Thursday, November 9, 2023

House Republicans Help Dems Preserve ‘Kill Switch’ Mandate That Could Shut Down Your Car



House Republicans failed to defund a federal “kill switch” mandate Tuesday night requiring all vehicles produced in 2026 and onward to feature technology that can automatically disable the vehicle “if impairment is detected.” This lays the groundwork for corporate and government access to monitor and interfere with personal movement.

By a vote of 229 to 201, the lower chamber rejected an amendment proposed by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie to defund the mandate embedded in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Massie’s measure received 210 “no” votes from Democrats and 19 from Republicans. Just two Democrats supported the amendment and 199 Republicans voted for it. Eight members did not participate in the late-night vote.

The 2021 infrastructure law passed by Congress requires car manufactures to include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment” in vehicles. The provision requires such technology to “passively monitor the performance of a driver” and “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.” In other words, manufacturers will be required to implement a “kill switch” mechanism on cars that can disable the vehicle based on performance.

[LISTEN: The Dystopic Power Grab Nobody Is Talking About]

USA Today sought to downplay the 2021 infrastructure bill’s “kill switch” provision with a January “fact check” labeling the warnings from Massie and others as “false.”

“Automobile experts told USA TODAY the bill does not direct a kill switch to be implemented in cars, nor does it give any third parties, including law enforcement or government officials, access to the in-vehicle technology,” USA Today reported. The paper’s next sentence read, “Rather, the bill in question directs a federal agency to require technology that would detect driver impairment and disable the vehicle in that scenario.” This leaves the question of how all new vehicles will function up to the discretion of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, who could push manufacturers in dramatic directions.

The Associated Press also published a “fact check” on the issue in March last year accusing online commentators of “distorting” the law’s meaning. The AP concluded the term “kill switch” amounts to “hyperbole” because “none of the options being considered would include the risky move of lurching a fast-moving vehicle to an abrupt stop.”

The introduction of a “kill switch” on all new vehicles coincides with a growing push among the far left to limit freedom of movement. Often citing climate change as justification for new measures to limit transit, policymakers from California to the United Kingdom have introduced rules that would curb the use of private vehicles. On the West Coast, the California Air Resources Board came out with new regulations last summer to ban gasoline-powered car sales by 2035. One week later, California Gov. Gavin Newsom begged residents not to charge electric vehicles during a heat wave so the power grid would not become overwhelmed.

After Massie’s amendment failed, Hillsdale Professor Matthew Meehan posted on X, “Waves up the beach. This kill switch has got to be stopped.” (Meehan previously broke down the “kill switch” bill on the Federalist Radio Hour.)



X22, On the Fringe, and more- November 9

 




The next installment in the NCIS franchise is now airing it's 1st episode in Australia as I speak!!!! 🥳🥳 I can hardly wait until it airs here on Tuesday.

Unfairly Targeting Trump


The Left’s never-ending attempts to vilify everyone in Donald Trump’s orbit never cease to amaze. From top advisors to future cabinet members, they are taking down anyone who merely agrees with the former president. Even the waitstaff at Mar-a-Lago are not immune.

Are Democrats so intolerant that they cannot entertain an opposing thought without massive, overreaching destruction? Does a challenge to a socialist’s core threaten them so much that there are no barricades to stop the crossing of the Rubicon and into unconstitutional realms? If the Left’s anti-Trump witch-hunt is indeed about obtaining power, then there is no longer any schoolhouse rock in Washington, D.C. There used to be off-limits zones, but that went away with Trump’s first presidency.

In the case of the “Georgia 19,” the defendants must endure rounds of overcharging by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Defendants must live through the nightmare of Willis’ dream of destroying Trump’s most-trusted inner circle before Election 2024 goes into full swing, so that any campaign foothold in Georgia will be met with pain for the former president, should he even get on the state’s ballot.

Yes, that’s right: The Republican Party’s 2024 frontrunner is being challenged in four states as to whether or not he may even be eligible to run, using a Civil War-era provision of the 14th Amendment. The obvious flaw: Trump was acquitted by the Senate over charges that he incited an insurrection, and should have been the end of the matter. But who cares about facts -- or laws -- for that matter?

In rehashed lawsuits, such as Jean Caroll v. Donald Trump, new laws were written to accommodate a lawsuit to take down Trump. Although the statute of limitation had long run out, New York governor Kathy Hochul is coming to the rescue with a one-time window allowing anyone with a bone to pick to skirt state laws and file for a sexual-assault lawsuit.

