Saturday, November 30, 2024

Trump nominates Kash Patel for FBI director



Patel is among President-elect Donald Trump's most ardent supporters.

Published: November 30, 2024 7:25pm

Updated: November 30, 2024 7:31pm


On Just the News

President-elect Donald Trump announced Saturday night that he has picked Kash Patel to serve as FBI director.

“I am proud to announce that Kashyap “Kash” Patel will serve as the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Trump posted on Truth Social, about the nomination of one is most loyal supproters. “Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”

The 44-year-old Patel is an attorney with experience in counterterrorism, intelligence and national security. His name surfaced a finalist for the nomination just days after Trump's Nov. 5 presidential victory.



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Pete Hegseth on Women in Combat


There is no doubt that women can serve in the military and make great contributions to success on the battlefield.  This does not mean that it is a good idea to put them into combat arms units, where they would be required to go face to face with the enemy and ultimately be capable of fighting hand to hand and coming out alive.  

There is no second place in combat.  It is not a coincidence that our two biggest adversaries, the Chinese and the Russians, do not have women in combat arms.

Let’s look at what took place this past Summer Olympics, when we had Imane Khelif, a welterweight fighter from Algeria, dominate the Olympics in women’s boxing, winning every round on every judge’s scorecard on all three fights, to win the gold medal.

The Italian boxer Angela Carini quit her boxing match against Khelif after just 46 seconds.  Carini, after she left the ring, said, “My face and nose were hurting. ... I couldn’t breathe anymore. ... I’ve never been hit with such a powerful punch.”  Carini is no slouch; she won silver medals at the world and European championships in 2019.

It turns out Khelif is a man — a small, pathetic man, but a man nonetheless.  Khelif says that is not the case, but there is a medical report confirming that he was born with male characteristics, “including testicles and a micro-penis,” and he has no uterus.

So here we have Khelif, a 145-pound man, destroying a woman of the same size, who was also a world-class boxer.  We have seen numerous other examples where average men dominate women in the sport of their choosing.  Will (“Lia”) Thomas, for example, as a male, was ranked 65th in the NCAAs 500-meter freestyle, but he rocketed up to 1st when he competed in the women’s division. 

blockbuster new report from the U.N. highlights the injustice of allowing men identifying as women to compete in women’s sports.  “According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports,” according to the “Violence Against Women and Girls in Sports” study.

If it is an evil injustice to allow men to compete against women in friendly sports, how could it not be a greater injustice to have women fight men to the death in combat?

The Marine Corps back in 2015 completed a comprehensive study of women in combat roles and discovered that the all-male ground combat teams outperformed their mixed-sex counterparts in nearly every capacity during an infantry integration test.

Let’s be clear: it is no surprise to all rational people that men and women are not equal, particularly in the physical realm, but also in their aggression and natural role as protectors.  Testosterone is a powerful hormone.  The genius Thomas Jefferson, paraphrasing Aristotle, made it clear: “There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”

With Senator Tammy Duckworth prioritizing her radical Democrat social policies about women being equal to men in combat, she demonstrates that she is disingenuous, “flat-out wrong,” and “inordinately unqualified” to be a senator or representative of the people at any level.

Pete Hegseth, on the other hand, has shown great courage by sharing the truth, in a world of false narratives: “I’m straight-up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.  It hasn’t made us more effective.  Hasn’t made us more lethal.  Has made fighting more complicated.”

Hegseth’s on-the-record position confirms that he is committed to the mission of the military, which is to fight and win wars.  Everything else is irrelevant.  By taking a bold stand in this woke world, he proves to all that he is exactly the person we need as the secretary of defense.  Additionally, Hegseth has gone so far as to write a book called The War on Warriors, highlighting the damaging effects radical Democrat social policies are having on our military, and more importantly what we need to do to eradicate these damaging policies and make our military great again.

As a Marine Corps infantry officer with 28 years and seven combat tours, I could not agree more with Pete Hegseth, and I could not disagree more with Senator Duckworth.  Additionally, in my 28 years in the Marine Corps infantry, I never met one war-fighter who thought it was a good idea to have women in combat arms. 

