THESE 9 countries are fighting to TOPPLE the U.S. dollar.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Every American living in the U.S. today has lived in a dollar-dominated world. After World War I, the dollar replaced the British pound as the world's strongest currency after the war decimated and depleted Europe's economies. The Bretton Wood Agreement in 1944 solidified the dollar's standing as the international trade currency. In 1973, the "petro-dollar" was born, with all oil purchases transacted through the U.S. dollar.

The U.S. dollar's dominance has funded our way of life without collapsing on our own debt and secured our place as the world's leading superpower.

Until now.

The dollar is under the greatest attack since it rose to its place of prominence after World War I. Led by China and Russia, the BRICS alliance, composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, aims to create a "multi-polar" world where the yuan and ruble provide an alternative currency for those who want to become independent from the dollar and the influence it entails.

The dollar is under the greatest attack since it rose to its place of prominence after World War I.

In 2023, we have seen the biggest international rally against the U.S. dollar since World War I. Trading relationships that the U.S. has long taken for granted are now turning to the Chinese yuan to bypass the Western "strings attached" to the dollar. This means countries like Iran and Russia now have a way to bypass U.S. sanctions. The greater threat is a new "world order" controlled by China and Russia depleting the U.S. dollar. This has the potential to completely alter our way of life.

Below are the top 9 countries to take active steps against the U.S. dollar, posing the greatest threat to the U.S. as a superpower.

1. Argentina

Argentina's President Alberto Fernandez (right) welcomes Brazil's President Lula da Silva (left) to Buenos Aires.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Argentina and Brazil announced they will be forming their own common currency with the explicit purpose of severing their reliance on the U.S. dollar. Brazil and Argentina are the first and second-largest economies in Latin America. The move will help them become more immune to U.S. sanctions as they progress towards closer ties with China. Moreover, Argentina is considering joining the BRICS alliance as a formal step away from the U.S. dollar.

2. Brazil

President Lula da Silva (left) shakes hands with China's Ambassador to Brazil Zhu Qingqiao (right).

SERGIO LIMA / Contributor | Getty Images

One of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, Brazil signed a memorandum of understanding with China earlier this year to establish a yuan-clearing arrangement, the first step in establishing bilateral trade with China. More progress to this end is expected this week as Brazilian President Lula de Silva prepares to visit President Xi in Beijing.

Lula de Silva ousted former President Bolsonaro, who was more closely aligned with the U.S. and Western interests. Now, Silva aims to lessen Brazil's dependence on the U.S. dollar and the risk of sanctions for doing business with enemy nations with the U.S.

Henry Osvald, president of the Brazilian Association for Industry, Commerce and Innovation in China (BraCham) remarked that the deepening ties between Brazil and China "comes at a very important moment as the US dollar is not stable and it is depreciating considerably." Moreover, Osvald said:

Brazil is the only country in Latin America that has a bank established in China, and there are already several Chinese banks established in Brazil - this will help economic and trade ties and strengthen the yuan as an alternative to the US dollar and the euro.

As Iran, China, and Russia are continually aiming to expand their interests in Latin America, the Chinese yuan will allow them to do so with less fear of repercussions from the U.S.

3. China

China's President Xi Jinping leads the anti-dollar coalition through boosting the yuan's international status.

LUDOVIC MARIN / Contributor | Getty Images

The Chinese yuan is the biggest challenger to the U.S. dollar as the international trade currency of choice. From their Belt and Road Initiatives to forging closer ties with countries that were subject to U.S. sanctions, China is positioning the Yuan as an alternative to countries who aim to become more independent from the U.S. dollar and the influence it entails.

China is the focal point of all the countries on this list. Xi is providing a way for nations who want to distance themselves from U.S. interests to do so without fear of economic repercussions. The list is already large and will continue to grow as China seeks to expand BRICS and the yuan's influence in Latin America and Africa.

4. France

French President Macron (left) greets President Xi (right) during his historic visit to Beijing.

LUDOVIC MARIN / Contributor | Getty Images

France, a long-time U.S. ally, has become one of the most outspoken Western critics of the U.S. dollar and the European spokesperson for autonomy from the U.S. In his recent historic visit to Beijing, Macron reiterated his call for Europe's "strategic autonomy" to prevent becoming "vassals" to the U.S. Macron, like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, are determined to keep industrial ties with China despite the growing conflict between China and the U.S.

