A Prisoner of Zenda type of castle rose majestically above the peasant village. This was the Palace hotel and was the hotel to stay at. It was full of beautiful women, such as Fiona Campbell-Walter, Dolores Guinness, Nina Dyer and a modern Cleopatra, Ariane Zananiri. Gstaad back then was an artist’s colony. The great violinist Yehudi Menuhin, another great fiddler, Nathan Milstein, economist Ken Galbraith, historian Alistair Horne, photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, artist Balthus, actors David Niven, Audrey Hepburn and Roger Moore were some that come to mind. We lunched and dined together, some of us got drunk, but all of us skied all day. The slopes were empty and the place was ours.

    Alas, the village I first saw through that smoky train window is no more. Nor are the women as glamorous as they used to be. The alpine-style chalets prevail, but now some have indoor swimming pools and movie theaters, limos parked outside – and the tiny airport is full of private jets. When did Gstaad go the way of the nouveaux? That’s an easy one. When Elizabeth Taylor arrived followed by the paparazzi. Now the place is among the most expensive resorts anywhere, chalets go for close to 50 million greenbacks, the tiny vegetable and fruit shops are now expensive Vuitton and jewelry boutiques and Russians, Gulf people and Indian tourists outnumber us Norma Desmond types during the season. But Gstaad is still the most pleasant village on Earth, especially when the cows come down from their grazing in the autumn and mix with us old-timers. Lately, I’ve started to prefer the cows.

    I recently left a cool Gstaad chalet for a hot Greek island, surely the most beautiful private isle on the planet. Its owner is George Livanos, a close friend, not a cross word in 75 years. It is a paradise, with landscaped terraces, planted gardens and the best-ever staff. I have been an annual visitor for 50 years. Fellow guests included Prince Augusto Ruffo di Calabria, the head of one of the oldest Italian princely clans. A lady who came to dinner, a Bulgarian princess married to a Jordanian prince, sat between Augusto and me while I regaled her with my Jordanian story. During the Palestinian uprising in September 1970, the beautiful photographer Geneviève Chauvel gave me a letter to King Hussein, her lover, as I was driving to Amman from Beirut. Stopped by an armed Palestinian group, my two companions and I were put in a room for interrogation. The letter in my possession meant certain death, or so my buddies insisted. So I opened it and read the most sexually arousing epistle ever. Then the three of us ripped it up and ate it. As I took the last swallow, a fighter came in and told us we were free to go. The Jordanian princess listening to my tale was open-mouthed with admiration when Augusto leaned toward her and in a stage whisper said, “He’s never been out of Athens in his life, until today.” Her look of ridicule and anger still haunts me. Now I’m headed for the Big Bagel, known to some as Noo Yawk.

    The Last Alpha Male, published by Passage Publishing, is out now. This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 15, 2025 World edition.

  • Inside Trump’s war on the cartels

    Inside Trump’s war on the cartels

    To deal with big problems, the second presidency of Donald Trump adopts a three-step approach. First, the declaration of authority: in this case, the designation announced in February of multiple Mexican and South American cartels as international terror organizations, opening up new avenues for legal, intelligence and potential military responses.

    Next, eye-popping kinetic action: this came with SOUTHCOM’s deployment in August of eight warships to the Caribbean and Pacific Oceans, including three Aegis guided-missile destroyers parked off the coast of Venezuela along with a landing dock, amphibious assault ships and a fast-attack nuclear submarine. These vessels can carry 4,500 Navy and Marines along with helicopters, advanced surveillance equipment and cruise missiles that can strike anywhere at will.

    Earlier this month, we saw a missile kill 11 “narco-terrorists” on a boat coming out of Venezuela. “Instead of interdicting it, on the President’s orders, we blew it up,” confirmed Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “And it’ll happen again.”

    The third step involves a very public forging of Trumpian symbolism: look to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s announcement last month of the restoration of the Mexican Border Defense Medal, an award given originally to the armed forces that supported the expedition of General “Black Jack” Pershing (a personal favorite of Trump’s) in Mexico more than a century ago. The bronze Roman sword and crossed sabers on a medal emblazoned “For Service on the Mexican Border” could hardly send a louder message. Watch out, Mexico: MAGA has found the one war it wants.

