President Trump just signed an executive order on February 18, 2026, using the Defense Production Act to boost and protect domestic production of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) and elemental phosphorus, calling them essential for national security, food supply, and military readiness.

Protecting glyphosate is a real betrayal to the MAHA agenda.

The whole point is to make America healthier by tackling toxins and chronic disease drivers, yet recent moves like this executive order boosting production of this chemical (the active ingredient in Roundup) go the opposite direction and hand Big Ag a win at the expense of public health concerns.

The Rodale Institute's 40-year Farming Systems Trial proves organic corn and soybeans match conventional yields overall and often outperform them by up to 31% in droughts or tough weather, all thanks to healthier, more resilient soil.

So why don't more farmers switch?

Big Ag has created a system that makes it really hard to leave the chemical-dependent path.

Patented GMO seeds like Roundup Ready come with tight contracts: no saving or replanting, which means farmers have to buy fresh seeds from companies like Bayer every single year. That locks in a big recurring expense.

Many have invested heavily in conventional equipment: no-till planters, large sprayers, and storage built specifically for corn and soy. Switching to organic would require new tools for mechanical weeding and cover crops, a huge upfront cost most farmers can't easily cover.

Debt and financing add another layer. Machinery is often leased or loaned for conventional setups, so breaking out can mean penalties or higher rates. Plus, the three-year organic transition cuts income before premium prices kick in.

Land adds pressure too. About 40% of U.S. farmland is rented, and landlords usually want maximum short-term yields from chemicals to keep property values high. Any early dip during transition risks losing the lease, so renters hesitate to invest in long-term soil health they might not benefit from.

The supply chain favors conventional crops: elevators, buyers, and transport are all set up for commodity grains. Organic requires separate channels, more labor, and certification steps, even though it can pay better in the long run.

It's basically a treadmill.

Superweeds push more chemical use, debt keeps building, and switching feels too risky.

Rodale proves organic can be more resilient and profitable over time, but the whole system is stacked to keep farmers dependent.

And “protecting Roundup” just makes us even more trapped on this treadmill, entrenching the very chemical reliance MAHA was supposed to challenge.

Beware the natural health influencers and organizations who defend this, spin it, ignore it, or try to gaslight us into accepting it—don't let them sell out the movement.

 

 

Christine Anderson is raising alarm bells over central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and digital ID systems, warning they could give governments “total control” over citizens.

According to Anderson, once cash is removed from circulation and replaced with fully digital money, authorities could potentially monitor and restrict transactions. She argues that adding mandatory digital ID systems and expanding urban “15-minute city” concepts could pave the way for what she describes as social credit-style oversight.

Supporters of CBDCs say they are designed to modernize payments, reduce fraud, and improve financial efficiency, while critics fear privacy erosion and centralized control. The debate over digital currency, identity systems, and personal freedom continues to intensify across Europe and beyond.

 

Peter Thiel is in the process of instituting digital currency in America with the total elimination of "cash" making control of humans complete, fines and deductions of digital currency served by the controllers. you will spend as told, buy as told and accounts suspended according to the directives of the controllers. 

#ChristineAnderson #CBDC #DigitalID #PrivacyRights #EuropeanParliament #CashlessSociety #SocialCredit #DigitalCurrency #ViralVibes #SummersNews

 

But looking away is how corruption stays hidden.

Giving your attention doesn’t mean doom-scrolling or becoming consumed by anger or fear.

It means staying conscious and choosing not to pretend everything is fine.

Awareness matters — but awareness alone isn’t enough.

It must be held with integrity and the courage to stay present when it’s uncomfortable.

When enough people refuse to ‘move on,’ silence can no longer protect what must be confronted.

As new aspects of darkness are uncovered, it’s important to stay grounded and to care for your energy.

Take moments to breathe, come back into your center, and remember the light of love.

Every individual’s commitment to the greater good matters.

 November 1978. Downtown Denver. A line of women stretches around the city block, some clutching envelopes, others gripping checkbooks, a few carrying cash they'd hidden at home for years.

