Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

𝐊𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐒 𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝟒𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐍 𝐂𝐑𝐈𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐀 "𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓" — 𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐀𝐔𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐀 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 CBS News obtained an internal Department of Homeland Security document showing that less than 𝟏𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝟒𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 ICE arrested in Trump’s first year had charges or convictions for violent... criminal offenses. Katie Couric took that number straight to air and used it as a weapon against deportations. “𝘐𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵?” she asked on camera — as if 56,000 violent criminals being here illegally is something to dismiss. Rand Paul shut it down with one sentence. “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘳∗𝘱𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 14%, 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘣𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦.” He walked through the real math: being arrested for illegal entry IS a crime. Sanctuary cities like Minneapolis actively shield so-called “nonviolent” offenders from ICE — exactly the loophole Couric is defending. 𝐘𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐣𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧, Paul noted, even if it’s a drug offense. The liberal media’s new talking point is that only 1-in-7 deportees committed violent crimes — as if that’s exculpatory. Fourteen percent of 400,000 is 56,000 violent offenders. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲. Every single one could have been stopped at a real border. The left wants you focused on the percentage. Rand Paul wants you focused on the victim. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝟏𝟒% 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞.show more

M.A. Rothman

93,416 subscribers

12,373 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

BREAKING: Vivek Ramaswamy (Vivek Ramaswamy) EXPLODES, outside Trump's courtroom in New York, says, "This is a politicized persecution that is nakedly apparent." "What I want to do is dive a little bit deeper into what we actually learned today in that courtroom. What do we see in there?" "First of all, I learned a lot from being in there in person." "It is one of the most depressing places I have been in my life. But it is fitting, because the only thing more depressing than the environment of that courtroom is what's actually happening in there. It's straight out of a Kafka novel." "The prosecution's main strategy appears to be to bore the jurors into submission. And if you look in that direction, sadly, it may appear to actually be working." "Now, I would like for anybody, anybody here in the press, anybody at home, anybody at MSNBC or the media afterwards to clearly state what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? Oh, wait. We have not heard a good answer to that question. It has been vague until today." "You heard Michael Cohen's testimony, after which I would say it is less clear than ever what that crime actually was. They'll say falsifying business records. Well, let's look at who did we learn falsified business records today. Get what hour, 2 hours. Felt like it could have been 7 hours of Michael Cohen talking about how he falsified business records." "Okay, so you have a guy who has been a perjurer in the past that is now saying he falsified business records. What is the crime that Donald Trump committed now? It appears to be what they might allege is some sort of bookkeeping error or whatever." "The real bookkeeping that we need. Accounting of Judge, merchants own family member collecting millions of dollars as a democratic operative, using the existence of this trial as a fundraising ploy for democrats. This is unconscionable." "Imagine if the same shoe fit the other foot. Imagine if it was Joe Biden that was on trial. You had a republican judge whose son was collecting millions of dollars as a republican operative, what would you all be saying? This would not be justice. This is injustice at its worst." "So let's, let's go even a layer deeper. Right, because let's go. Let's go even a layer deeper." "Actually, the alleged crime here is supposedly, they try to point to this every day, that he does not actually use campaign funds, that he used personal funds. Well, let's get this straight. Suppose Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal expense. They'd be going after him for that." "So if they're going to get him going or they're going to get him coming, that is the best proof that this is a politicized sham. Let's go through it piece by piece." "If you tell somebody to go buy you a suit and you want to look good on television because that'll affect the voters, the way voters vote for you, you know what? They prosecute politicians if they use campaign funds to buy a suit." "If they say, go get a haircut, if you use campaign funds to get a haircut because you want to look good to the voters, they will actually prosecute you for using campaign funds for a personal expense." "Yet the entire legal theory of this, in case, the whole case that Alvin Bragg has brought, depends on one premise for them to charge this as a felony, is that Donald Trump somehow should have used campaign funds to make an allegedly personal payment." "Yet if he had done that, their case against him would be even stronger. This is garbage. That is the best proof that you have that if they're going to get him, Cohen or get him coming, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is a sham. This is not the United States of America. This is some third rate banana republic." "If this were happening in another country, we would be laughing at them as a sham democracy. I am ashamed as an American citizen to sit here in a courtroom watching the former leader of the free world, and let's be honest, likely next leader of the free world sitting with the indigenous dignity in this dingy, third rate courtroom with fourth rate prosecutors and a fifth rate lawyer on the stand as a witness who actually is violating attorney client privilege left and right. Nobody's even talking about that." "So this is a shame. Shame on the spirit in our country's history. But we will get through it and be stronger, because you know, who ultimately actually cast the vote on this case, it's not just the jurors in that jury box. It's every one of you at home. It's every American who votes this November to say no to the weaponization of justice." "And if you're at home, you may say, you know what? I don't agree with everything Donald Trump's ever said. You know what, I may not agree with some of his policies, even though they were great policies for four years, but you do agree, whether you are Democrat or Republican or black or white or gay or straight or man or woman, that our justice system should be blind to politics." "That regardless of whether your last name is Biden or Trump, regardless of whether you've been a politician or not, you get a fair shake in our own legal system." "And when you have a prosecutor who campaigned on the pledge of going after Trump and then keeps his campaign pledge, when you have a judge whose kids are collecting money from democratic operatives by fundraising off the very trial that that judge is presiding over, and then telling the US president that he's subject to a gag order, that he can't talk about it, that is not justice. That is a bastardization of what this country was founded on." "And I'm here, and all of us are here as friends of Donald Trump, supporting him in our personal capacity, sharing our opinions. That's why we're here today. But I hope every American at home who isn't able to be in that courtroom is able to see what's actually happening there." "And when you do, we will have a landslide of historic proportion this November. If every American understands the injustice that's playing out in that courtroom today, so may God bless our country. I pray for our future, and let's pray for our country being stronger on the other side of this disgusting sham politician." WATCH