It appears that the desire to push women into the combat arms is completely aligned with the other radical Democrat policies designed to destroy America for a one-world government.  Think of the damage that has been caused by open borders, reckless spending, defunding the police, facilitating the flow of fentanyl, and trafficking women and children.  Not one of these policies has made America great; all of them have caused significant harm.

We have seen what a woke military operating under the radical Democrat social policies has brought us, including endless wars without victory or benefit — just money-making for the globalist bankers, the military-industrial complex, and politicians like Senator Duckworth.

We spent 20 years in Afghanistan, costing us invaluable blood and treasure, only to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.  To make matters worse, the pull-out was a catastrophe, costing the lives of 13 American patriots and embarrassment around the globe.  Recruiting is at record lows, because young people do not want to join a military pushing radical Democrat social policies over the mission of fighting and winning wars.

In summary, nothing gives Senator Duckworth the right to lie to the American people by pushing such dangerous radical Democrat social policies on our military.  Senator Duckworth, along with the other globalists within our own government, has done significant harm to America.  Let us pray that they experience justice for trying to destroy America, instead of Making America Great Again!



41% of Chicago public school teachers ‘chronically absent’ – still demand billions in raises



‘Why is it that all we hear from CTU is demands for more, but we never hear anything from the union about what its members owe the taxpayers (and parents) of this city,’ city newspaper asks

College Fix Staff 
https://www.thecollegefix.com/41-of-chicago-public-school-teachers-chronically-absent-still-demand-billions-in-raises/

Chicago public school teachers continue to demand high raises – despite 41 percent of them being deemed “chronically absent” from work.

The Chicago Tribune editorial board recently criticized the Chicago Teachers Union, which continues to negotiate for a new contract. Initial versions had demanded free abortions, transgender surgeries, and even weight loss drugs.

State records show 41 percent missed 10 or more days of work during the 2023-24 school year, the Tribune reported. (This does not include summers and other generous paid days off, as the Tribune noted).

The demands would cost $10 billion in the next four years, according to an analysis.

“So it’s fair to ask as CTU continues to make outrageous demands of city and state taxpayers, what exactly are Chicagoans getting for the $30,000-per-student they are currently paying, the highest per-student investment in Illinois,” the board wrote. “Why is it that all we hear from CTU is demands for more, but we never hear anything from the union about what its members owe the taxpayers (and parents) of this city?”

The newspaper acknowledged the school district serves many low-income students. It has done a good job of encouraging students to be in the classroom and not skip school.

“As most of us have experienced in our lives at some point, a great teacher can make a monumentally positive difference in a child’s future,” the board wrote. “But to have that opportunity, teachers need to be present.”

“And in Chicago showing up is the least we should expect from our very well-compensated public-school educators,” the editorial board wrote.

The problem does not personally afflict union president Stacey Gates, who sends her son to a private school.

Gates has previously pushed back against criticism of the union’s lavish demands by blaming it on conservative racism.

The city of Chicago is almost, if not entirely, run by Democrats. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is a defund the police supporter and teachers union organizer.

“Conservatives don’t even want black children to be able to read,” she told local radio station WBBM in June.

She also claimed there is an “oath” conservatives take that includes opposing educating racial minorities.

MORE: People more ‘hostile’ after DEI trainings

IMAGE: John Gress Media/Shutterstock

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Blasphemy Laws Have No Place In The Free World

 November 29, 2024

Why would the world’s most free and successful nations want to emulate the places people are desperate to flee?

We live in a cynical era.

Even so, it is essential to understand how special the ‘free world’ really is.

Despite all the challenges facing the free nations of the Western world, there is a reason people are clamouring to live here.

When we take in the whole scope of human history, there is just a sliver of time in which people could speak, vote, and live freely and just a portion of the world in which they could do so. So, we are lucky to live in that sliver of time and in that portion of the world.

But nothing lasts forever.

Land doesn’t have magical powers that transfer values automatically. What really matters is what is in the hearts and minds of the citizens of a nation. Consider Germany in the 20th Century. It was a nation full of culture, debate, and scientific discovery, only to become a genocidal fascist regime, before being defeated and becoming a free and prosperous nation where human rights are respected.

