Trump Announces HE will OWN Gaza

Trump just committed a Freudian imperial slip and announced, as he described how the US will kick all the Palestinians out of Gaza, that Gaza will, then be owned by HIM as a future real-estate development. Yes, HE will own it.

He added that this scenario will be cheap to bring about. Well, I guess so, since he’s just taking it without paying for it, though the high human cost of taking it might be paid for by the US military with US blood and treasure while the Arabs, of course, will build the walls for all the new homes that keep the Palestinians out, and the Arabs, we are told, will pay for that, too, just like Mexico paid for the wall. And it will be easy.

Watch a shocking video that not many of you have seen!!! In this video, I will unearth a long-forgotten secret that helped our ancestors survive famines, wars, economic crisis, diseases, droughts and anything else life threw at them.

Here is the full rundown, starting with a Palestinian take of the situation and ending with Trump’s personal claim on Gaza:

“Gaza, in Trump’s eyes, is a resort overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, with large gas reserves just a few kilometers away,” Mohammed al-Saidi, 32, told TNA with a sarcastic smile as he worked to remove the rubble from his destroyed home. “Trump wants to clean Gaza, meaning to wipe out its population and build his own real estate empire.”

Al-Saidi downplayed the seriousness of Trump’s statements, saying, “It is ridiculous to give these stupid statements all this attention….”

While Doha is preparing to oversee a second phase of the ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel, Trump’s statements represent a detonator for this agreement, as Talal Okal, a writer for the local Al-Ayyam newspaper, said in an interview with TNA.

Awkal added that Trump himself "stated two days ago that there were no 'guarantees' for the continuation of the ceasefire agreement. He knew very well the bomb he was about to drop and the potential shockwave of his proposals…."

Awkal said that Trump's statements regarding the Gaza Strip once again reveal the nature of his talkative and controversial personality, which has always exceeded the usual diplomatic boundaries in American politics.”

He added: "Trump, who thinks he can impose a new reality in Gaza, does not realize that implementing his plan requires more than just fiery statements or incitement to displace the Palestinians. The Palestinian people, who have stood firm in the face of the occupation for decades, will not submit to such ideas, and Trump will not be able to achieve his vision unless he resorts to using the nuclear bomb to end the Palestinian presence in the Strip."

 WARNING: Watching The Following Video Will Give You Access To Knowledge The Government Does NOT Want You To Know About

It gets better as we come to Czar Trump’s telling response:

President Donald Trump says a precarious ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas should be canceled if Hamas doesn’t release all the remaining hostages it is holding in Gaza by midday on Saturday.

In comments to reporters as he signed a series of executive orders, Trump said it was ultimately up to Israel. But he warned that “all hell is going to break out” if the remaining hostages aren’t released, and added that he feared many were dead….

President Donald Trump said Palestinians in Gaza would not have a right to return under his plan for U.S. “ownership” of the war-torn territory, contradicting other officials in his administration who have sought to argue Trump was only calling for the temporary relocation of its population….

Oh sure, that part said US ownership. He had not laid out the rest of the story yet:

Less than a week after he floated his plan for the U.S. to take control of Gaza and turn it into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” Trump, in an interview with FOX News’ Bret Baier that was set to air Monday, said “No, they wouldn’t” when asked if Palestinians in Gaza would have a right to return to the territory….

We’ll build safe communities, a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is,” Trump said. “In the meantime, I WOULD OWN THIS. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. No big money spent.”

So he ultimately sees a US Gaza takeover as way of building HIS empire like a true emperor. Best of all, no big money will be spent out of his pocket (so it will be a brilliant deal) because all costs will be born by the US and by the surrounding Arab nations, using US intimidation to press down on them to do the Don’s deal.

“I would own this!”

Presumably, since Trump originally told the world the US would own Gaza, Trump will, after the US does all the heavy lifting to occupy it and annex it, extend a 99-year lease (heck, just make it a forever lease) for a buck a year to himself as the executive administrator of the US to become the developer of the next Riviera. He will own the development, and the land will belong to the US, and he will sublease parts of it out to other developers for the wealth of a small national mint. That way the US can be responsible for building the infrastructure and for military protection of the land if necessary.

I’m pretty sure Trump’s acquisition of ownership of Gaza goes far outside the emoluments clause.

Some will argue this was just one more case of Trump’s usual meaningless press baiting?

I don’t know. Why give him that? Obviously, no one can ever take him at his word because he often is just baiting the press. To the point: he promised two entire nations—Canada and Mexico—in a trade agreement he put together and signed during his first term that no party of the treaty would impose tariffs until, a least, 2026. But he already already broke that deal by imposing tariffs in the first three weeks of his second term—even if only for a day with a hold to see how much more he can wrestle out of those two nations by imposing the tariffs his own agreement promised not to impose.