France's determination to distance itself from the U.S. is a major blow to U.S. foreign policy and relations with the West. It speaks volumes to the deterioration of trust behind U.S. fiscal and foreign policy in regards to the U.S.'s closest allies.

5. India

India's Prime Minister Modi (right) and Putin (left) deepen trade relations with the rupee and rouble to bypass U.S. pressures attached to the dollar.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Behind the Chinese yuan, the Indian rupee is arguably the second-greatest challenger to the U.S. dollar. As a BRICS founding member, India has long aimed to distance itself from the influence of the dollar. This year, India took a major step forward, announcing its new trade policy that steps away from the dollar in favor of placing the rupee and Russian ruble as international currencies to settle trade transactions.

In addition to strengthening the rupee's standing for trade transactions across Asia, most notably Malaysia, India agreed to use both rupees and rubles instead of the dollar in mutual trade with Russia to avoid Western sanctions. India also agreed to switch to a rupee payment for Iranian crude imports, bypassing Western sanctions on Iranian oil.

6. Iran

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi (left) meets with Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China Li Zhanshu (right) during his official visit to Beijing, China on February 14, 2023.

Anadolu Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

There are few countries who are subject to more international sanctions from the U.S. than Iran. Sanctions on Iran's oil and weapons industries have been a long-time strategy used by the U.S. to restrict Iran's nuclear program. However, with the Chinese Yuan as an option, U.S. sanctions will lose much of their power in curbing Iran's initiatives. Through using the yuan, Iran can trade its oil, sell its weapons to Iranian-backed militias wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East, and continue to grow its nuclear program with less fear of international consequences.

7. Russia

Putin (right) and Xi (left) lead the BRICS alliance against the U.S. dollar and influence.

Contributor / Contributor

China and Russia have been forging closer ties for years to deal with Western opposition. However, the war in Ukraine has brought them closer than ever before. Putin and Xi's historic meeting in Beijing solidified their military and economic alliance, aiding each other in bypassing Western sanctions and pressures.

Putin called for the Chinese yuan to be used globally, saying, “We support using Chinese yuan in transactions between the Russian Federation and its partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America." Moreover, Xi told Putin, “Right now, we’re seeing a change we haven’t seen in 100 years, and we’re driving this change together" signaling a new "multi-polar" world order with China and Russia becoming legitimate power challengers to the U.S.

Last month alone, the yuan overtook the dollar as the most traded currency on the Moscow Exchange for the first time ever, representing almost 40 percent of total trading volume. As they aim to make the yuan the international currency of choice beyond Russia into the developing world, Russia and China pose the greatest economic threat to the U.S., as Xi said, in the past "100 years."

8. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (left) greets Chinese President Xi Jinping (right)

Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Saudi Arabia's decision to ditch the "petro-dollar" in favor of the "petro-yuan" is arguably the most significant blow to the U.S. economy in modern times. The "petro-dollar" refers to the dollar's standing as the currency facilitating oil that has been traded and sold from Saudi Arabia. The “petro-dollar” has been an integral part of the U.S.’s foreign policy and economic standing since the 1970s.

It is one of the main reasons why politicians justify taking on so much domestic debt—most countries "buy up our debt" via oil purchases. Our current way of life is completely dependent upon foreign investors, who hold a total of $7.3 trillion in U.S. debt as of 2022. We've been free print ourselves into oblivion knowing our foreign investors will pick up the bill.

Not anymore.

Now, Saudi calls for all oil transactions to be carried out in yuan, NOT the U.S. dollar. This isn't merely a major blow to the dollar's international reputation as a safely-backed currency—it is a threat to our way of life and our fiscal bottom line.

9. South Africa

South African President Ramaphosa (left) greets fellow BRICS member, Vladimir Putin (right).

Mikhail Svetlov / Contributor | Getty Images

South Africa is arguably one of the most outspoken opponents to the U.S. dollar out of the BRICS nations. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa says he'll use his chairmanship of the BRICS group of leading emerging economies to focus on advancing African interests, creating less dependency on the dollar and Western influence. He said:

Our continent was pillaged and ravaged and exploited by other continents and we therefore want to build the solidarity in BRICS to advance the interests, of course initially of our own country, but also of the continent as a whole.

China is already Africa's largest trading partner. With Ramaphosa's urgency to expand BRICS on the continent, it is clear that Western interests are losing the battle on the African front.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.