How many people used this once-in-a-lifetime loophole? Just one: Jean Carroll, to hit Trump where it hurts.

That’s what Americans get when political persecution masquerades as some high-minded form of legal accountability. Another victim of the witch-hunt is former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. Being cast as some rogue operator with no respect for the rule of law, Clark has repeatedly been accused of working to “overturn the 2020 election results” in defiance of democracy.

But, strip away the partisan rhetoric, and you come to find that Clark is one of America’s most accomplished attorneys and dedicated public servants, having served the George W. Bush administration as deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department and, under Trump, as assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, eventually overseeing the DoJ’s civil division as well.

By investigating allegations of voter fraud in Georgia, Clark did not actually commit a crime. He drafted and advocated for sending a letter to top Georgia officials that expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Georgia’s 2020 election results, which fully deserved to be investigated. In a state with a long history of election fraud cases, why wouldn’t a political candidate investigate if smoke meant fire?

Al Gore certainly did, when he rescinded his concession call to Bush in 2000, and then proceeded to ask for a hand recount in Florida, only for the U.S. Supreme Court to become involved and finally shut down Gore’s claims. Was Gore an “election-denier” then? Was he trying to “overturn” those election results?

Was Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) in 2005, when he and 30 other House Democrats refused to accept Bush’s re-election victory and fought to unilaterally switch Ohio from red to blue? Were their claims of voter fraud magically legitimate?

What about Hillary Clinton, who claimed that Trump is an “illegitimate president” in 2019? Did the liberal media brand her as a clear and present danger to democracy in headline after scathing headline? Of course not, despite the Clinton machine’s perpetration of a “Russian collusion” hoax based on the infamous Steele dossier, paid for by her campaign.

If recent history is any indication, Trump was entirely justified in second-guessing the 2020 election results. He was wise to enlist Clark and other leading attorneys to investigate an unprecedented election cycle that took place in the middle of a never-before-seen pandemic, which brought irregular voting practices into the fold. Dating back to 2000 (and before), it has been par for the course to express a healthy dose of skepticism about vote counts in hotly contested races, and Clark is no different.

Now, Democrats are asking Americans to implicitly trust them on the Georgia case, just like they did with the “Russian collusion” witch-hunt that produced no actual evidence after years of clickbait CNN headlines. Willis, a Democrat whose father was an anti-cop Black Panther, expects the American people to just take her word for it, as if she is really interested in discovering the God’s honest truth, and not just sticking it to a political adversary.

Color me skeptical. Voters need to ask themselves one question: Do you trust Democrats and their media allies to treat Trump, Clark, and other Republicans fairly? There is only one answer: No.



Think The GOP Has Problems? Meet The Democrats!


Leave it to the Germans to come up with a word for every bizarre confluence of feelings and emotions, like schadenfreude, the shameful joy at others’ pain. That’s what we Republicans are experiencing regarding the Democrats right now, except there’s nothing shameful about our delight at their misfortune. We’re enjoying it. And there should be a German word for what the Democrats are experiencing right now in their party. How about jewhatingjerksandsadlibs?

Sure, we Republicans have our issues. Our party is changing in real time. You look at the Republican coalition of 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago, and it was completely different than the coalition we have today. On the economy side, we now have populists. On the foreign-policy side, we’re not all hawks anymore. Some of those on our side make the old-time hippie peaceniks look like Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore. And there’s tension and change. You’ve got Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis as the faces of the new Republican Party, and we have Nikki Haley and Mike Pence as the faces of 2004.

The chaos is not surprising, because in a constitutional system like ours, both parties have an interest in building and maintaining a coalition that reaches 50 percent plus one of the electorate, but that necessitates strange bedfellows. But there are no bedfellows stranger than the freakshow types that make up the Democrat coalition. Do you think the Republicans have problems with the hardcores battling the squishes? The Democrats have an even bigger challenge.

Half of their party wants to murder the other half.

When a huge portion of your electorate is genocide-curious toward another huge portion of your electorate, you’ve got real problems. The Dem party leader has to walk a tightrope. The problem is, Dem party leader Joe Biden can barely walk a sidewalk. He’s got to balance these two different groups, the Palesimpians who never met a terrorist they didn’t like or Jew they didn’t want to see murdered, and the regular Democrats, who have gotten pretty leftist themselves, but aren’t willing to take the leap into embracing a new Holocaust. And make no mistake, a new Holocaust is exactly what the wokesters are talking about when they chant “From the river to the sea.” The party will try to obfuscate the issue if it can, because it might splinter their party.