We see the same when we go much further back in history. The city of Baghdad in present-day Iraq was once considered the intellectual centre of the world. The land is the same, but the ideas are different, and Iraq – along with much of the rest of the region – became one of the most dangerous and dysfunctional places on Earth.

Of course, this is both disturbing and hopeful.

It is disturbing because it means we can never assume that a free and advanced society will stay that way.

Hopeful, because it means that even a brutal descent into tyranny and superstition can be reversed.

Given that we currently live in relative freedom, we need to always be on guard for ideas that could reshape our society into an unfree place.

And one of those ideas is ‘blasphemy laws’:

An MP in the United Kingdom – MP Tahir Ali – is pushing for legislation that would be in essence a ‘blasphemy law’:

“Will the prime minister commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions?”

First of all, the fact that only “Abrahamic religions” are mentioned gives away the game here. Why wouldn’t Hindus or Buddhists be covered?

Second of all, even if all religions were covered that wouldn’t make the proposal a better idea.

The idea of making it illegal to ‘desecrate’ religious texts is directly at odds with freedom of speech and with the emphasis on rationality and open debate that has helped to power much of the success of the free world.

The kind of countries that have blasphemy laws also tend to be the kinds of countries that people try to flee.

Why would free nations want to embrace anti-freedom ideas?

Of course, those anti-freedom ideas are often promoted in a sneaky manner.

In authoritarian states, people are told they can’t criticize the leader in order to maintain ‘respect for the nation.’

In theocracies, people are told they can’t criticize religious ideas to maintain ‘respect for faith.’

In Communist states, people are told they can’t criticize the party to maintain ‘respect for the people.’

But in all those cases, the real goal is to maintain control.

The free world is free precisely because our people are free from that kind of control. But we are only free from that kind of control because people want to be free. If our minds change, if we embrace destructive ideas, then we won’t be saved by the land that we live on or the name of the country we reside in.

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence we are heading in that direction.

Many of the worst ideas are surging in free nations, putting our freedom at risk.

Radical Islamists are allying with antisemites on the far left and far right to make our nations unsafe for Jewish People.

Many have been manipulated by propaganda from Communist China.

Many – including those who see themselves as ‘patriots’ – have been manipulated by Russian propaganda and now work against the interests of their own nation and allied nations.

And – as we saw above – there is a renewed push for laws that would steal our freedom of speech and deprive us of the right to criticize religious ideas.

Keep in mind, that there is a big difference between discriminating against someone for the faith and having the right to criticize religious ideas themselves.

It should absolutely be illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their faith. If – for example – someone fired an employee because they were Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or an atheist, that would be discrimination and society should ensure that doesn’t happen.

At the same time, however, we must be free to criticize Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, and any other faith or idea.

Without being able to criticize, we can’t learn, we can’t grow, and we can’t advance, and that’s again why it’s no coincidence that the countries that encourage open debate are the countries that – in the long run – tend to enjoy the highest standard of living.

All of this is to say that the free world is something deeply special, and we must never make the mistake of taking that for granted. We have to continue to work for it and continue defending it, which means maintaining consistent vigilance.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – Twitter

https://spencerfernando.com/2024/11/29/blasphemy-laws-have-no-place-in-the-free-world/

X22, Red Pill News, and more- Nov 30

 




Climate Changes Nothing in the Real World


The United Nations has been looking for issues deemed larger than the perennial conflicts of traditional geopolitics. It created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 to acquire the authority to run the global economy so as to “save the planet” and “equitably” share the benefits of “sustainable” (i.e., limited) development. It holds a massive conference (over 65,000 attendees) towards the end of each year staged as if governments were adhering to UN mandates. The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in the FCCC series concluded Saturday (Nov. 23) in Baku, Azerbaijan. It ran a day over the two-week schedule as compromise language was hammered out that would allow member states to do as they pleased.

As much as the UN bureaucrats hate to admit, the UN is still a member organization, with the world’s leading national governments making the real decisions as to the policies they will adopt to advance the best interests of their citizens. There are no UN mandates. This concept was formally eliminated at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. That meeting was the peak of the FCCC campaign with a massive buildup by activist groups around the world for the two years prior. President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage him to commit to the UN climate agenda that President George W. Bush had rejected.