So, this is not a man you can take at his word about anything once he sees a new opportunity, even if it is in writing. The last trade agreement wasn’t worth the paper it was written on or the spit in his mouth when he first announced it because Trump was first to unilaterally and brazenly break it last week. So, why give him the benefit of the doubt on his present claim of future Gaza ownership.

He’s told us Gaza WILL BE HIS. He also said as Candidate Trump that he would be happy to be czar for a day, but he has ruled with the absolute authority of a czar by executive dictates for three weeks so far. He’s getting a lot more done than anyone else ever has, I’ll give him that; but that is how the power of dictatorship works. No messy democracy to get in your way. Just rule by decree. And now Czar Trump says he will use the muscle of the US to push Arab nations to adopt the Palestinians into their own homelands and to build homes for them, and then HE will own Gaza.

I think I’ll just hold him to his word at face value (why not?) now that he has stated he fully intends to own Gaza himself, and make it the magnum opus of his developments. (Why let him walk it back when the world clubs him over the head for this statement?) I’m sure he envisions a strip of prime Mediterranean oceanfront that will look something like Dubai when he is done with his imperial masterpiece.

I also invite you to take a look at this site- www.whatfinger.com

Will US Debt Cannibalize Bold Trump Agenda?

Having written about President Trump’s imperial plans in my latest Deeper Dive, I’ll give the man a break on his inaugural day and just talk about one of the economic obstacles he will face for any plan that would increase the national debt. This is a problem already baked in by every president from Reagan to the present (and to an infinitesimally smaller degree by some who came before); and the total debt added during Republican administrations actually exceeds that added in Democratic admins; but no president was a laggard in the debt department.

The national debt will exceed $36 trillion when he takes office on Jan. 20, up from $20 trillion when he started his first term in 2017. As a percentage of GDP, debt held by the public has jumped from 75% in 2017 to 96% today. These numbers will only get worse.

This stark problem, which just keeps climbing more steeply, will have to be faced squarely by the Trump administration sometime during this term.

The main question is when markets will start punishing Uncle Sam for profligate borrowing — and it might already be happening.

Since last September, the Federal Reserve has cut short-term interest rates by a full percentage point, yet long-term rates have risen by a full point.

Bonds are likely responding to two key factors: 1) They don’t like inflation, so they try to price it in. 2) The endless ramp-up in US Treasury borrowing means the bond market has to attract in a great many more buyers of debt in order to finance all of that, which requires higher and higher interest to attract the investors, especially now that the Fed is no longer acting as buyer of first resort for all of if. (Though that is exactly the Fed-funded profligacy that enabled—and even enticed—governments to climb that mountain. It was practically a free lift to get them up the steep slope..)

Neither of those pressures is going to abate in 2025, and the battle is going to show up pretty quickly for two reasons:

First, the government has hit its borrowing limit, which means Congress will need to raise the limit by late spring or early summer….

Second, a debt ceiling showdown could trigger another downgrade of US debt

And there is no slack on the latter because three credit agencies have already downgraded US credit:

Standard & Poor’s downgraded US debt one notch after a debt-ceiling standoff in 2011. Fitch did the same after a similar showdown in 2023, and Moody’s changed its US ratings outlook to negative from stable that same year. Downgrades haven’t damaged US creditworthiness yet, but markets are getting more prickly.

This could make it hard for Trump to even renew his tax cuts because doing only that—unless he finds an equal amount in expenses to cut with no increase in spending— will add another $5-trillion to the projected national debt.

We are close to hitting that wall where the size of the national debt clearly matters. It’s already costing all of us an arm and a leg, and interest is eating close to 100% of our gross domestic output, but now we’ll see it starting to trouble our economy.

I also invite you to take a look at this site- www.whatfinger.com

Even the US Government is Worried There Won’t Be Enough Electricity

It was known as the “Timber Famine” in 18th-century Great Britain. And it was no exaggeration to say that it was a national crisis: Britain was running out of wood.

The first major reason was population growth; wood was the major material and fuel source of the era, used for cooking, heating, and construction. And Britain’s booming population growth created insatiable demand for timber.

The second reason was technological advancement. New machines like steam engines needed a reliable fuel source to generate heat… causing demand for wood to skyrocket.

Soon timber demand outstripped supply. Loggers cleared out entire forests, and timber prices shot up dramatically. British writer Malachy Postlethwayt lamented in 1747, “So great is the scarcity of wood. . . that where cord wood had been sold at six and seven shillings per cord, it is now sold for upwards of fifteen and twenty shillings; and in some places is all consumed.”

But Britain’s timber famine wasn’t just an economic problem—it was a matter of national security.

The domestic iron industry needed wood to fuel its fires. And with the timber shortage came a major risk of having to rely on foreign imports. Moreover, the timber famine also jeopardized the ability for the Royal Navy and merchant fleets to build new ships and repair existing ones.

The solution was clear: Britain needed to switch to a well-known alternative fuel source: coal.