    If this second administration has a motto, it’s “again this time, but for real.” Tweets fired off from the hip, now in the form of Truth Social posts, could once be dismissed even by the President’s supporters as something to be taken seriously, but not literally. Now, the Donald’s outbursts are gospel. In his first term, Trump and the likes of then-secretary of state Mike Pompeo publicly entertained the idea of escalating the mission against Mexico’s cartels to a military priority, but never formally did so. This time, the primary Mexico brief landed not at State, Homeland Security or Justice – but with gung-ho Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    On his first call in January with Mexican officials, the newly confirmed Hegseth delivered an unequivocal message: that unilateral US military action was on the table if Mexico didn’t step up action against the cartels – a statement that left the Mexican brass “shocked and angered” according to the Wall Street Journal, but directly preceded the unprecedented handover of 29 top cartel officials for extradition.

    If that was supposed to satisfy Hegseth, it hasn’t – in the months since, he has publicly stated that “we’re taking nothing off the table – nothing,” when it comes to potential strikes and that “we’re watching [the cartels], and we know a little bit more than they think we know about them.”

    A network of drones and spyplanes provide an eye-in-the-skyview of cartel assets and activity

    What the US knows is largely thanks to a network of drones and spy planes which provide an eye-in-the-sky view of cartel assets and activity. They are technologically capable of transforming from watchers to weapons as they have to great effect in Africa and the Middle East. Razing targets from the sky is not something the Mexican military is built to defend against: their assignment is the control of the Mexican people. One analyst told me: “There is no part of Mexico we cannot reach.” But this White House and the key players in Trump’s cabinet also recognize that declaring war on the cartels – by wiping out fentanyl labs, demolishing training camps in Jalisco, or killing drug kingpins – is pointless if, Hydra-like, the monster’s heads simply grow back.

    That’s why for this White House, success is defined as forcing the Mexican government to do what it doesn’t want to. As Hegseth indicated on that first call, Mexico must handle the cartel problem itself, lest the Americans handle it instead.

    One reason war on the cartels has become a MAGA priority is due to the forward-looking politics of the top men surrounding the President. Vice President J.D. Vance, Rubio and even Hegseth himself could conceivably run in 2028, and Trump’s close advisors, such as Stephen Miller, have warned that a temporarily quiet border isn’t enough. Mexico is a problem to be solved now, not when the cartel’s spigot of drugs and trafficking presumably turns back on in three years’ time.

    It’s telling that Rubio is aligned with this stepped-up mission, potentially breaking with the prevailing views among long-serving diplomatic experts such as Spanish-born former ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau, currently Deputy Secretary of State, who prefer the public-facing perception of cooperation and fear potential blowback over military action. While officials who prioritize the status quo are loath to openly criticize Mexican leadership, within the administration there is a sizable faction, possibly including the President himself, who no longer believe Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum when she says she’s cooperating. “The Mexicans are just trying to buy time until the White House changes hands again,” one analyst told me.

    For Mexican nationalists and anti-war critics on right and left, Trump’s burgeoning cartel war is framed as an act of imperial authoritarianism: simply the next step for a President who talked of buying Greenland and making Canada the 51st state. The less radical criticism raised in the pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal has focused more on the lack of effectiveness: that Hydra problem again. But the truth is that Trump and his team of warriors have no designs to conquer Mexico, or even to eliminate the cartels completely – instead, they view the aim of kinetic military action as a threat designed to force Mexico to end the dominance of the cartels itself.

    Left to its own devices, Mexico would have little appetite for this. The protection of these powerful entities has become the number one priority of the state. The cartels raked in billions from trafficking millions of people and poisoning tens of thousands during the Joe Biden years, and they paid a pretty penny to the Mexican government to do so. This effectively turned our neighbor into a quasi-failed narco state.

    In Mexico, politicians work for criminals – or else they are the criminals. And the politicians have hardly been quiet about it – see former president (and still the most influential politician in Mexico) Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who declared any assault on the cartels as tantamount to war on all Mexicans. He called it “demonization,” saying that the cartels were “respectful people” who “respect the citizenry.”