They weren't there for a sale or a concert. They were there to open bank accounts. At a bank that finally treated them like adults.

Just four years earlier, American women had won the legal right to get credit cards without a man's signature. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 said banks couldn't discriminate anymore. But laws on paper don't rewrite institutional culture overnight.

Walk into most banks in the late 1970s, and you'd find the same old attitudes wearing new masks. A woman's salary? Supplemental income. A female business owner seeking a loan? Too risky. A divorced woman trying to rebuild? Suspicious.

The system had been forced to let women in. But it sure as hell wasn't rolling out the welcome mat.

So eight Colorado women stopped waiting for invitations. Carol Green. Judi Wagner. LaRae Orullian. Wendy Davis. Gail Schoettler. Joy Burns. Beverly Martinez. Edna Mosely. Each committed $1,000 of their own earnings as seed money. Together, they rallied investors and raised $2 million to do something unprecedented in the West.

They opened The Women's Bank. Not a lending circle or a feminist fundraiser. A fully chartered, federally insured commercial bank. The first women-owned bank west of the Mississippi.

The founders figured maybe a few dozen curious customers would show up on opening day. Instead, women flooded in by the hundreds. By closing time, they'd deposited over one million dollars.

One million. In one day.

These weren't just transactions. They were declarations. Every deposit said: I trust you to see me as I am. Every new account meant: I'm done asking permission to control my own money.

The Women's Bank went on to finance businesses that male bankers had dismissed. It offered financial education. It proved that a bank centered on women's economic reality wasn't charity work. It was smart business.

Gail Schoettler later became Colorado's Lieutenant Governor. The bank eventually merged with larger institutions, as community banks did. But the message had already spread. Women across the country saw what was possible when you stop asking for a seat at the table and build your own institution instead.

Today, when a woman signs for a mortgage or launches a business without a male cosigner, she's standing on ground those eight women broke open. They didn't just start a bank. They proved that women's economic power was never the problem. Access was. And access could be seized, not granted.

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t build influence the traditional way.

He built it through proximity to power.

Jeffrey Epstein surrounded himself with presidents, royalty, billionaires, banking dynasties, tech founders, and Ivy League elites. Whether through philanthropy, financial introductions, advisory roles, or social networking — he embedded himself in rooms that shape global decisions.

Let’s talk about the circles.

The Rothschild Connection

Court documents revealed that Epstein had professional contact with Evelyn de Rothschild, a senior figure in the historic Rothschild banking family. Financial records indicated Epstein provided advice regarding charitable and financial matters. While no criminal collaboration was publicly established, the association itself raised eyebrows given the Rothschilds’ long-standing influence in global finance.

The Rockefeller Orbit

The Rockefeller name has been synonymous with American power for over a century. While there is no verified evidence Epstein held formal roles inside Rockefeller institutions, he moved in overlapping elite policy and financial circles influenced by figures like David Rockefeller. Epstein strategically placed himself around institutions, universities, and economic think tanks tied to legacy wealth networks.

Presidential Ties

Epstein’s name appeared in connection with Bill Clinton, including documented flights on Epstein’s private jet. Clinton has stated he knew Epstein socially and was unaware of criminal conduct at the time. The optics of a former U.S. president associating with Epstein fueled massive public scrutiny.

Royalty

One of the most publicized associations was with Prince Andrew. Civil litigation and media coverage brought global attention to their relationship. Prince Andrew has denied wrongdoing but stepped back from public royal duties following the controversy.

Wall Street & Billionaires

Epstein cultivated relationships with hedge fund managers, CEOs, and financiers. Among those reported to have met or associated with him was Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, who later acknowledged paying Epstein substantial sums for financial advice.

Technology & Philanthropy Circles

Epstein also pursued relationships in Silicon Valley and academia. Reports documented meetings with Bill Gates after Epstein had already faced legal trouble. Gates later stated it was a mistake to have met with him.

