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.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.