In partnership with

PLEASE REMEMBER TO SHARE & SUBSCRIBE!

PLEASE HELP KEEP OUR NEWSLETTER FREE BY SIMPLY CLICKING THE LINK IN THIS AD. NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER!

This Stock is Up 220% and Primed for the Next Breakout

Bank of America analysts predict gold will hit $3,000 by 2025 — and this hidden gold stock is set to benefit.

With gold's post-election dip, now could be a good opportunity to consider adding to your portfolio. Savvy investors understand the value of holding gold and gold stocks.

This stock has made impressive gains in recent years, and with insiders continuing to buy, it's one to keep on your watchlist.

Learn About This Winning Trade

P.S. The last gold stock we highlighted in this newsletter saw a strong rally, climbing over 60% just days after our feature. Be sure to keep this one on your watchlist!

This is a sponsored advertisement on behalf of Four Nines Gold. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investing involves risk. View the full disclaimer here: https://shorturl.at/73AF8

CHECK OUT THE LATEST EPISODE OF LIVE WITH CHRIS’WORLD!

WE FILTER NEWS SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO BECAUSE FACTS AND TRUTH MATTER!

The targeted assassination of Brian Thompson in Manhattan, using a silenced firearm, highlights what many conservative supporters of Trump might argue is a failure of liberal policies in managing crime in major cities. The meticulous planning involved, with the assailant reportedly waiting for hours or possibly overnight, underscores the audacity of criminals who feel emboldened in environments where law enforcement is perceived as handcuffed by progressive agendas. This incident could be leveraged by pro-Trump voices to call for a return to strict law-and-order policies, emphasizing the need for a robust response to crime that was a hallmark of Trump's approach to public safety.

• Crime in Democrat-Run Cities: This assassination can be cited as evidence of an unsafe urban environment under Democratic leadership, contrasting with Trump's narratives on law enforcement.

• Public Safety Initiatives: It might reinforce the argument for reinstating Trump-era policies like "stop and frisk" or increased police presence in high-risk areas.

• Corporate Security: The incident brings attention to the security of high-profile business leaders, possibly advocating for private security solutions or law enforcement protections.

• Economic Impact: The murder of a CEO can impact business confidence, potentially supporting arguments for Trump's economic policies that focus on stability and security for business operations.

• Law Enforcement Support: The act of offering a reward and the NYPD's response could be praised, but there might also be calls for more law enforcement support and less restrictive policing tactics.

• Targeted Violence: The fact that the murder was not random can be used to discuss how progressive policies might inadvertently protect organized crime over law-abiding citizens or business leaders.

The Biden administration's consideration of preemptive pardons for figures like Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, and Anthony Fauci is viewed as an explicit admission of wrongdoing and an attempt to shield these individuals from potential legal scrutiny under a returning Trump administration. This move is seen as further evidence of a corrupt system where political allies are protected, undermining the principle of accountability that many Trump supporters hold dear. It suggests a fear of justice rather than confidence in one's innocence, reflecting the very 'drain the swamp' narrative that Trump campaigned on.

• Admission of Guilt: Offering pardons before any legal action is taken can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of guilt or fear of prosecution for past actions.

• Political Patronage: It exemplifies the kind of political favoritism that Trump's base often criticizes, where political allies are granted immunity regardless of their actions.

• Circumventing Justice: Preemptive pardons could be seen as an attempt to bypass the legal process, preventing a Trump-led Department of Justice from investigating these figures.

• Undermining Legal System: This move might be used to argue that the justice system is being manipulated to protect the political class at the expense of true justice.

• Election Interference: Some might view it as an effort to interfere with the incoming administration's ability to enforce laws, thus affecting the democratic process.

• Double Standards: Highlighting the double standards, where while Trump and his allies faced significant legal battles, Biden's administration is seen as protecting its own.

• Public Trust: Such actions could further erode public trust in government, illustrating a divide between political insiders and the rest of the nation.

Speaker Mike Johnson's decision to reject President Biden's request for more funding for Ukraine, choosing instead to wait for guidance from the incoming Trump administration, resonates strongly with conservative and pro-Trump sentiments. This stance reflects a commitment to fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a reevaluation of foreign policy priorities. It aligns with Trump's "America First" doctrine, emphasizing domestic issues over international entanglements, especially in conflicts where the strategic benefits for the U.S. are debated. Johnson's move could be seen as a stand against what many conservatives view as an unchecked flow of taxpayer money abroad, particularly when there are pressing domestic needs.

• Fiscal Conservatism: Rejecting additional expenditure showcases adherence to conservative principles of not committing to further financial obligations without a clear strategy.

• Presidential Authority: Awaiting the new Commander-in-Chief's direction acknowledges the incoming President's role in shaping foreign policy, respecting the electoral mandate.

• Reassessment of Aid: This decision allows for a reassessment of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, fitting with Trump's campaign promise to review and possibly reduce foreign aid.

