Saturday, May 11, 2024

The Importance of History


George Orwell once said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.'” With the idiocies seen on college campuses all over the world, this warning is more current than ever.

I hope Israel completely and thoroughly destroys Hamas, but trying to explain why that outcome is desirable to miseducated youth, or to media dependent citizens, is daunting.

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. -- Mark Twain

It is easy to lay the blame for the recent spate of anti-Israel sympathies on social media (and trust me, they do share a massive amount of the blame) but the respectable media is no less culpable.

People are absolutely devoid of any sense of history in depth.

This has been going on for decades to be sure, but it has gotten worse.

Decades ago, in school, I was taught that the main cause of the American Revolution was taxation without representation.

Left out were the thorough examinations of the Intolerable Acts among which were the Quebec Act (which went beyond tendering a reasonable religious freedom, but allowed the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec to collect tithes) -- along with expanding Quebec’s territorial claims, and the Currency Act(which caused an immediate depression).

A thorough examination of the royal insults show that the Patriots were patient beyond measure before taking up arms. In school, we were lead to believe the Revolution was a gentlemanly war, when, in fact, the British were rather vicious and ruthless.

But one cannot teach the children any of that, as it leads to embarrassing questions like: Is the Federal Government any better today?

So few know the real history of the Revolution.

But what astounds me is how so few know the real history of the British Isles. Consider Scotland.

Documentary after documentary treats Scotland as if it were one nation, which in fact, until the 18th century, it was actually a least two nations quite different in every way.

Scotland was split between the Highlands and the Lowlands. Yes, there were also minor outliers, but even these usually affiliated with one side or the other.

The Lowlanders were chiefly of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Dane, and Norman descent, essentially North Germanic in ancestry. There was a quantum of Brythonic (Welsh) in them, but for all intents and purposes, the Lowlanders were culturally and linguistically English. And they often sided with England.

The Highlanders (Gaels/Scots) came from Ireland, and mixed with the Picts. But it goes deeper. Both the Highlanders and the Irish claimed descent from Scythia (Scot-ia). The Picts also claimed a Scythian ancestry, and asked the Irish Gaels (Scots) to give them Irish wives. Whether literal or a myth, it shows how closely related they all were.

The Picts had no wives and so asked the Scots [the Irish] for them; they would only give them on the condition that when any question of succession should arise, they should choose a king from the female royal line rather than from the male ... - Live Science

It was these Irish/Scots who Christianized and civilized the pagan Anglo-Saxons.

So the Highlanders -- the ones with the bagpipes and kilts -- were all but indistinguishable from the Irish, until the Reformation. They spoke Gaelic and were Celtic. And even after the Reformation, the Highlanders and Irish would often join forces against the English.

Why?

Because the wars in the British Isles were more than national wars, but were rather civilizational wars. Celtic vs. Anglo-Germanic.

After the Battle of Culloden, which the English side won, roughly three-quarters of the Highlanders (the real Scots) were hounded out of Scotland, to the Carolinas, to New York, to Nova Scotia, and other far flung parts of the world. Scotland had, for all intents and purposes, been de-Scoticized.

But Hollywood blurs this history, and what should be seen as two distinct peoples are thoroughly blended.

At that time, the British government lied and tried to frame the wars as religious: Catholic vs. Protestant – as a propaganda tool to the Anglican English populace. That lie is still believed. However, records show that the Highlanders were quite Presbyterian at the time of the Second Jacobite Uprising, even more Protestant than the English.

…95.66% of the Highlanders were Protestant, and 4.34% were Catholic. Of every 10,000 Highlanders, 9566 were Protestant. - HighlandClearances.net

The Lowlanders who are, for the most part, of Anglo-Germanic stock, later moved to Ulster where they got called Ulster-Scots, and then to America, where they got called Scots-Irish. Most of them resisted Irish independence. They usually sided with the Anglos not the Celts, and their ethnonym refers more to their residences than a Celtic ancestry. Remember, the real Scots were from Scythia, eventually moving to Ireland and, only later on, to Highland Scotland. But it was these Celts, not the Lowlanders, who created Scotland.

