After 53 years, an entire childhood of Michael Jordan stopping Patrick Ewing and one Danhausen the Knicks are NBA Champions.

⚓️📰 #USNAVY UPDATE: The Navy Reserve is opening a new direct-commission pathway into the Navy Innovation Unit, recruiting elite engineers, architects and builders to solve maritime technology challenges. Keep your civilian job. Serve the mission. @USNavy navy.mil/press-office/press-…

Former MI6 Chief Richard Moore: Without China, Russia would have lost war in Ukraine. North Korean troops and Iranian drones grab headlines. But what keeps Putin in Ukraine is China — chemicals for artillery shells, components for drones and missiles. 1/

CNN did a segment on Freddy, the German soccer tourist, and sports analyst Christine Brennan claimed "I saw some conversation, Wolf and Pamela, about how the rest of the world is looking at the United States and feeling that we are—it's a foreboding image and that we are inhospitable...But how wonderful again, that sports can bring people here and show people that the United States and you know, the South is welcoming a German tourist in a way we would never have anticipated" Who is "we"?

CNN did a segment on Freddy, the German soccer tourist, and sports analyst Christine Brennan claimed "I saw some conversation, Wolf and Pamela, about how the rest of the world is looking at the United States and feeling that we are—it's a foreboding image and that we are inhospitable...But how wonderful again, that sports can bring people here and show people that the United States and you know, the South is welcoming a German tourist in a way we would never have anticipated" Who is "we"?

The Europeans do European stuff for a decade under Trump I, Biden, and Trump II and the argument is "I blame Trump". Maybe just maybe Europe is just a political mess <facepalm.gif>

Opinion: Canada is one of the most durable Jewish homes in the world. As rabbis, we are proud to lead and live here theglobeandmail.com/opinion/…

The British are in absolute shambles that America is now superior to them in soccer

This article in @ForeignPolicy casts incredibly bad advice to America's allies in both Asia and Europe. This bad advice is underwritten by an overt failure to understand the Trump admin and their strategic documents on their own terms. This reads like a political hit rather than analysis. If authors analyzing the Trump administration want to be treated in good faith, they need to start engaging in good faith. This article falls short of that target. Rather than reading as analysis, it reads as somewhat deluded conjurings of scholars who are politically opposed to the Trump administration and who are willing to ignore any data or fact pattern, even overwhelming data and fact patterns, if those data are inconvenient to an argument that reads like a thinly-veiled political hit piece. Obvious examples: 1) The article reads as if the authors have literally never spoken with someone who can steel man Trump's positions. Every part of the analysis construes a worst case scenario of what Trump is up to, and then throws that catastrophic vision over to America's Asian allies and tells them to deal with it. Of course, America's Asian allies can simply talk to the Trump admin, which will result in them reading this analysis like it comes from another planet. 2) The Trump admin themselves have addressed several concerns in this article, or at least explained how they view the world and what they hope to achieve. Most recently, Hegseth's comments in Singapore along with the Japanese immediate response to Hegseth are highly relevant. The viewpoints of the Trump administration themselves are largely left out of this analysis of what America's Asia allies should understand about and do in response to the Trump administration. So again, this reads like a political hit piece. How do you not use good faith Trump admin sources for helping Asian allies understand the Trump admin? 3) The authors seemingly ignore the NDS and NSS, or otherwise interpret those documents in the least charitable/most catastrophic way possible. What does "erect a strong denial defense along the First Island Chain" mean for Asian allies? The authors largely ignore the implications of that key, often-repeated goal of the Trump admin. What does "speak softly and carry a big stick" mean for understanding Trump admin statements? Again, the authors ignore the interpretive lens that is repeatedly handed to them by the Trump admin. 4) At the top of the article, the authors note that Europe is struggling to defend Europe. Indeed, defense capacities are severely diminished and need to be rebuilt. The UK is living the political end of this crisis as we speak. At the bottom of the article, the authors cast European support as a potential solution to an American retreat in Asia that absolutely has not occurred. This is a delusion solution to solve a problem created via delusion. American and Japanese leaders keep saying an American retreat from Asia *will not occur.* But setting that aside, the argument here is for the blind to lead the blind. The Europeans cannot defend Europe even when they have a 10-to-1 GDP advantage over Russia, yet the authors suggest that Europe should get distracted in Asia where they have extremely limited capacity to project power, or where they would simply expend weapons stocks they need to finally achieve conventional defense of their own continent. It doesn't make sense. 5) The analysis sustains itself by ignoring practically all facts that point in the opposite direction of the author's assumptions, such as the long list of tough-on-China actions and weapons approvals I've added here. In particular, it is egregious for a Biden NSC alum to go after Trump on weapons approvals to Taiwan when Biden slashed such approvals by 50% compared to Trump 1.0, and Trump in just 2025 out-printed Biden's entire 4 years of approvals in one $11.4 bil approval. Biden tanking weapons approvals should not only be mentioned, it should be thoroughly explained in an article written by a Biden alum that goes after Trump where Trump clearly outperforms Biden. Weapons approvals are but one example of the authors ignoring all countervailing evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the Trump admin is hawkish rather than dovish on China. It certainly is more so than Biden and Obama were. At this point in Trump 1.0, practically nothing had been executed to counter China (though tariffs on ~$34bil had been announced). One can build practically any argument through misconstrued analysis of rhetoric that is detached from hard data and facts. And the authors have done exactly that. This analysis should be discarded in foreign capitals.

Estados Unidos bombardeando al Tren de Aragua y ganándole a Paraguay al mismo tiempo. 🇺🇸.