Rod D. Martin

🚨 NATO is unraveling. But is that actually BAD? Should America care? And how do we turn our rich, freeloading “allies” into real partners instead of welfare dependents? Thread. 🧵

I did a whole video on this. Check it out! And sign up for our daily geopolitical analysis Fox Business calls "absolutely phenomenal". Link in my bio.

8/ Bottom line: I’m pro-NATO…but only if it stops being a welfare program. Our “allies” hector us, cheat on trade deals (hello, 4x German auto tariffs), and treat us with condescending arrogance. Enough. What do you think? Should we subsidize Europe? Or should they step up?

🚨 NATO is unraveling. But is that actually BAD? Should America care? And how do we turn our rich, freeloading “allies” into real partners instead of welfare dependents? Thread. 🧵

Microsoft tried to DELETE this from the internet. In February, their AI CEO told the Financial Times: “Human-level performance on most, if not all, professional tasks… fully automated by AI within the next 12 to 18 months.” Lawyers. Accountants. Marketers. Project managers. Gone by next spring. Then they quietly edited those 8 seconds out of the video. Awkward cut. Topic changed. Too bad—the screenshots were already everywhere. Why delete it? Because it’s total bunk. And it’s designed to scare you. Hiding it gave it more attention. But AI will NOT replace you. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang—the guy selling every AI chip—flat-out calls the “AI destroys jobs” narrative “false.” Even the chip dealer is more honest than the hype machine. LLMs don’t plan, don’t own outcomes. They’re story completers. They spit out reasonable-sounding text based on probability. And when they make mistakes that could end your career, they apologize but have no accountability: that's on you. Real work? That’s ownership, accountability, trust, and carrying the consequences when it goes wrong. AI can’t do that. You still have to. So why the panic porn from the CEOs? Simple: trillions in CapEx and funding rounds don’t close on “slightly better PDFs.” They close on “your job vanishes next year.” Pure marketing. Here’s the darker play: this fearmongering is the perfect Trojan horse for socialist scams like Universal Basic Income. “AI is taking EVERY job! The government must pay you to exist!” Translation: let’s stampede you into universal dependency on the state before you figure out it's a lie. Hand over your independence for a monthly check and a lifetime of managed decline. They don’t want you empowered—they want you controllable. Don’t fall for it. AI isn’t here to replace you. It’s the ultimate leverage tool to make every living human more productive and more capable than ever before. AI augments your skills, multiplies your output, kills drudgery, and frees you to dream bigger, build faster, and live the life you actually want. The future doesn’t belong to the fearful or the dependent. It belongs to the owners—the ones who use AI as a superpower, not a crutch. Refuse the panic. Build your own system. Audit every task: automate what you can, augment what matters, own what only humans can. You’ve got this. The machine works for you. I write a lot about this at my site (link in bio). Charafeddine Mouzouni wrote a great piece on this Microsoft incident too. You should check him out. What’s one task you’re turning into leverage this week? Drop it below. Don't cower. Let’s build. 🚀

@stevemiNumbers He was willing to do what it took to win.

@RodDMartin He was willing to trade the blood of his soldiers for that of the confederates.

Everyone loves asking: “If Grant was such a great general, how come he lost nearly every battle to Lee and suffered way more casualties?” Robert E. Lee himself had a very different answer. “I have carefully searched the military records of both ancient and modern history, and have never found Grant’s superior as a general. I doubt his superior can be found in all history.” — Robert E. Lee The entire question is built on two flat-out falsehoods. First: Grant didn’t “lose nearly every battle.” There was essentially ONE continuous campaign — from the Wilderness in May 1864 straight through to Appomattox in April 1865. Grant seized the initiative in the very first clash and never gave it back. Lee spent the rest of the war reacting to Grant’s moves. When Lee attacked in the Wilderness hoping the old forests and bogs would save him (like they always had), Grant didn’t retreat north like every previous Union commander. He simply disengaged, slid south, and flanked Lee again. Lee never dictated the terms of battle after that day. James Longstreet had tried to warn the Army of Northern Virginia: “We’ve never faced anyone like this man.” They didn’t listen. They learned fast. Second: The casualty comparison ignores that Lee was almost always the defender. Context matters. But the deeper truth is bigger than any single clash. Lee still fought war the old way — disconnected battles, win-loss record like a sports season. Grant fought the next war: coordinated campaigns across multiple theaters, using railroads, telegraph, navy, and engineers to keep relentless pressure until the enemy simply could not continue. Grant didn’t win by accident. He made contact and maintained it until victory was inevitable. Lee fought the last war. Grant wrote the blueprint for the next one. That’s why he was great. That's why he won. Change your mind yet? Drop your hottest take on Grant vs. Lee below. 🔥

@john_detore Thank you!

@RodDMartin Excellent and accurate analysis

@SamGilson13 You're welcome!

@RodDMartin Fantastic summary. Thanks.

@Bking78120265 @roots177665175 He actually was quite good.

@RodDMartin @roots177665175 Grant.......my 2nd favorite President......next to Ike.

@rangers74285 Things are never equal.

@RodDMartin All things being equal Lee and the South would have won. But things were not equal.

@thunderchief68 Because he was human.

@RodDMartin Why did he cry after the first day of the Wilderness?

@SkinJobMystic Quite so.

@RodDMartin I can still hear David McCollough's voice narrating, "the Army of Northern Virginia knew that Grant was different the morning after when instead of retreating, he gave the order to march" That's when it started with Grant and it ended at Appomattox

@Jeff_Cal_Exile Yes.

@RodDMartin You allude to it, but I'll also point out that the war was mostly fought on southern soil. As a result Lee had "home field advantage." Nonetheless, Grant ground Lee's army down straight through to Appomattox Courthouse.

@1776goUSA The South most assuredly disagreed with you. And so did the Democrat candidate for President of the United States, General George B. McClellan, who ran against Lincoln promising to let the South go. That was nearly 18 months after July 1863.

@RodDMartin The South was out of the fight in July 63. Their means to keep fighting was gone. Starving men, horses, mules, sickness etc etc. Same goes for Japan and Germany. You must have means to win war and the confederates, japs & germany ran long before the wars ended

@KaepsDemise Wow.

@RodDMartin My GGF’s 1st NY Dragoons were at Appomattox Courthouse to witness Lee’s surrender. Also battles all throughout the Virginia campaign. 4 long years in a volunteer unit. Switched from Infantry to Calvary. I don’t know how they all did it.