As for Celtic side, which lionized Charles Stuart, Bonnie Prince Charles, that was a lie, too. Stuart was no prize either. He was a wannabe tyrant, but the Celts were desperate to get rid of Anglo misrule.

So names were switched, and history was distorted. Few know it, and history books peddle old propaganda.

Religion was a factor in the wars of the British Isles, but not the chief factor. The Irish and the Highlanders often rose above denominational concerns to unite against a common enemy.

The wars were often civilizational. Celtic vs. Germanic.

In attitudes towards each other, the Highlanders considered the Lowlanders to be foreigners encroaching on true Scottish values, agents of the English, and a major threat to their heritage.

Lowlanders, in turn, considered Highlanders to be barbaric, backwards, wild, and derisively referred to them as the 'wild Irish.' -- The Highland Clearances

Until you understand that, the history of the British Isles is incomprehensible. It was more than mere clan warfare, as the English would have you believe. Civilizations were colliding.

So why is this important?

Half of America descends from the English, the Scots, or the Irish, and few know the real history of the area, or their ancestors. It was not England vs Ireland nor Scotland, but Celt vs. Anglo.

Likewise, in the Mideast, what is going on is not an ethnic, colonial, or national war, but a civilizational struggle. It runs far deeper than what can be conveyed by a social media post, or a nightly news report.

The lies are fast and furious.

The Celts, who were the more civilized group in the British Isles (Remember, they converted the Anglo-Saxons), lost. This is not unknown in history. Byzantine Rome fell to the Turks, and Coptic Egypt to Islam.

Let’s hope that the Jews who are the most civilized group in the Mideast do not.

But that is not conveyed in tweets or sound bytes, and that is why lies propagate. People have to study to find the truth. In this case, start with the Bible.



New Jersy rally coverage, X22 and more- May 11

 




Will the Real Dictator Please Stand Up?—If He’s Able


President Biden routinely misrepresents Donald Trump as a dictator, but the evidence shows convincingly that it’s Biden who acts in dictatorial fashion.


There’s an old trial lawyers’ saying: “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.” That may be the only thing President Biden learned in law school—from which he was almost expelled for plagiarizing. He said the plagiarizing was due to ignorance; he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully.

Now, fifty-nine years later, Biden routinely misrepresents Trump. While talking about the auto industry, Trump said, “We’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the [Mexico-US] line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole—that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

Biden’s campaign quickly accused, and has continued to accuse, Trump of fomenting “political violence.” The Trump campaign said Trump was clearly using the term in the context of an economic bloodbath, and that is obvious to anyone who reads Trump’s remarks.

Even so, Biden campaign spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said: “The Trump campaign can try to spin all they want, but the context is clear: their candidate has spent every moment since his first campaign encouraging and excusing political violence. Repeatedly. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature of Donald Trump’s extremism. We take Trump at his word—and voters will too.” I.e., “Don’t bother us with the truth!”

And then at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner (which Trump refused to attend when he was president), President Biden made a remark he had made before: “[Donald Trump] has said he wants to be a dictator on day one.” Biden’s implication is, obviously, that Trump wants to be a dictator from day one. Trump even explained his remark, for those capable of understanding explanations: “We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I am not a dictator, OK?”

About Biden, we should ask, as attorney Joseph Welsh did of Senator McCarthy during the infamous army hearings in 1954, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Biden’s answer, obviously, would be no.

Biden enthusiasts (those that are left) might argue that Biden is sufficiently over-the-hill that he doesn’t really appreciate the distinction between truth and not-really-the-truth. But his gag writers surely do.

Neither Biden nor his campaign cares about accuracy—or honesty. That should tell the American people something.

It’s a hoot to distort Biden’s remarks the same way. Here’s a heavily edited and, yes, distorted version of a comment from Biden’s State of the Union speech: “Tonight I want to talk about the future of possibilities that we can build together. A future where the biggest corporations get breaks, a future where the middle class finally have to pay their fair share in taxes.” He actually said that—actually said all those words—and, of course, a few more, which have been surgically removed.

Of course, what’s most interesting about Biden’s dictator remark is that it’s Biden who looks like the dictator. Let us count the ways.

