Conservative Blogger
Monday, June 22, 2026
Meloni's Break With Trump Signals Bigger Shift in Europe
 |
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's publicly break with President Donald Trump this past week underscores a broader reassessment of Trump among European conservatives ahead of key elections across the continent. Meloni's fallout with Trump marks a significant departure from a relationship that once made her one of the American president's closest allies in Europe. The dispute erupted after Trump claimed in an interview that Meloni had "begged" him for a photograph during the recent G7 summit in France. Meloni forcefully denied the allegation, calling it "totally invented" and accusing Trump of treating allies with less respect than America's adversaries. The exchange has become one of the clearest signs of a growing political reality confronting right-leaning leaders in Europe: Association with Trump increasingly carries political risks. The Financial Times cited Italian political analysts who argued that Trump has become "electorally toxic" in much of Europe, including among segments of the political right. While Meloni initially sought to maintain close ties with Washington after Trump's return to office, recent disputes over NATO, the war in Iran, tariffs on European exports, and Trump's criticism of Pope Leo have complicated that strategy. The breakdown comes as Meloni prepares for an upcoming reelection campaign. Political observers say her willingness to challenge Trump publicly reflects both national pride and political calculation. Italy's government has sought to distance itself from some of the administration’s foreign-policy positions, including by refusing requests to allow U.S. military operations connected to strikes on Iran to use Italian bases. Trump's comments about NATO have also fueled growing concern among European conservatives who traditionally favor strong transatlantic ties. His repeated criticism of the alliance, demands that European members shoulder greater defense burdens, and statements questioning long-standing security commitments have unsettled leaders across Europe, including many on the center-right and nationalist right. The shift is not limited to Italy. In France, National Rally President Jordan Bardella, widely viewed as a leading contender in the country's 2027 presidential race, has increasingly distanced himself from Trump. Bardella recently described Trump's behavior as "erratic" and criticized what he called the U.S. president's "imperial ambitions" regarding Greenland and other foreign-policy issues. The French conservative leader's comments reflect a broader trend among European right-wing parties that once viewed Trump as a political ally. While many continue to share his positions on immigration, national sovereignty, and cultural issues, several have become wary of being seen as too closely aligned with a figure whose foreign-policy positions are increasingly viewed as conflicting with European security interests. Analysts say NATO remains at the center of the divide. Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine and growing concerns about European defense have strengthened public support for collective security arrangements in many European countries. As a result, Trump's skepticism toward NATO has become a political vulnerability for leaders seeking to reassure voters about national security. The public clash between Meloni and Trump represents a remarkable reversal. Meloni attended Trump's inauguration, maintained close contact with his administration, and was often described as his strongest European partner. Yet the latest dispute suggests that political realities in Europe are changing. Whether the split proves permanent remains unclear. For now, Meloni's break with Trump highlights a broader trend: European conservative leaders increasingly appear determined to chart an independent course, even when it means distancing themselves from a political figure who once inspired many of them. With elections approaching in several major European nations, Trump's statements and policies may help elect parties staunchly opposed to him and the U.S. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
It's Bloody Over: Keir Starmer's Collapse Is Complete
 |
Twenty-four hours ago, Labour insiders were discussing what Keir Starmer's exit might look like. Monday morning, standing outside Number 10 Downing Street, he confirmed it himself. Keir Starmer is resigning as Labour leader and Prime Minister and will leave Downing Street once his party chooses a successor, bringing an abrupt end to a premiership that won a landslide less than two years ago.
Starmer said he had spoken with King Charles
Monday morning and would remain prime minister until Labour completes a leadership contest expected to conclude before Parliament returns in September. If you've been following the story over the last ten days, none of this is surprising. First came "Bloody Thursday." Defence Secretary John Healey resigned. Hours later, Armed Forces Minister Al Carns followed him out the door. Seven ministers had quit Starmer's government in a month. The department responsible for Britain's defense was in open revolt. Healey accused Starmer and the Treasury of refusing to provide Britain's military with the resources needed to confront growing threats.
Carns reached a similar conclusion.
Governments survive ministerial resignations all the time. Two senior figures walking out of the Ministry of Defence on the same day is something else entirely. Then came Makerfield. Andy Burnham's by-election victory did more than return him to Westminster. It gave Labour MPs something they had been missing for months: an alternative. Burnham's supporters claimed more than 200 Labour MPs were prepared to back a leadership challenge if Starmer refused to go voluntarily. Whether that number was real or inflated almost didn't matter. The message had already landed. Over the weekend, reports suggested cabinet ministers, advisers, donors, and trade union leaders were all pushing Starmer toward the same conclusion. One Labour peer told reporters that stopping the "chaos" was no longer possible by staying. Another said the prime minister had run out of support. By Sunday morning, Labour figures were openly discussing succession. Read The Entire Bloody Series: Bloody Sunday? Keir Starmer Reportedly Preparing Exit Plan After 'Bloody Thursday,' Labour Is Already Planning for Life After Starmer Bloody Thursday for Starmer: Two More Ministers Quit, Seven Gone in a Month By Monday morning, Starmer was announcing it. He spent part of the speech defending his record. He pointed to defense spending increases, support for Ukraine, NHS reforms, trade deals, and efforts to reduce illegal migration. He argued that Labour had inherited a broken country and left it stronger than it found it. That was the case Starmer wanted to make. The problem is that the people who needed convincing were sitting behind him, not standing in front of him. Cabinet ministers were urging him to establish a departure timetable. Labour MPs were counting numbers. Burnham was preparing to return to Westminster. By the time Starmer stepped behind the lectern Monday morning, the argument had already been settled inside his own party. Nigel Farage wasted little time responding, calling for a general election and arguing that Labour should not simply install another prime minister without returning to voters. In his speech, Starmer promised an orderly transition.