COP15 was supposed to adopt a “legally binding” treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The plan had been to impose on the "rich" developed countries a requirement that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be cut by 25-to-40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels. Such a drastic measure would have locked the developed countries into a permanent recession. Meanwhile, the developing countries, led by the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) coalition, would not have had any mandated restrictions on their GHG emissions because they have a sovereign "right" to economic growth. The terminology was "common but differentiated responsibilities." All must be concerned, but only some (the West) need to do anything about it. In the last days of COP15, President Obama met directly with the BASIC delegates and told them either everyone has a mandate to act, or no one does. The frank result was no one has a mandate. Instead, each nation is simply “called upon” to report to the UN what they are doing about climate change (if anything).

The look back at COP15 is important in understanding COP29, as the division between the developed and the developing countries was at the center of the negotiations with the latter again insisting on the old, discarded Kyoto formula. The purpose of the Baku summit was much reduced from past meetings, reflecting the evolution of thought of member states against the demands of the UN bureaucrats. This was apparent in last year’s COP28 held in Dubai (a site which like Baku is based on oil production) There were commitments to triple renewables capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030 and to make progress on adapting to any climate change that occurs rather than curtail (or even reverse) energy use and other human activities in an attempt to prevent climate changes. The favored approach was incremental and cost-conscious. The final language called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” (giving plenty of wiggle room) while the term “phasing out” fossil fuels was rejected.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency most recent projections, if the world is able to generate a high growth rate between now and 2050, energy demand will increase by 56%. Increased use of renewables will contribute to this increase, but not replace the fossil fuels which will continue to be the foundation of the world economy. Even coal, the main target for transition, will be up by 18%. Natural gas will be up 69%. Indeed, all energy sources will be needed to generate high growth, with the mix reflecting practical matters of reliability, affordability, and security more than fear of climate change. Economic growth is still the higher priority, with a  rapid expansion of nuclear power as a much more practical, non-emitting source than wind or solar.

COP29 was hailed as the “finance summit” where the international struggle would be over who would pay for “loss and damage” from climate change and the transition to clean energy. President Joe Biden had opposed setting up such a fund, fearing its inevitable corruption, but finally agreed at last year’s meeting. The funds demanded are very high, with the figure $1.3 trillion per year set as the goal. The developed world, led by the European Union, initially offered $200 billion per year in public funding, doubling the prior goal of $100 billion set at COP15 but not reached until 2022 (with $5.8 billion coming from the U.S.). Under pressure, the sum was pushed up to $300 billion, to be reached by 2035. Unspecified is which countries pay what, and whether the funds are in the form of grants or low-interest loans. The UN demand that “commitments be turned into cash immediately” fell on deaf ears. Politicians know that despite decades of alarmist rhetoric crying “wolf” at each storm cloud, taxpayers are not up to paying to fight climate change, and even less willing to suffer reduced living standards.

To meet the $1.3 trillion UN goal will depend on development banks and the private sector. Good luck with that! Talk of giving the UN taxing authority to raise the money was a non-starter.

China, India, Nigeria, and Brazil led the developing countries in denouncing this transfer of wealth as inadequate. Earlier, these more advanced developing countries rejected the idea that they might also be rich enough to pay something to help the rest. Sun Shao, a senior researcher at Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, told Global Times (the official media outlet of the ruling CCP), “developed countries are looking to China to shoulder more responsibilities. But the problem lies in the fact that developed countries have ignored the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities... China needs to fight back against unreasonable funding demands and avoid taking on excessive responsibilities that are not appropriate for its stage of development.”

In the real world, all nations, including the U.S., are still developing. The American people still have unmet needs which in many cases are quite serious despite the overall success of our society. President Donald Trump took the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, the core document of the UN climate agenda, during his first term and has pledged to do so again. While an important signal, it makes little practical difference as leaders around the world have ignored the UN to set their own agendas. These are judged by their own citizens as to whether they are improving their lives or making them worse. The Biden-Harris administration was out of step with world practice in this regard, spending wildly on a “Green New Deal” that only pushed up general inflation as well as costs in vital sectors which were foolishly targeted for decline. The costs were rung up at the polls.