Perhaps the illegal act that has received the most attention is Biden’s attempt to “forgive” student loans—half a trillion dollars in student loans. The Supreme Court came to the rescue of the country and said Biden didn’t have the constitutional authority to do that.

Did that stop him? Of course not. Now he’s instructed his people to try to do it again. Who’s the dictator now?

Biden tried to ban evictions of residential tenants by landlords. The Supreme Court said he didn’t have the authority to do that. “The [Centers for Disease Control] has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the Court’s opinion said. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

Biden tried to require COVID vaccines. The Supreme Court blocked that too.

Biden has refused to do anything to close the southern border—to enforce the immigration laws. Millions of illegal immigrants have flooded into the country—and the Biden people surely plan to help them vote in the coming presidential election.

After a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs abortion case was leaked, Biden’s Justice Department failed to enforce a federal law that prohibits protests outside the homes of the justices.

Biden’s Security and Exchange Commission plans to track the identity, transactions, and investment portfolio of everyone who invests in the stock market. The government has no authority to do that. Does anyone think the SEC is acting on its own, without the Biden administration’s approval?

The Federal Communication Commission plans to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a major and hugely significant change. Does anyone think the FEC is acting on its own, without the Biden administration’s approval?

And, sadly and dangerously, the left-wing, woke media lap it all up, all the while piling on the claim that Trump is a dictator.

But the evidence shows convincingly that it’s Biden who acts in dictatorial fashion. And pounding on the table to deny it won’t change that fact.




Does Amazon care about the free market?

 No. Not at all.

Instead of promoting competition, which saves consumers money, the company’s corporate leadership is working to establish a soulless monopoly that bleeds everyday users dry.

This is corporate greed at the highest level, and a recently released documentary exposes just how dangerous Amazon’s business practices are. Molson Hart is one of the sellers featured in that film, and he joined a Friday edition of Tucker Carlson Uncensored to reveal the great lengths to which Amazon goes to crush capitalistic competition. 

Molson Hart tells Tucker:

“Amazon has a lot of weight when it comes to where prices are… We’re continuously trying to reduce our dependency on Amazon, but it’s so difficult…”

Video link here :

https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-molson-hart?utm_campaign=202405010_may10dailybriefsubs&utm_medium=email&utm_source=iterable&utm_content=molsonhart

About 23 minutes ...

🎭 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 memes, cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

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


Biden’s isolation grows as Gaza report both criticizes and clears Israel

 Like much of the president’s, at times, halting approach toward the war, the report released to Congress on Friday drew criticism from across the political spectrum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/10/biden-israel-human-rights-report/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3daf8f2%2F663f92bec6c5c3514b0f5b47%2F65db5c9172d27e0cb5029ff9%2F9%2F43%2F663f92bec6c5c3514b0f5b47

The State Department’s report on the war in Gaza — which suggested Israel had likely violated international law yet remained eligible to receive U.S. military aid — has left President Biden increasingly isolated on an issue that has consumed his presidency and complicated his reelection bid.


Like much of Biden’s, at times, halting approach toward the war, the report released to Congress on Friday drew criticism from across the political spectrum. Progressives described the report as lacking moral clarity about a humanitarian catastrophe, while pro-Israel groups called it the latest example of the president undermining a key ally in the middle of a war.


The bipartisan praise Biden received for his early response to the Oct. 7 attack against Israel has all but disappeared, replaced instead by acrimony. In an election year already marked by protests and counterprotests, Biden faces the risk that voters who disapprove of his handling of the war in Gaza for disparate reasons could disrupt his path to a second term.


“There are two large groups of voters in the United States today when it comes to the domestic protests: people who want the president to stop the rage and people who want the president to solve the issues that have created the rage,” said Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “The president’s fundamental problem is that he has little real power to do either.”


The memorandum released Friday, required under a presidential directive signed by Biden in February, offered a rare public assessment of whether Israel has followed international law as it used American weaponry to prosecute its war against Hamas. The report indicated that it was “reasonable to assess” that the Israel Defense Forces had run afoul of international law in some instances.


Israel has taken “some steps” to mitigate harm to civilians, and has the “knowledge” and the “tools” to do so, the report said. But “the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the IDF is using them effectively in all cases.”