Now Labour gets the fight it spent weeks trying to avoid. Burnham enters Westminster with momentum, Reform UK is demanding a national vote, and potential challengers are still weighing whether to make their move. The leadership question that dominated British politics for days is no longer whether Starmer goes. He is gone. The question now is whether Labour can convince voters that changing the name on the door will solve the problems that brought Starmer to this point. Ten days ago, he was dealing with a revolt inside his defense ministry. Over the weekend, Labour figures were openly discussing succession. By Monday morning, the prime minister walked outside Number 10 and made it official. The collapse was fast. The warning signs were not. |
Spencer Pratt Lost the Election. City Hall May Have a Bigger Problem Now
 |
Spencer Pratt lost Los Angeles' mayoral race, but he may have found a bigger target. In an exclusive interview published Sunday by the New York Post, Pratt made clear that his campaign is over, but his fight with Los Angeles' political machine is just getting started. The reality television star-turned mayoral candidate said he feels "energized" after the election and intends to keep up the pressure on City Hall as questions surrounding the race continue to pile up. Pratt narrowly missed advancing to the November runoff after District 4 Councilwoman Nithya Raman
surged past him on late-arriving mail ballots. For many of Pratt's supporters, the controversy did not end on election night. It lit the fuse. Read More: It's About to Go Down: FBI Descends on LA Skid Row Over Potential Voter Fraud/Bribery of Homeless 'It's War': Spencer Pratt Says Campaign Is Over, but LA's Corrupt Machine Is Now in His Crosshairs Questions about ballot collection, voter registrations tied to homeless shelters, and voting activity connected to Los Angeles' Skid Row have kept the pressure on Los Angeles officials in the weeks since the election. Last week, the story reached the feds. Federal agents were seen interviewing people on Skid Row after allegations surfaced that homeless residents had been paid to sign voter registration forms and provide voter information. The Department of Justice confirmed federal agents were investigating a criminal matter but declined further comment. No charges connected to the mayoral race have been announced, and the allegations remain unproven. If the allegations are substantiated, this is no longer just a Spencer Pratt story. It becomes a story about whether Los Angeles' election system can survive serious scrutiny. Pratt told the Post that California's election system has become a major reason voters are losing confidence in the process.
Pratt is not treating the election loss as an ending. He has spent the weeks since the election leaving campaign mode behind and turning himself into a full-time thorn in City Hall's side. Earlier this month, he released a video declaring that he was moving on from the campaign phase of his effort to "save Los Angeles" and into what he described as a more interesting phase. Losing the race did not take Pratt off the board. It may have made him more dangerous to the people he was running against. In the clip, Pratt explains why he believes losing the election may have removed some of the constraints that came with being a candidate.
Pratt also suggested that information uncovered during the campaign could create serious problems for people currently operating inside Los Angeles politics.
Whether anything ultimately comes from those claims remains to be seen, but it is not hard to understand why that kind of warning would make Los Angeles insiders nervous. Pratt is not talking like someone who plans to disappear after an electoral defeat. The Post asked him directly what comes next.
That does not sound like a candidate preparing to fade quietly into the background. For months, much of Los Angeles' political class treated Pratt as a novelty candidate. Then he pulled more than 200,000 votes, nearly forced his way into a runoff, and built a following that remains intensely engaged even after the election. They mocked him. They underestimated him. Now they may have to deal with him without the limits of a campaign. The election is over, but the questions surrounding it are not. Neither, apparently, is Spencer Pratt. |
Interesting Poll About the Dems From NY Voters...and Not in a Good Way
 |
| Show me the White People in the above photo. We’ve been through this before, with many voters from the city who claim to dislike left-wing shenanigans, only to end up supporting those figures at the polls. And there’s a reason for it. This survey suggests that the state of the Democratic Party with those in the Big Apple is piss-poor, but not for the reasons you think (via NY Post):
CNN’s Harry Enten also noted the Democratic Party’s shift towards madness. |
Scott Bessent Called Zelensky 'Mr. Bean on Crack'
 |
We all know Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a savage. He outmaneuvers and outspeaks Democrats at congressional hearings, and he’s now a master of sizing up foreign leaders, too. A new book reportedly revealed the names he used to describe the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky,
whom he advised Trump should not be hosted in the Oval Office. This was before the infamous February 28, 2025, meeting, where Zelensky was bulldozed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Bessent called this event a diplomatic own goal for Ukraine (via The Guardian):
“Mr. Bean on crack”—that’s amazing.
|
Trump blasts NYT over reporting of Iran conflict
 |
President Donald Trump blasted The New York Times (NYT) over its reporting of the Iranian conflict, calling the outlet “Corrupt.” The United States commander-in-chief pointed to the destruction of the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities to contrast the claims purported by the newspaper.