This is a huge problem for Democrats going into an election year. As I have observed before, a lot of them say they would rather die than vote for Trump, and next year, they may have the opportunity to prove it. 

Coalition shifts over time are not necessarily a bad thing. The old Republican Party became stale, ineffective and impotent, and that old faction still finds its voice in publications like the Bulwark, whose staffers are stale, ineffective, and impotent. First the Tea Party, then the populist movement, brought new energy and vitality into the GOP while maintaining some common ground. We all liked America. We all liked capitalism, though the old-school Republicans seem to like the corporate crony kind of capitalism, while the new Republicans like capitalist capitalism, but it still provides a big contrast with the Democrats, who want to re-distribute the wealth to their constituents. Further, the libertarian leanings that the Tea Party and populist Republicans brought into the party made it more attractive to outsiders, who had previously been driven away by the fire and brimstone vibe of the old GOP. Change can be good, and the current changes may be good. Whether they are good or not, though, they are happening. The Republican Party is in flux. You can’t imagine a JD Vance or a Josh Hawley 20 years ago. Back then, everyone aspired to be Mitt Romney. Now most Republicans wouldn’t spit on Mitt Romney if he was on fire.

For the Republicans, this is just normal political change. Parties evolve over time to meet the needs of their constituents. They change or go away. There are not a lot of Whigs running around. But the Democrats face a different issue, an existential one. It’s very hard to have a coalition that includes factions that want to murder other factions of your party. Progressive Jewish Democrats have been an important component of the Democrats for a century. Now, the woke left faction has decided that it is going to center its intersectionality around the elimination of the Jews. And they don’t even really try to hide it. They deny antisemitism, and then swing right into it. With them, it’s not even a dogwhistle. It’s a bullhorn. The party is so scared of splintering it could not even summon up a majority of Dems willing to censure the loathsome Rashida Tlaib, whose name in Arabic apparently means “Himmler.”

And they have the worst possible people in charge trying to deal with this crisis. Joe Biden was an idiot before he became a senile idiot, and he’s got to figure out this balancing act. That’s why you get nonsense from him in response to one faction calling for a ceasefire so Hamas can regroup to kill more Jews, and another faction that doesn’t want a ceasefire so Israel can kill more terrorists. He tries to sidestep the conundrum. Instead of a ceasefire, he’s babbling about a “pause.” A pause is apparently different from a ceasefire because in a ceasefire, you cease firing, and in a pause, you…cease firing. 

He's hopeless. With a recent poll showing that Donald Trump is trouncing Biden in a lot of battleground states – 2024 could be the guy who cannot win versus the guy who is certain to lose – we are going to see a lot more pressure on Biden to drop out. We’ve already seen David Axelrod on Twitter trying to convince him to quit. This is a real problem for the Democrats. Most won’t vote for a Republican, but a lot of them will stay home. And a leftist who sits out the election on his mom’s futon instead of voting for Biden is effectively a vote for the Republican, be he Trump or DeSantis, or… well, it’ll either be Trump or DeSantis.

And what happens if Biden somehow gets convinced to drop out, which is unimaginable, considering his ego and the Real Actual Doctor’s love of being FLOTUS? But let’s assume he does. Which faction gets the brass ring? Is it the Palesimpian faction, of which Kamala is a charter member – her mutant stepdaughter is out there raising money for these psychopaths. Is it Gavin Newsom, who couldn’t find Palestine on the map even if Palestine actually was on a map? Or will it be some traditional Democrat who the left finds squishy on the issue of killing all the Jews? 

Yeah, we Republicans have our problems, but I wouldn’t trade them for the Democrats’ problems for anything. On our side, you have Trump bestowing dumb nicknames and his foot-fetish minions babbling about Ron DeSantis’s boots. On the other side, you’ve got folks who think “Schindler’s List” is a comedy. Advantage, Republicans.



How Biden’s Oil Policies Empowered Iran And Its Terror Proxies

Biden’s disastrous policies have stripped our country of its most vital resource while funneling money directly into terrorist hands.



In the wake of the devastating terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, a magnifying glass is now being held up against the Biden administration’s destructive — and now deadly — concessions to Iran.

