Well, let's hope so.

DOGE may be taking some cues from Argentina's Milei, and that would be a good thing:

There is hope

There is hope for this world not continuing to exist on the edge of Armageddon. Here is Javier Milei not just talking truth in Argentina, delivering results as proof:

Positivity from Javier Milei

Dave Rubin recounts some positivity from Argentina via their new president Javier Milei:

Is the Pope a communist

According to Javier Milei, incoming president of Argentina, thinks it's so. He thinks the Pope is a communist.  He makes a good case.  I've always thought the current Pope was a socialist (communist-lite), but that's just splitting hairs.  Here Milei talks to Tucker Carlson about the Pope and communism and socialism in general.

Argentina's new president cutting country's ties with China

 Nice job so far Javier Milei.

Meanwhile in Argentina

Argentina is just the latest country to elect for president someone the media would dismiss as a far right radical.  Except if 55% of the country voted for the guy, maybe far-right isn't the correct term.  I think it falls into the Princess Bride category of "you keep using this word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."   The correct term would be populist, or maybe 'common sense candidate'.

Here's a fun take:

Saturday Learning Series - Geography (Argentina)

Another geography lesson? Yeah, geography is kind of important like history.  It's fundamental stuff when it comes to geopolitics.  Today, Argentina.

Treasonous president

This is more than astounding, it's violently shocking.  President Obama's administration tried to convince Argentina's socialist government back in 2010 to provide the Ahmedinejad regime in Iran with nuclear fuel.  This is not some right wing conspiracy (although you probably won't see a banner headline in the New York Times about it).  No, in fact this is coming from the president of Argentina herself according to her official website.

In 2010 we were visited in Argentina by Gary Samore, at that time the White House’s top advisor in nuclear issues. He came to see us in Argentina with a mission, with an objective: under the control of IAEA, the international organization in the field of weapons control and nuclear regulation, Argentina had supplied in the year 1987, during the first democratic government, the nuclear fuel for the reactor known as “Teheran”. Gary Samore had explained to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Héctor Timerman, that negotiations were underway for the Islamic Republic of Iran to cease with its uranium enrichment activities or to do it to a lesser extent but Iran claimed that it needed to enrich this Teheran nuclear reactor and this was hindering negotiations. They came to ask us, Argentines, to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear fuel. Rohani was not in office yet. It was Ahmadinejad’s administration and negotiations had already started.

And also in a recent U.N. speech;

Now, Obama will likely face more criticism after Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner revealed in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Monday that a former Obama administration official tried to convince Argentina to provide nuclear fuel to Iran sometime in 2010.

Unbelievable. And this only a year after Iran's Green Revolution, and during a period of some pretty nefarious Iranian activities. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of treason but it must be pretty close in trying to help an avowed, self-declared enemy of the West and America in particular become nuclear. Especially so, since they've an undeclared goal of weaponized nuclear capability. One thing is certain however, it does rise to the level of stupid.

Sean Penn - socialist toolbag or just always wrong?

That was my skull!

Sean Penn has decided to take on England.  Clearly, he has yet to tackle reason.

Sean Penn is accusing British media of pushing for war instead of diplomacy to resolve the United Kingdom's dispute with Argentina over the islands both countries claim in the far South Atlantic.

The Oscar-winning actor said British journalists had twisted his comments the day before in support of Argentina's push for a U.N.-sponsored negotiated settlement to the sovereignty dispute.

"Good journalism saves the world. Bad journalism destroys it," Penn said.

London's conservative Daily Mail called the statement "an ugly attack on the press" by a "left-wing U.S. actor" in its Wednesday editions and quoted a member of parliament, Patrick Mercer, as calling Penn's comment "moronic."

Do your homework Sean - Argentina was the aggressor in the Falklands War. They were the ones with imperial ambitions, not England. But facts don't matter to Penn.

"My oh my, aren't people sensitive to the word 'colonialism,' particularly those who implement colonialism," Penn said Tuesday night. He then doubled down on his criticism of Britain's actions leading up to the 30th anniversary of Argentina's failed 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, a British territory that Argentines claim as the Malvinas. More than 900 people were killed in the war.

Britain says it will never negotiate with Argentina as long as the Falklanders want to be British. It has sent Prince William on a six-week air force mission to the islands, along with its most powerful destroyer, the HMS Dauntless. The British government also hasn't denied reports that it sent a nuclear submarine, possibly with nuclear missiles, to the disputed southern seas.

emphasis added.