• National Interest: It underscores a focus on national interests, potentially redirecting resources towards domestic security, economy, and infrastructure.

• Critique of Biden's Policy: The rejection serves as a critique of Biden's foreign policy, particularly the emphasis on aid to Ukraine, which some conservatives argue does not yield sufficient returns for U.S. interests.

• Electoral Mandate: By waiting for Trump, Johnson signals to Trump's voter base that their priorities, including a more isolationist or America-centric foreign policy, are being considered.

• Leverage in Negotiations: This move could provide leverage in future negotiations, ensuring that any decision on Ukraine funding aligns with the new administration's strategic objectives.

The incident of President Joe Biden appearing to fall asleep during a summit with African leaders is seen as a profound embarrassment to the United States. It encapsulates what they perceive as the administration's lack of vigor and competence in international affairs. This moment reaffirms their belief that the country needs a leader who projects strength and focus, qualities they attribute to Trump, whose energetic and confrontational style contrasts starkly with Biden's perceived lethargy.

• Leadership Image: Biden's apparent nap undermines the image of strong, attentive leadership, which Trump emphasized through his dynamic presence at international meetings.

• International Perception: Such an event can lead to a diminished view of the U.S. among global leaders, highlighting a perceived weakness in U.S. diplomacy.

• Emblem of Decline: This incident can be used as a metaphor for what conservatives see as America's decline under Biden, particularly in terms of global influence and respect.

• Age and Fitness for Office: It fuels debates about Biden's age and mental acuity, a frequent point of contention when compared to Trump's more robust public persona.

• Contrast with Trump: Trump's supporters often recall his stamina, especially during his tenure when he frequently engaged in lengthy negotiations with no visible signs of fatigue.

• Policy Neglect: The moment could be interpreted as neglect or disinterest in important geopolitical issues, like Africa's strategic importance, which Trump might have approached with more engagement.

• Voter Sentiment: This incident might serve to validate the sentiments of those who voted for Trump, believing America needs a leader who is visibly "on the job" and not "asleep at the wheel."

Pete Hegseth's press conference where he reiterated Donald Trump's directives for the Pentagon underscores the conservative and pro-Trump push for a military focused on traditional warfighting capabilities. Trump's mandate to Hegseth to instill a "war-fighting ethos" and prioritize "lethality" aligns with the conservative view that the military should be centered on strength and readiness for combat, rather than what they might describe as 'woke' or 'social engineering' initiatives. This directive highlights a return to what many in the conservative base believe should be the core function of the military: to fight and win wars efficiently, without the distractions of non-combat related policies.

• Military Focus: Trump's instructions to Hegseth emphasize a military that is prepared for conflict, resonating with conservative calls for a strong defense.

• Critique of Modern Military Culture: This can be seen as a direct critique of recent military efforts to integrate broader social issues, which conservatives argue detract from combat readiness.

• Efficiency and Effectiveness: By focusing on "lethality," there's an implication that the military should be streamlined for maximum effectiveness in its primary role.

• Cultural Shift: Hegseth's mission from Trump signifies a cultural shift back to what conservatives perceive as the military's fundamental purpose.

• Trump's Leadership Style: The directive reflects Trump's direct, no-nonsense approach to leadership, aiming for clear, actionable goals.

• Public Appeal: This stance might appeal to voters who believe in a straightforward military agenda, free from what they see as extraneous political agendas.

• Policy Implications: If implemented, this could lead to policy changes reducing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs within the military, focusing instead on combat training and readiness.

Peter Hotez's claim that pandemics will "crash down" on Trump's administration on January 21st, 2025, feeds into the narrative among pro-Trump and conservative circles that such statements hint at orchestration or foreknowledge of pandemics. This kind of declaration is often viewed with suspicion, reinforcing beliefs that the timing and nature of pandemics like COVID-19 were not coincidental but possibly planned as political maneuvers. Such rhetoric can be seen as an attempt to undermine Trump's leadership by suggesting impending chaos, which aligns with the conservative view that certain elements, including health officials and the media, have been weaponized against Trump's America First policies.

• Timing Suspicion: The specific date mentioned raises eyebrows, suggesting that there might be an agenda to coincide with Trump's administration.

• Political Weaponization: This is perceived as part of a broader strategy to use health crises as a tool against conservative policies and leaders.

• Public Distrust: Such predictions contribute to public distrust in health policy experts, seen as biased actors in the political arena.

• Focus on Trump: The emphasis on the impact on Trump specifically can be interpreted as an attempt to blame or prepare for criticism against his administration.

• Call for Scrutiny: These remarks might lead to calls for more scrutiny over health policy announcements and their political implications.

• Support for Trump's Stance: It reinforces Trump's stance on questioning the motives behind health policies and mandates, providing more ammunition for his narrative against the "deep state" or establishment figures.