The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) last week, with the 60-day clock beginning on Thursday to finalize a permanent peace deal. |
A Brutal Reality Check for Parents: What the Anthony Verdict Means for Safety
 |
The guilty verdict in the Karmelo Anthony case should sober every parent and taxpayer who still believes our streets and schools are safe. A Collin County jury on June 9, 2026 found Anthony guilty of first-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, and the community is left grappling with how a day at a high school track meet ended in a death no family should endure. What happened on April 2, 2025 was brutal and plain: witnesses say a confrontation in the bleachers escalated when Metcalf pushed Anthony, who then pulled a knife and stabbed the student in the chest. The simplicity of the sequence — a shove, a knife, a dead boy — strips away the media’s usual fog of excuses and forces Americans to ask a basic question about accountability. The courtroom did not buy the narrative of reasonable fear. Jurors rejected Anthony’s claim of self-defense and handed down a prison term intended to reflect the gravity of taking a life in cold blood; judges sentenced him to 35 years behind bars, a hard but necessary answer from the justice system. A verdict and a sentence are not celebration; they are the Republic doing its duty to the grieving family and to public safety. This case exploded beyond Frisco because it touched raw national nerves about race, youth crime, and whether our institutions protect victims. While some rushed to cast the killing as a symbol or a grievance, the facts show a violent overreaction that cannot be normalized or excused by politics; the jury weighed the evidence and concluded the push did not justify a fatal stab. That is the rule of law working, and it matters that communities insist on it. We should also be frank about the environment that breeds these tragedies: a culture that tolerates menace and an education system that often lacks discipline and moral instruction. Parents, schools, and local leaders must reassert authority, teach responsibility, and make clear that carrying knives and answering insults with lethal force will end lives and futures, not win social points or headlines. The Metcalf family’s grief is the clearest indictment of our failure to keep children safe; no amount of punditry or politicized narrative can return a son. Conservatives should lead with steady, common-sense solutions — enforce laws rigorously, support victims, restore order in schools, and rebuild the civic habits that teach young people right from wrong. If we do not demand real accountability now, more families will pay the price. |
Britain in Chaos: Violent Attacks Spike, Leaders Try to Hide Reality
 |
Britain is convulsing with a string of savage incidents that should jolt any patriot awake — from knife attacks and arson to street mobs — yet the political class and their media allies are desperate to tuck the ugliness out of sight with comforting narratives. Officials in London have even opened inquiries into a cluster of attacks on Jewish targets and are publicly wrestling with whether foreign actors are involved, a sign that this is bigger than random crime. In Northern Ireland a brutal stabbing by a Sudanese asylum seeker set off nights of violent anti-immigrant unrest, with communities rightly furious at the apparent failure of border controls and immigration vetting that allowed a dangerous stranger into our midst. The episode exposed the familiar pattern: horrific incident, public alarm, and then calls for calm while the root causes — porous borders and permissive asylum policies — go unaddressed. In Edinburgh, multiple attacks that left several Muslim residents injured have been treated with the seriousness they deserve, and police arrested a suspect as questions swirl about motives of religious hatred and public safety. These are not isolated blips but part of a national spike in violent incidents that is testing community cohesion and the competence of law enforcement to keep citizens safe. Worse still, counterterror units have been pulled into investigations after a string of arson and coordinated assaults, and some reports point to the troubling possibility of foreign-state influence or foreign-directed networks stoking discord on British soil. When intelligence chiefs and national investigators raise flags about overseas interference and proxy actors, conservatives are right to demand immediate, decisive action rather than more virtue-signaling pronouncements. The predictable leftist playbook kicks in next: minimize the perpetrators’ backgrounds, blame “hate” in the abstract, and insist that more migration and multicultural platitudes are the cure for the carnage they helped create. Meanwhile hardworking citizens get lectured on compassion and told to ignore the inconvenient patterns — a betrayal of public trust that leaves ordinary people feeling abandoned and unsafe. What Britain needs — and what Americans watching should demand from their own leaders — is clarity, competence, and courage: honest reporting of who is committing these crimes, immediate reforms to asylum and border policy, tougher policing where necessary, and accountability for the officials and corporate outlets that obfuscate the facts. If conservatives don’t raise their voices now in defense of law, order, and the rule of law, these stories of violence and cover-up will only continue, and the price will be paid by our neighborhoods and our children. |
Sunday, June 21, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
-
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man... -
The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skins...