The report’s conclusions, including that Israel nonetheless remained eligible to receive U.S. weapons, did little to resolve simmering tensions over the war, which have been especially raw among young Americans and other groups key to Biden’s political coalition.


“It reeks of cowardice — an unwillingness to state the obvious,” said one Democratic lawmaker, who, like several people interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a frank assessment of the report. 


The lawmaker said the Biden administration’s position “appears to defy the facts.”


Congress will want to “dig deeper” into the report’s findings, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said. The report found there was insufficient information to draw a firm conclusion about any specific instances of Israel flouting international laws or U.S. policies. International organizations have found clear examples that Israel violated laws by blocking humanitarian aid from reaching civilians, Van Hollen added.


“What is undeniable is the fact that for the greater part of the period since Oct. 7, the Netanyahu government has restricted the flow of humanitarian assistance,” he said.


One congressional aide who works on foreign affairs suggested that the State Department’s report reflected an administration that “came to its conclusions first and justified it after the fact.”


Republicans have ramped up their attacks on Biden as he has grown more publicly critical of Israel’s military campaign. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) wrote Friday on X that Biden’s “de facto position is a Hamas victory.”

White House aides have rejected the idea that Biden is considering politics as he makes his decisions.


“The American people expect their presidents to have the guts to make hard national security decisions, and to put our safety, interests, principles, and alliances above politics,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement. “That’s exactly what Joe Biden is doing. He is standing with Israel as they fight the Hamas terrorists who committed the hideous Oct. 7 attacks, and is making clear that how Israel defends itself matters because we do not want to see any more civilians killed.”


Nearly 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza during the war, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, who say most of the victims have been women and children. Israel’s siege of the enclave has also created dire humanitarian conditions as the territory’s health-care and food distribution systems have collapsed.


Israel’s planned invasion into the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinian civilians have fled, threatens to significantly worsen both the death count and the humanitarian catastrophe, according to administration officials and human rights organizations.


Biden sparked a new wave of recriminations this week when he said that he would halt the shipment of U.S. offensive weapons to Israel if the country moves forward with a ground invasion of the city of Rafah.


“If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically … to deal with the cities,” Biden said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett.

Biden also said that Israel has already used U.S. weapons to kill civilians in population centers.

“It’s just wrong. We’re not going to supply the weapons and the artillery shells used — that have been used.”


The shift in position — the first explicit public threat to withhold weapons from Israel — was met with some praise by pro-Palestinian activists, even as they qualified their support by saying that it was long overdue and cautioned that Biden’s pronouncement needed to be followed up with clear actions.


But the backlash from pro-Israel figures was particularly intense, with Biden’s critics accusing him of siding with Hamas over Israel. Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel killed an estimated 1,200 people and took more than 250 hostage.


Though much of the backlash came from the right, some Democratic donors and lawmakers also expressed their displeasure with Biden’s move.

“Hard disagree and deeply disappointing,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) wrote on X in response to Biden’s threat to withhold weapons if Israel went into Gaza.


“The President’s actions signal weakness to Hamas, to our allies and adversaries abroad, and at home,” Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) said on X.


Still, the president’s defenders say he is deftly handling an incredibly complex situation, with some suggesting that backlash from both ends of the political spectrum is indicative of an approach that is measured and responsible.


Mara Rudman, who served as a Middle East envoy during the Obama administration, said that Biden is balancing several competing interests, while also calibrating when to convey his positions privately or publicly with Israel.


“President Biden has been steady and clear in pursuing U.S. interests, which includes ensuring Israel has the right and ability to defend itself, that innocent Palestinians and Israelis are maximally protected, and that the U.S. uses all routes available to strengthen security and stability in the region,” she said.


At the same time, Biden’s allies are aware that his handling of the war is a political vulnerability, at least among some voters.


Even as Biden has pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu privately to change course, the White House has been focused on trying to reach a cease-fire deal that would halt fighting for several weeks and allow for the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. But with hopes of such a deal appearing to grow slimmer in recent days — and with Netanyahu increasingly willing to defy Biden’s entreaties — the president’s options for changing public perceptions are limited, said Riley.