But it didn’t happen without serious resistance.

Those profiting from the timber trade formed a powerful lobby, and the politicians in their pocket made ridiculous, specious arguments against coal.

Coal critics even went as far as arguing that the smell of wood smoke was preferable to coal smoke, and cleverly labeled coal “the devil’s excrement.”

Another criticism was that coal production was too dangerous (compared to logging). But technology fixed that too. Inventions like water pumps and safety lamps dramatically improved conditions in coal mines.

In the end, coal overcame the criticism and became the primary fuel of the Industrial Revolution; and the world became vastly more prosperous as a result of the combination of cheaper, more efficient energy, combined with groundbreaking productive technology (like the steam engine).

The world faces a similar choice today.

Like Britain throughout the 1700s, significant population growth has increased demand for electricity around the world, including in the US. And while there’s no “timber famine” today, there are major challenges in the production of electricity.

Much of this is self-inflicted. Years of climate fanaticism have pushed power companies to shut down coal-fired plants and replace them with inefficient wind and solar facilities.

Look, I like a clean environment as much as anyone. But the reality is that wind and solar simply aren’t as clean as the mainstream narrative would have you believe.

The mining of key input materials like germanium, cobalt, etc. is incredibly filthy. Batteries are filthy. The manufacturing process is filthy. And that doesn’t even get into child labor issues.

Plus, with wind and solar, you have to build in all sorts of extra redundancy for times when the wind doesn’t blow. Or, you know, night time, when the sun doesn’t shine. And all that extra redundancy increases the environmental waste even more.

Despite the costs and limitations, however, the share of wind and solar powering America’s grid is higher than ever before. This is a major reason why the electrical grid is struggling to keep up with surging demand.

Aside from population growth, another key driver of demand is new technology. Similar to Britain in the late 1700s, it’s well known now that our modern technology (AI) consumes massive quantities of electricity.

The net result of this supply and demand imbalance is a major concern for looming electricity shortages.

Elon Musk predicted last March that “the world will face supply crunches in electricity” this year. He’s far from alone.

One of the ventures that I’ve invested in (along with many of our Total Access members) is a technology company that focuses on specialized microchips. And the head of sales told me he was in the Washington DC area last week meeting with various government officials who are prospective customers.

One of the major concerns they expressed to him was that there simply wasn’t going to be enough electricity to meet their needs (hence their interest in our technology, which is designed to consume less power).

They recognize that there isn’t enough electrical production capacity coming on line to match demand. They also understand that demand for electricity can (and likely will) grow much faster than supply.

And it was extraordinary that even government officials were complaining about the intense, bureaucratic regulation at the local, state, and federal level to bring new power plants online. God forbid you have to displace a bird’s nest, which might set you back several years.

In Britain’s timber famine, they solved their supply shortage by turning to a better technology: coal.

Today there is also a vastly superior technology, and that’s nuclear.

We’ve written about this before— the idea that a single rock can power a small city is nothing short of astonishing. But like coal in Britain’s industrial age, nuclear power today has plenty of detractors.

But the latest emerging technology— small scale reactors— dispenses with virtually all criticism. It’s safer, cleaner, and cuts down on 90% of the waste. It’s also cheaper and faster to build, requiring 80% less energy to construct than traditional reactors.

And it has the potential to drive widespread prosperity throughout the world— something cheap energy has always been able to do.

A lot of countries have already woken up to this idea, which is why places like China, India, and even Russia have been rapidly building their own nuclear reactors.

Europe has naturally been shutting theirs down, but those governments are clearly insane. And if you have a problem with their self-destructive decisions then you’re a far-right fascist. Those people are in serious need of psychiatric care.

The US is now waking up from its green fantasy. And as America often does, it’s starting this race from behind… but will probably catch up quickly.

All of this makes uranium, i.e. the fuel source for most nuclear reactors, one of the most critical resources in the world.

Yet the supply chain for uranium is fragile, and the market is painfully underdeveloped. Decades of disinterest in nuclear have kept uranium exploration and production at a standstill, even as global demand is poised to soar.

The US government is acutely aware of this risk. In 2020, Congress established the US Uranium Reserve, allocating $75 million to buy domestically-produced uranium.

But $75 million is nothing. Even with this program, domestic production is expected to fall far short of what’s needed to fuel the next generation of reactors.

Meanwhile, the uranium market is taking notice. Prices have more than doubled since 2021, but they remain well below the levels needed to incentivize new production.

The few publicly traded uranium miners and developers have seen their stocks surge. Yet most investors remain unaware of just how critical this resource will become.

Uranium is also a quintessential real asset— a critical resource that is vital to economic prosperity and new technology.

Yet, again, uranium is in a deficit. Demand already outpaces supply, and that imbalance is only set to worsen.

That likely means skyrocketing uranium prices. And massive profits for the few producers left— many still trading at quite modest valuations.