England is not wrong Sean, you are.

Worst...Diplomacy...Ever

The soft diplomacy espoused by the Obama administration isn't really much more than embracing the enemy and eschewing the friend, isn't it?  The latest example siding with Argentina (not an enemy, but not England) over Great Britain on the Falkland Islands, a question settled nearly 30 years ago in favor of the nation that Ronald Reagan sided with as a first among friends ally.  That is simply unbelievable in it's foolishness.  It's exceeded only by it's irrelevance. Of course, the reason is probably oil.  Nevertheless, is it worth throwing away the special relationship with the closest ally?  Of course not, but maybe the President is just embarrassed by all the diplomatic screw ups he's made with the Queen and the Prime Minister and this is his way of ending the relationship...

Food Stamps For Everyone!

Food Stamps.  Tasty.

You know what these things in the picture are?  They're food stamps. You know how many people in the United States are currently using food stamps?  41.8 million people.  That's more than the entire population of Argentina.  At last check, Argentina was NOT a super-power.  Argentina has a GDP per capita of $14,525 according to the IMF (2009).  The United States by comparison has a GDP per capita of  $45,934.  Three times that of Argentina.

According to Bloomberg,

The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose to a record 41.8 million in July as the jobless rate hovered near a 27-year high, the government said.

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 18 percent from a year earlier and increased 1.4 percent from June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a statement on its website. Participation has set records for 20 straight months.

Yet the United States, the one that's the superpower, has more people on food stamps than the entire country of Argentina.  For a family of 3 (roughly the average family size in the U.S.), in order to qualify for food stamps, the family's Gross Income must be under $23,808 to qualify for food stamps.  That's not that far from Argentina's GDP per capita.

In Argentina roughly 20% of the population is below the poverty line. In the United States, the number varies but is typically in the teens. Based on the recent numbers, 13.6% of the United States is currently on food stamps. So things aren't all that rosy.  Curiously, 20 straight months of growing food stamp use happens to coincide with the number of months President Obama has been in power.  Hmmmmm.  Maybe the President should kick off some sort of War on Poverty.  It could be a green movement too!  I don't like the direction of that line of thinking.  But I bet a lot of Democrats do.

Falkland diplomacy a precursor to war?

That Hillary Clinton fell into a diplomatic pit on the Falklands is no real surprise. What might be a surprise is why the issue is showing up 28 years after a decisive war to settle the subject.

As I mentioned previously, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon didn't fall for the Argentinian ploy to renounce British rule of the islands, or to be even drawn into the dispute beyond encouraging peaceful solutions.

In political news Argentina’s Foreign Minister met today with the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, to press for support over the Falklands issues. Although the Foreign Minister emerged from the meeting uttering the same soundbites as other Argentinian leaders have recently, there has been a telling silence from Ban and the UN. Hopefully he is far too clever and impartial to be drawn into what is essentially South American power-play politics.

Sure enough, British efforts to drill for oil, the real reason for the dispute over the islands, has attracted Argentinian attention. But in a great series of analyses on the military situation, Daily History explains while Argentina might be ready to flex it's muscle now. In addition to being preoccupied helping out in Afghanistan, British readiness to fight a second Falklands war is quite diminished;

So although there are some pretty depressing negatives, there are some positives to take from this analysis: some new and improved capabilities such as Tomahawk, more experienced and better equipped troops, and a better command system and culture.

However compared to these positives, the negatives are overpowering. With weaker air defence a task force would be much more vulnerable, particularly in the amphibious phase. The critical lack of Destroyers and Frigates would leave gaps in our anti-air, anti-surface and gunfire support roles. But the state of the RFA and the Merchant Navy might make the launching of any task force a non-starter simply due to an ability to maintain it logistically. It is hard to see the point of having such a strong Amphibious group if we are unable to protect it or to maintain it.

Against this background, the next natural step is to question what exactly the Government intends for British Defence policy. Effectively British Forces rely on friendly sea based air cover, and allied Destroyers and Frigates to assist in escorting and air defence. The Royal Navy is also reliant on friendly logistical support. While the Government espouses a Global Defence policy, the Royal Navy is effectively unable to operate Globally due to a lack of resources.

Are Argentina's Falkland diplomatic efforts a precursor to war? With the U.S. not seeming likely to reciprocate help for teh English, Great Britain's diminished capacity to fight, and the Argentine economy coming off it's worst economic crisis since the 2002-2003 economic collapse - maybe so.