“Between now and the election, about the only tools available to him are symbolism and rhetoric,” he said. “And those hardly seem equal to the current challenge of this White House.”

Update on Barron Trump Serving As a Delegate to This Summer's RNC


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

Whether the Founders intended it or not — and I'm pretty sure they didn't — we have long been a country that has had political families, even dynasties. One could argue that it began with John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, although that political family fizzled out. But there were and are more: Roosevelts, Kennedys, Cuomos, Daleys, Bushes.

Could the next political family be the Trumps?

It will soon be Barron Trump’s time to step into the political spotlight. 

Trump, former President Donald Trump’s youngest child, who will graduate from high school next week and has largely been kept out of the political spotlight, was picked by the Republican Party of Florida on Wednesday night as one of the state’s at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention, according to a list of delegates obtained by NBC News.

“We have a great delegation of grassroots leaders, elected officials and even Trump family members,” Florida GOP chairman Evan Power said. “Florida is continuing to have a great convention team, but more importantly we are preparing to win Florida and win it big.”

If one is thinking of starting a political career as a Republican, Florida would be one of the better places to do so.

In a family full of politically involved children, Barron Trump, who turned 18 in March, has retained much more of a private life than his older brothers, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., both of whom will also be Florida at-large RNC delegates, along with Trump’s daughter Tiffany.

So, quite a few Trumps will be at the Republican National Convention. 

Here's the thing: At this point, we know very little about Barron Trump. We know that he is tall and physically imposing, although still very young. With a few years of maturity, and if he manages to duplicate his father's determined glare, he could present a great image. But would he have his father's trademark bombast, or would he be more measured, more reserved, like his mother?

All that would be some way in the future, of course, as Barron is just graduating high school. As of this writing, there is no information readily available about his college plans, if there are any.

This is all speculation, of course. But ever since that fateful day when Donald Trump descended the golden escalator and announced his run for president, several members of his family have become very politically active, although only as activists, rather than running for office. Barron may step into that role — or he may eschew the political world altogether, and in all seriousness, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Not only is politics a dirty, dirty business — and boy howdy has the ascendancy of Donald Trump stripped the mask off of that — American politics isn't supposed to have a hereditary element to it. We aren't supposed to be a country with political dynasties. In the run-up to the 2000 election, I had reservations about George W. Bush for that reason (among others) although I voted for him in the general election.

But here we are, in the 2024 presidential election, with a Kennedy among our choices.

Barron Trump will do what he will do, of course. Being an at-large delegate to the Republican National Convention isn't a signal of anything other than that he is an at-large delegate to the Republican National Convention. But he's 18 now, and he almost certainly isn't sure himself about what he's going to do. Time will tell.

UPDATE [05/10/2024, 6:17 p.m. EDT]: CNN Political Reporter Alayna Treene reports in an update that both the Trump campaign and Melania Trump's office now say Barron "will no longer serve as a delegate":



Jihad Joe



After nearly four years in the White House, President Joe Biden’s foreign policy doctrine is clear, and Americans have seen enough horror to draw some basic conclusions. 

In February 2021, the Biden State Department delisted the Iranian-backed Houthis from the designated terrorist organization list. At the same time, it demanded Saudi Arabia, whose government had been fighting the group so the U.S. didn’t have to, lay down its arms. 

“Effective February 16, I am revoking the designations of Ansarallah, sometimes referred to as the Houthis, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT),” Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced. 

This predictably emboldened the group and gave Iran its first concrete example of how the Biden administration would handle its proxy wars in the region and elsewhere. 

It’s now May 2024, and the Houthis have been re-listed as a terrorist organization. They’ve shut down commercial shipping in the Red Sea after launching hundreds of missile attacks and have recently expanded their reach to ships in the Indian Ocean. A dangerous and expensive embarrassment. 

But back to Biden’s first year.

In August 2021, just seven months after Biden took office, the Taliban marched into Kabul and took back the capital city — chasing out the United States as Afghan allies were abandoned and U.S. troops were blown up at Abbey Gate. After U.S. troops went into Afghanistan in 2001 to avenge 9/11 and hunt down Osama bin Laden, 20 years of blood and sacrifice were seemingly tossed away as the terrorist group regained full control of the country. 