Iran, known for funding proxies from Venezuela to Yemen, has spent years calling America the “Great Satan” and telling the world it would like to wipe Israel off the map.

Most recently, the budding relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia has threatened Iran. The existential threat of Iranian nuclear capability has driven together the odd bedfellows. Now, those discussions have hit pause, and Israel’s focus has shifted to its immediate borders.

It is easy to see Iran’s motives as the puppet master.

Iran Openly Funds Hamas

Hamas has made no attempt to hide Iran’s involvement in the financing and planning of the attacks. From mentions of the few parties that “could be counted on one hand” who knew of the plans in advance to a widely publicized joint meeting in Doha in the same week — they were rubbing it in our faces.

Outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal ran articles to confirm Iran’s involvement. Yet Secretary of State Antony Blinken maintained President Joe Biden’s stance that there was “no direct evidence” that Iran was involved until almost two weeks later.

It would seem the administration’s hand was finally forced after Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen launched rockets that the U.S. Navy intercepted on a path toward Israel. Since then, more details to confirm Iran’s direct involvement, including the specialized combat training of 500 Hamas terrorists in Iran, have come to light.

Biden Stalls Israeli-Saudi Peace Talks

The delay in this recognition is not an accident. The Biden administration has been enabling the Iranian regime since the inauguration, and they are hoping no one will remember. The discovery of Iranian sympathizers at best or Iranian spies at worst in the Department of Defense was cause enough to sound the alarm on this administration.

Then came the reports that Biden had thrown a wrench into the Saudi-Israel negotiations by insisting on concessions to Palestinians, which had not been a part of the discussions. Why would the Biden administration seek to block the progress of the most important alliance for the Western world?

Biden Lifts Oil Sanctions on Iran

Under growing pressure since the attacks, the Biden administration has been claiming Iran won’t have access to the previously frozen $6 billion in funds that Qatar holds. But this is merely a distraction from the true amount of money Biden has allowed to flow into Iran’s coffers.

We know the Biden administration has facilitated the release of close to $20 billion in additional funds held in abeyance. But the far bigger and more important issue is that Iran has earned more than $80 billion in oil exports under Biden’s sanctions rollback.

Yes, oil — the supposedly evil energy resource that the left has been actively working to discontinue in our country.

Biden Drains U.S. Reserves

While Iran’s oil exports are at five-year highs, Biden has been draining our own Strategic Petroleum Reserves since the lead-up to the midterm elections in 2022. The supply, built up starting in the 1970s and accelerated during America’s War on Terror, has always been understood to be our failsafe in times of crisis.

But as inflation continued to soar during his tenure, notably in oil prices, Biden was quietly releasing supply from the strategic reserves’ salt caverns into the domestic market to stop prices from climbing further.

With the strategic reserves already at multi-decade lows and prices too high to replenish, the White House ran out of options. So Biden turned to Iran. And they need as much oil in supply as possible if they want to win the next election.

U.S. and Saudi Oil Production Stalls

It doesn’t help that our former friends in Saudi Arabia, left in the dirt a while ago by this administration, also announced they would extend their production cut through the year’s end.

To add insult to injury, while we’ve allowed Iran to uncap its oil production — and to send it to China, which just moved multiple warships into the Middle East — we’ve kneecapped our own production. Biden has ended all leases in Alaska and signed the lowest number of offshore oil and gas leases in history.

These disastrous policies have stripped our country of its most vital resource while funneling money directly into terrorist hands. Remember this when you’re at the gas pump.

Biden has auctioned off our economic security and safety. The Democrats are borrowing against our future. And that future will be here to collect payment sooner than you think.



Disturbing 'Journalism' Ethics: News Wires Had Journalists Embedded With Hamas on Oct7


Brad Slager reporting for RedState 

The Hamas terror attacks inside Israel on October 7 delivered jarring news of the violence inflicted on the Jewish citizenry. That barbarism was made more horrific when images emerged from the Hamas attackers, who recorded their heinous accomplishments on cameras, phones, and bodycams. This all fed into the global revulsion, as we learned of the scope of their attack and the planning that went into this surge.

Now we are getting some details that add to the level of inhumanity. It has come to light that several photojournalists might have either been given advance word of this plot or could have even been embedded with the Hamas attackers on that fateful Saturday morning. The staff at Honest Reporting combed through the attributed images of the day’s events as reported in Western news media outlets, and they looked into the names of photojournalists from two major news wires, who appear to have had unique access to Hamas activities that morning.