    The former ruler now presides from the security of his ranch, La Chingada (translated, it means “the fucking thing” or “the one who’s fucked”), where he exercises control of the ruling party via his son and a vast network of cronies. On the rare occasions where Sheinbaum has opposed an AMLO decision, such as nominations for various offices, the former president’s loyalists in the Mexican Congress have reminded her who’s actually boss. They remain loyal to the leader who enriched them so well with decades of bribes and kickbacks. But there is a crack in the facade: AMLO is well aware he enjoys his quasi-retirement (he is ostensibly writing a history of Mexico) only so long as his successor succeeds in keeping the US out.

    As AMLO’s chosen heir, Sheinbaum is a true believer following a more pragmatic leftist nationalist – imagine a Bernie superfan inheriting the mantle from the man himself. Berkeley-educated Sheinbaum has managed her relationship with Trump relatively well, praising him in English and saving her criticisms for Mexican audiences. Yet part of the reason AMLO chose her in the first place is her weakness – she has no organic base within the Morena party apart from him. And her naive ideological commitment to AMLO’s utopian program has earned her disdain and even naked contempt from the former president’s cronies, who were spotted earlier this year declining to shake her hand after a major public speech. 

    There’s a distinct lack of on-the-ground human intelligence about the cartels’ activity, but a series of recent court deals could play an important role. Information from Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, the co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel who faces a life sentence after pleading guilty in New York, and from Ovidio Guzmán López, son of El Chapo, who pleaded guilty in Chicago, could change that. Both have the ability to inform on key figures within the cartels and the Mexican government itself.

    Mexico hawks believe recent improvement on the border is not due to Sheinbaum, but to a change of mindset by the cartels and their government cronies who have perhaps calculated that a few lean years under Trump are tolerable, especially if Gavin Newsom takes over next. But a temporarily quiet border isn’t enough for this version of Trump, and Mexico is one area where the MAGA base and its brain trust seem open to the idea of more aggressive action.

    “There’s a 1,950-mile border that changes the calculus for MAGA, with a much more present awareness of the danger because of that proximity,” says Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. He emphasizes that the institutional right would be “categorically supportive” and dismisses the idea of backfire from the President’s base. “There are a lot of us outside the White House who are working with the folks on the inside on raising up Monroe Doctrine 2.0, including key players in the administration. If you do what needs to be done to wreck the cartels, who would complain on the right?”

    Roberts also believes that a motivating factor for some is Mexico’s Chinese connection – comparing it to Germany’s Zimmermann Telegram of 1917 – both through investment and as a source for the basic elements of drug production. “[MAGA] people who want us to be less active in the Middle East and Europe are aware of this,” Roberts says. “The threat of increased presence of China in our hemisphere makes this a problem people are willing to confront, even if they are more uncertain about how to deal with challenges like Taiwan.”

    Ryan P. Williams, president of the California-based Claremont Institute, echoes this view. “This is about reflexive Jacksonian values. Our hemisphere has been the central focus of American foreign policy going back to a more responsible era when our statesmen were better educated by eighth grade than our leaders today,” he says, comparing the moment to John Quincy Adams’s defense of Andrew Jackson’s conquest of Florida. “If you have sovereign control over territory and you lose it, and violence comes from that which hurts our citizens, it’s our right to fix a situation if you can’t or won’t, including with force.”

    This is the one war MAGA believes is worth starting. “The bureaucratic institutional culture in Washington at places like the State Department thinks of problems as something to be managed and under no condition ever disrupted,” Williams says. “But a big course correction when it comes to Mexico has been long overdue, and the threat of a quasi-failed state run by cartels, with regular incursions over our southern border by drones and other forces, with drugs flowing into our streets fueled by Chinese materials – we should not put up with this any longer.”

    The drones are silent for now. Trump’s current approach is an encirclement strategy led by SOUTHCOM – going after the Venezuelans, the Cubans and the Nicaraguans, partnering with friendly governments such as Ecuador to eliminate Mexican criminals in their own state, and operating in a concentric fashion in an attempt to accomplish America’s aims without pulling the trigger. But the government stands ready, should that approach fail, in all likelihood followed by a solemn statement sincerely thanking our willing partners in the Mexican government for their cooperation and help – whether or not they gave it.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 15 2025 World edition.