In an effort to turn the catastrophe into a win for Biden, a ludicrous task, officials touted the withdrawal from Afghanistan as “the most successful airlift in history.” 

Now, the country is once again a safe haven for Al Qaeda, whose terrorists vow to plan and launch new attacks on the West. 

“Al Qaeda is back to its old tricks in Afghanistan. Much as it did before masterminding the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group is running militant training camps; sharing the profits of the Taliban’s illicit drug, mining, and smuggling enterprises; and funneling the proceeds to affiliated jihadi groups worldwide,” Foreign Policy reports. 

On April 12, 2024, just 24 hours before Iran launched the largest ballistic missile and drone attack Israel has ever seen, Biden said “don’t” from Washington. The Iranian regime ignored him and proceeded to violate the airspace of surrounding countries in an effort to murder as many Israelis as possible. The attack came six months after the regime, through its proxy group Hamas, successfully carried out the worst terrorist attack in Israeli history — murdering, raping and maiming thousands of civilians on October 7, 2023. They are still holding hundreds of hostages, including five Americans. 

As Hamas continues to launch rocket attacks on Israeli homes, kindergartens, hospitals and more, President Biden has declared he will cut off weapons to the Israeli Defense Forces if they finish off Hamas in the southern Gaza city of Rafah — the last stronghold where at least 4,000 terrorists still exist. Biden claims the morally depraved move is to protect civilians in the city, ignoring the thousands of Gaza “civilians” who lined the streets and cheered as Hamas paraded the hostages they stole from their homes and a music festival — dead and alive. 

“Almost three in four Palestinians believe the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was correct, and the ensuing Gaza war has lifted support for the Islamist group both there and in the West Bank, a survey from a respected Palestinian polling institute found,” Reuters reports. “Seventy-two percent of respondents said they believed the Hamas decision to launch the cross-border rampage in southern Israel was "correct" given its outcome so far, while 22% said it was "incorrect". The remainder were undecided or gave no answer.”

These are the same “civilians” who cheered the fall of the Twin Towers in New York, the attack on the Pentagon and the United Flight 93 crash in Pennsylvania. 

In January, when an Iranian drone took the lives of three U.S. soldiers and severely injured dozens more after infiltrating their br in Jordan, the consequences were few and limited. 

It didn’t have to be this way, but Biden’s official policy of bolstering and funding Iran is having predictable results. 

“About two months ago, President Biden agreed to hand over $6 BILLION as a part of a hostage deal with Tehran. Shortly after, Hamas, which receives hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran annually, launched an unprecedented and horrific attack on Israel on October 7th,” Republican Congressman Brian Mast said in a November floor speech. “The lesson here should’ve been that handing over billions of dollars to our enemy will only strengthen them and put our allies in harm's way.  But President Biden, instead, allowed Iran to access an additional $10 billion.  That is a total of $16 billion Iran can access.” 

Whether it’s the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon or proxy groups in Iraq, Biden has emboldened them all. Further, with Biden’s failed policy in Niger, Islamic terror is on the march in Africa. 

Jihad Joe has made his immoral position clear by enabling Iran and bolstering Islamic terrorism. He’s given them aid, comfort and betrayed a crucial ally to appease jihadists here at home. In particular, Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who believes “rape is resistance.” 

The question now is, how much worse will it get?



Maria Bartiromo Questions Rep. Russell Fry About Lack of Action from Government Weaponization Committee


There’s something that sometimes starts to give the appearance of being contrived when, after all this time, DC pundits suddenly start getting angry on the TV and talking about what people want to see happen.

In this segment Bartiromo gets very angry with South Carolina Republican Representative Russell Fry who talks about the political attacks against President Trump. Congressman Fry outlines the problem, yet provides no solution. WATCH:



Truth or Censorship: The Legacy Media’s Death Spiral

 There is nothing more dangerous than a censor—especially one who makes their living off the very God-given liberty they seek to deny to their fellow citizens.


https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/11/truth-or-censorship-the-legacy-medias-death-spiral/

ne of the consequences of the Communications Revolution has been the deterioration of the traditional news media into just another endangered industry clamoring for protectionism.