One of the few major national leaders to attend COP29 was the new UK Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who wanted to flash his Green credentials. Yet, in his report to Parliament upon returning, he had to claim, “At every meeting I had at COP and the G20, and in every agreement I entered into, my focus was on tackling these problems to deliver growth and security for the British people.” And he was clearly at odds with those further Left on climate policy when he declared he was “not interested” in telling people “how to live their lives.”

Even in the fantasy land of the UN, reality rears its head. President Trump’s rejection of the “climate emergency” delirium will not make him an outlier, but a leader in the continuing world-wide effort to build societies in which people can lead better lives on their own terms.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Trump nominates Charles Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, as US Ambassador to France

 

WASHINGTON - President-elect Donald Trump selected Charles Kushner, father of Jared Kushner, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to France on Saturday.

“I am pleased to nominate Charles Kusher, of New Jersey, to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to France,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Saturday.

“He is a tremendous business leader, philanthropist, & dealmaker, who will be a strong advocate representing our Country & its interests,” he added.

This breaking news story will be updated.  



https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/30/trump-charles-kushner-france-ambassador/76677177007/

Tom Homan Sends CNN's Kasie Hunt Right Over the Edge With Deportation Remarks


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

CNN isn't handling President-elect Donald Trump's win very well. 

They had a meltdown about Elon Musk being at Trump's celebration at Mar-a-Lago, claiming that somehow the two celebrating Thanksgiving at a party was "creepy." What I think they really meant is that their ratings are imploding, new media is rising, helped by Musk's X, and they're mad as heck about it, and they just don't know how to deal with it. 

When you see them lose it like this, you know that what they're mad about is good. 

Their ratings are in the dumper, and Trump is reportedly considering shaking up the White House briefing room and including more independent media. CNN just doesn't know how to deal with the changes that are coming. 

They also couldn't believe that the Trump team was not going to stand for Democrats trying to interfere with the enforcement of the law when it comes to deporting illegal aliens. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said that he would stand in the way of the government's attempt to deport illegal aliens, and he'd be arrested if he had to. The man Trump nominated to be the border czar, Tom Homan, then said that could potentially be breaking the law and that if he did, he would oblige him being arrested. CNN Kasie Hunt's reaction was something to see. 

She rolled her eyes and looked stunned and disturbed. That's guaranteed to become a meme that gets pulled out for their meltdowns in the future. 

She then said, "That has some significant and more extreme echoes than some of what we heard from the Trump campaign on the trail." 

But why that reaction? Does CNN not want to enforce the law? That's what it looks like when they paint the guy enforcing the law as bad or "extreme." The problem is the guy standing in the way of the enforcement of the law, not Homan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) painted Johnston's position as bordering on insurrection, and Johnston later backed off some of his more inflammatory language. 

The "extreme" position was the Biden-Harris team dismantling what Trump had put in place and letting in a flood of illegal aliens. The extreme position is not protecting the country and the American people. That's why the American people have given Trump a mandate to stop it, and that's why Homan is going to do his job. 

CNN is going to have a very tough four years if they're already reacting like this. Assuming they don't go under from the bad ratings in the meantime. 



President Trump: “What Will We Do With This Moment?”


I made a promise to you that after the President Trump cabinet was assembled, I would review, research and then present my take on what is “most likely” given the nature of the assembly.  My hope today is to take all my notes and research from the past three weeks and put those thoughts into a digestible format.  I’m working on it in the background of so many things :).

There is a general theme visible, one of a large scale, perhaps described as unity; perhaps described as healing; perhaps described as a new era in Americanism.  The Trump Doctrine (which few really understand) in combination with the cabinet assembly, is a great indicator of what lies ahead.

What President Ronald Reagan was to Generation X, President Donald Trump hopes to be for Generation Z; you can see it in everything he does.  A transformative figure that changes the way the American people view and interact with government, with his own unique and modern twist on it.  In essence, what will predictably described as ‘the legacy of Trump‘.