On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.

Those questions are rather grave. How much did these reporters know about the coming attacks and what notice, if any, did they give? Was any authority notified once they saw the level of the criminal activities? And what about the news outlets as they worked to publish the captured images – how much notice of involvement were they given, and why was there no mention of the amount of coordination between the photojournalists and the terrorists?

Many of the images from the Associated Press on that day represent a unique position by these Gaza-based photographers, as they captured activities by Hamas. In one shot from Hassan Eslaiah, he recorded a moment when Palestinians were breaching the fence into the Kibbutz Kfar Azzar region. This indicates some prior knowledge and might even indicate his own illegal entry into the country. Eslaiah later took images of an Israeli tank, which was attacked inside the Israel border. Honest Reporting's report notes that, curiously, "[Eslaiah] did not wear a press vest or a helmet, and the Arabic caption of his tweet read: 'Live from inside the Gaza Strip settlements.'”

Other journalists happened to be on location to capture images of various citizens being abducted and taken into Gaza. One of those journalists, Hatem Ali, was able to get within inches of one captive in a crowd of militants, and in another shot, Ali showed members of Hamas transporting another kidnapped Israeli in a golf cart. In total, Honest Reporting named at least half a dozen reporters who were able to be in position – and inside of Israel – for this violent incursion.

Underscoring the curious nature of these timely reports are the words from the AP in the captions of their photos. 

“Hamas fighters infiltrated the heavily fortified border in several locations by air, land, and sea and catching the country off-guard on a major holiday.”

More images have emerged that appear to show those from the Gaza media who were on site as these crimes were being perpetrated. 

By all accounts, this October 7 attack is considered to have been conducted as a stealth mission. As such, it appears more than curious that so many journalists originating inside of Gaza would have been fortuitous enough to be at those specific locales -- at just the proper moment when this surprise attack unfolded. As the Honest Reporting team states:

Either way, when international news agencies decide to pay for material that has been captured under such problematic circumstances, their standards may be questioned and their audience deserves to know about it. 

This does call back into question the level of involvement the Western news outlets have with the recognized terror outfit Hamas. In recent weeks, the press has been exposed globally for repeating claims and statistics from Hamas that later were proven wildly incorrect. The errant claims of a hospital bombing, and the false report of hundreds perishing when a part of a church collapsed while a nearby building was under attack, have cast a pall over the press -- and it is all a result of the media swallowing whole the spoon-fed data from Hamas.

Then you have the story from the summer of 2021 when Israel supposedly intentionally bombed an office building housing the Associated Press and Al Jazeera. While they were decrying this as an attack on the media, it was later revealed that not only did the AP share offices with the Qatar-based media outfit but also Hamas – which Israel noted was the reason it hit the building. This establishes further the amount of cohesiveness seen between the terror group and our press complex.

The idea of journalists working alongside a terror group as it commits war crime atrocities on the citizens of a country warrants introspection. The possible level of involvement, coupled with the lack of attribution from the news outlets, needs to be looked into. As more is being learned, the already damaged reputations of our legacy media sources could become even more afflicted.



If Palestinians Wanted Peace And Prosperity, They’d Already Have It

They chose violence. Over and over again.



In 2005, Palestinian Arabs were given autonomy over the Gaza Strip for the first time in their history. To make it happen, the Israeli government forcibly removed thousands of Israelis from the area. Without military protection, Jews would be murdered by Palestinians, who prefer their land Judenfrei.

As Jews were being evicted from their homes, some began to dismantle the farms and hothouses they’d built, reluctant to hand over years of hard work. In the name of peace, however, American Jewish donors purchased the 3,000 remaining greenhouses that stood over 1,000 acres for $14 million and gave it to the Palestinian Authority, gratis. A large portion of the donations were earmarked for “crucial equipment like computerized irrigation systems” and other modern farming systems for Palestinians.

As soon as the Jews were gone, mobs of Palestinians showed up and broke windows, stole irrigation hoses, water pumps, and everything else they could get their hands on, destroying everything they could, as “police” stood by and watched. This happened before Hamas came to power. Before any blockades.