Once, legacy television and print news outlets believed the technological hurdles and exorbitant costs entailed in providing content to their audiences formed an insurmountable barrier to entry for any potential competitors. To wit: for decades, there had existed only three major national news broadcasts and a handful of newspapers “of record,” like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Further, the number of local stations and newspapers, while competitive, were in effect capped by their respective audiences and advertisers. Over time, this technological and financial insulation resulted in a virtual monopoly upon mass information and, inevitably, the hubris, typified by their claim to be “opinion makers.”

Yet, fate humbles the haughty.

The rise of the internet destroyed both the financial and technological barriers faced by the legacy media’s prospective competitors. The legacy media’s arrogance rendered them slow to recognize the threat and, in many instances, deride their challengers as basement dwelling ne’er-do-wells cosplaying journalists on-line in their parents’ basements.

But these competitors and the social media platforms, such as (then) Twitter and YouTube, were, by circumstances and economics, necessarily designed to be an affordable, efficient, and effective disseminator of original content, including news and opinions. Perhaps more importantly, as business entities specifically designed for social media, these platforms knew how to monetize their users and content.

The legacy media, both nationally and locally, was too slow in responding—if they even could. The shrinking power, profits, payrolls, and prestige of their industry have led to calls for bailouts, most notably for local newspapers, and government protection from competition, including demands for something past generations of legacy media luminaries would find equally inexplicable and unconscionable: censorship.

In fact, this was not the first time the legacy print media faced challenges in its business model and sought government assistance. The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which, in its Congressional Declaration of Policy:

…it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United States to preserve the publication of newspapers in any city, community, or metropolitan area where a joint operating arrangement has been heretofore entered into because of economic distress or is hereafter effected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Per the learned one who litigated a case involving the law, “effectively let metropolitan dailies combine their business (but not editorial) operations in a Joint Operating Agreement because local markets could no longer support both papers.”

The present situation for legacy media is similar to the one faced by record companies in the 1980s, when they colluded with radio stations to control the music industry and shape public tastes. The inability to monetize their product within the bounds of cyber-space proved a disaster for their corporations, artists, record stores, et. al. Yet, it also proved a boon to individuals who now had a means to produce and disseminate their own music to the masses. In their death throes, the music industry’s corporations and artists appealed for government help to prevent their product—the music created by the artists and purchased and produced by the corporations—from being sold online by unauthorized entities. What the music industry and artists did not do was demand that the works of individual artists who created, produced, and disseminated their own music from being placed online.

But this is precisely the demand made by the legacy media to protect its privileged position as the elite opinion makers in our republic—namely, the stifling of the democratization of information through censorship.

In the legacy media’s death spiral, their opinion-shaping wordsmiths are rarely as honest as that in expressing their motives and aims. Make no mistake, however, when a free press begins advocating for the euphemistic “content moderation” to end “disinformation” and “hate speech” for the alleged sake of “safety” or some other such risible pretext, one can be sure they are not talking about curbing their First Amendment rights.

Colluding with their political cronies, both elected and otherwise, and ironically with Big Tech, the legacy media is targeting any American seeking to participate in the Communication Revolution’s “democratization of information.” In return, there is reciprocity on the part of the legacy media: recall their willingness to falsely condemn and conceal the reportage of another legacy media outlet (the New York Post) when the Hunter Biden laptop story threatened the legacy media’s aligned and preferred candidate’s presidential prospects.

Ah, yes, who better than the legacy media that spent years spreading Russia-gate lies to undermine a duly elected president to determine what the truth is? Still, nothing screams honesty more than a politician, who everyone just loves to death. Why not let the people who are known for their humility, rectitude, and subtlety—the legacy media, politicians, and beloved Big Tech multinational corporations—determine what an appropriate level of “content moderation” is? What is true? What is real? What you can talk about? What you can think about?

What could go wrong?

Everything. There is nothing more dangerous than a censor—especially one who makes their living off the very God-given liberty they seek to deny to their fellow citizens.

You can have either truth or censorship. Unlike the legacy media and their political cronies, choose wisely.