Academic & Scientific Elites

Epstein donated to and courted researchers at elite institutions, including Harvard and MIT. He connected himself to high-profile intellectuals like Lawrence Summers, former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard president. Again — associations acknowledged, wrongdoing denied by those involved.

Here’s what makes this network so striking:

It wasn’t one industry.

It wasn’t one political party.

It wasn’t one country.

Finance.

Politics.

Royalty.

Science.

Technology.

Legacy banking families.

Epstein operated at the intersection of influence.

Some associations were brief.

Some were professional.

Some were social.

Some were controversial.

But the pattern is undeniable: he gained access to some of the most powerful individuals and institutions on Earth.

And that raises the question people still debate today:

How does one man secure entry into so many elite circles across so many sectors?

That part — is what continues to fascinate the public.

#EpsteinFiles #GlobalElite

 The claim isn’t really that Trump “killed globalism” overnight.

It’s that the model we’ve been living under for the last 30 years is breaking and Trump accelerated the break instead of trying to manage it quietly.

Globalization promised cheaper goods, endless growth, and stability. What it delivered for a lot of people was wage stagnation, hollowed-out industries, dependency on fragile supply chains, and decision-making that moved further away from voters and closer to institutions most people never voted for.

That tension has been building for decades.

Trade tariffs aren’t just economic policy. They’re leverage. They’re a signal that the U.S. is willing to absorb short-term pain to regain control over production, borders, and decision-making. You don’t have to agree with the strategy to understand the message: national interests are back on the table.

When leaders like Keir Starmer say “the world as we knew it is gone,” they’re not being dramatic. They’re acknowledging that the assumptions of the post-Cold War era open borders, frictionless trade, global governance are no longer politically sustainable.

The deeper conflict isn’t left vs right.

It’s global coordination vs national sovereignty.

You can’t maximize all three at once:

Globalization

National sovereignty

Democratic accountability

Something has to give.

Trump’s election represented voters choosing sovereignty and democratic control over global integration. Not because globalism is evil, but because it stopped serving large parts of the population.

The idea of a “post-national” world isn’t a conspiracy. It’s been openly discussed for years by political leaders, economists, and global institutions. The argument was that shared global problems required shared global solutions. The problem is that those solutions often bypassed voters entirely.

That creates backlash not because people are stupid or fearful, but because people don’t like losing agency over their own countries.

What we’re likely moving toward isn’t a utopia or a dystopia. It’s something older and messier: regional power blocs.

The U.S. will prioritize its hemisphere.

China will dominate Asia unless checked.

Russia will try to control its near borders.

Europe will struggle to unify or fracture into competing centers.

The Middle East will remain contested.

Africa will continue to be a prize rather than a player unless that changes internally.

This shift brings instability, market shocks, and conflict risk but it also reflects reality. The hyper-globalized world was always more fragile than it looked.

The real question isn’t whether globalism is ending.

It’s whether nations can reassert control without sliding into authoritarianism, and whether leaders can act decisively without severing cooperation entirely.

History doesn’t move in straight lines. It oscillates.

Right now, the pendulum is swinging back toward borders, power, and responsibility because too many people felt those things had disappeared.

What comes next won’t be clean.

But pretending the old system still works won’t save it either.

One of the biggest tricks of our time

was teaching people to fear the wrong things.

We were told to fear different races and cultures,

instead of fearing hatred.

We were told to fear equality,

instead of the systems that hold women back.

We were told to fear democracy,

instead of the hunger for control.

We were told to fear newcomers,

instead of those who gain power without consent.

We were told to fear the poor,

instead of the greed that keeps wealth locked away.

We were told to fear empathy,

instead of cruelty.

This is how confusion begins.

When people start fearing kindness

more than injustice,

they have been misled.

Remember this:

The real danger is not diversity.

The real danger is division.

And those who benefit

are rarely the ones we are told to blame.

Stay aware.

Stay steady.

And don’t let anyone control what you fear.

#nativeamericanpride #nativeamerican