By 2007, the unity government between the PLO and Hamas had fallen apart after the latter won a landslide election in 2006 and began defenestrating its political opponents. It was a warning. There has not been a real election in the West Bank since. And it’s a good thing because Islamists would surely grab power there as they had in Gaza. Joe Biden likes to say that Hamas doesn’t speak for Palestinians, but the ugly truth is that Hamas is a far better ambassador of the Palestinian people than the “moderate” Fatah party, which we prop up with billions of dollars.

I thought about all this when reading Sen. Rand Paul’s hopelessly naïve piece in The Federalist today. Paul contends that peace between Israel and Arabs is contingent on promised “prosperity” for Palestinians. He mentions the word “prosperity” eight times, in fact, contending that “non-Hamas Palestinians must hear a message of hope of what could come if they renounced violence.” The libertarian senator then unsheathes this pollyannaish suggestion: “[I]nstead of dropping leaflets to a million Palestinians to flee or be bombed, perhaps we might consider leaflets announcing the prosperity and benefits if they choose a government that recognizes Israel and renounces violence.”

Palestinians have been hearing this message nonstop since 1948 — if not since the 1920s. Many of the Arabs who immigrated to British Palestine from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere were lured by the promise of the “prosperity” that was being created by Jewish newcomers. Once there, fueled by the propaganda and lies of their leaders, they created an intractable situation. Before there were any “open-aired prisons” or “occupied territories,” there was terrorism and massacres of Jews. And, still, when offered a state in 1948, with the promise of self-determination and prosperity, they rejected it and tried to annihilate the region’s Jews.

Paul’s belief that Palestinians are itching for “prosperity” is reminiscent of the neocons’ belief that the Islamic world was longing for Western-style “democracy.” No doubt, many innocent civilians are interested in peace and safety. But for most, the frame of thinking about the world and the logic employed to make sense of it are on a different wavelength. If they weren’t, Palestinians would have built a prosperous nation a long time ago. They had every chance to do it.

Palestinian statehood was on the table after the 1967 and 1973 wars, and in the early 1990s and the early 2000s, and a bunch of times in between. It was offered in exchange for the recognition of Israel and the renouncement of violence. Just as it didn’t happen then, it can’t happen now. No Palestinian leader can agree to a deal on statehood because they would surely be deposed and murdered. The Palestinians self-destructively embrace of the “right to return” (an idea tied to the historical myth of “Nakba”) and/or Islamist fundamentalism makes peace virtually impossible.

But what’s stopped the Arabs of Gaza or the “West Bank” from achieving prosperity? There are hundreds of stateless minorities in the world. Very few turn to violence. Many thrive. The Jews and Arabs lived in similarly desolate places before the partition, but in the decades since, Israel’s GDP per capita has risen to be on par with South Korea, Spain, and France. Jordan is on par with El Salvador, Namibia. Egypt is on par with Mongolia and Gabon. Is that also the fault of Zionists?

Indeed, like any free nation, Israel makes mistakes, but the idea that it stands in the way of Palestinian success due to bigotry or colonialist intentions or a racial grudge is a paranoiac conspiracy spread by Middle East leaders and Western intellectuals. They would like nothing more than a peaceful neighbor.

Every Israeli restriction on Gazans has been implemented as a reaction to violence by Gazans. When you send Gaza concrete, they don’t build skyscrapers, they build tunnels and military bases under hospitals. They tear down streetlight poles and dig up water pipes to make casements for rockets. Tens of thousands of them. When you allow shipments of necessities, they smuggle in explosives and weapons from Iran.

Gazans are unwilling to build the basic infrastructure necessary for themselves despite receiving hundreds of millions in aid. Israel can only cut power off in Gaza because Israeli power companies provide that electricity (often for free.) The same goes for clean water. Gaza water comes through pipelines from Israeli desalination plants. The notion that Israel is engaged in “genocide,” as you can see, is preposterous in every conceivable way.

Perhaps the only way to implement hope and “prosperity” for the Palestinians is to tighten the occupation of Gaza and create basic civic institutions that make it possible. If, as many Democrats claim, Hamas is not the true agent of the Palestinian people then Israel would be liberating them from a violent cult. But, of course, this would be met with condemnation from the world — not to mention it would mean Israel putting its own citizens’ lives in danger.

Rather, Israel is asked to create an independent state for a people who are incapable of living in peace with Jews, or anyone else. A Gazan nation would be a place where Iran sends deadlier missiles and, one day, nuclear weapons. At this point, acquiescing to any independent Palestinian state would be suicide for the Jewish state. No responsible nation would do it. And a leaflet isn’t going to change anything.