BREAKING: Vivek Ramaswamy (Vivek Ramaswamy) EXPLODES, outside Trump's courtroom in New York, says, "This is a politicized persecution that is nakedly apparent." "What I want to do is dive a little bit deeper into what we actually learned today in that courtroom. What do we see in there?" "First of all, I learned a lot from being in there in person." "It is one of the most depressing places I have been in my life. But it is fitting, because the only thing more depressing than the environment of that courtroom is what's actually happening in there. It's straight out of a Kafka novel." "The prosecution's main strategy appears to be to bore the jurors into submission. And if you look in that direction, sadly, it may appear to actually be working." "Now, I would like for anybody, anybody here in the press, anybody at home, anybody at MSNBC or the media afterwards to clearly state what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? Oh, wait. We have not heard a good answer to that question. It has been vague until today." "You heard Michael Cohen's testimony, after which I would say it is less clear than ever what that crime actually was. They'll say falsifying business records. Well, let's look at who did we learn falsified business records today. Get what hour, 2 hours. Felt like it could have been 7 hours of Michael Cohen talking about how he falsified business records." "Okay, so you have a guy who has been a perjurer in the past that is now saying he falsified business records. What is the crime that Donald Trump committed now? It appears to be what they might allege is some sort of bookkeeping error or whatever." "The real bookkeeping that we need. Accounting of Judge, merchants own family member collecting millions of dollars as a democratic operative, using the existence of this trial as a fundraising ploy for democrats. This is unconscionable." "Imagine if the same shoe fit the other foot. Imagine if it was Joe Biden that was on trial. You had a republican judge whose son was collecting millions of dollars as a republican operative, what would you all be saying? This would not be justice. This is injustice at its worst." "So let's, let's go even a layer deeper. Right, because let's go. Let's go even a layer deeper." "Actually, the alleged crime here is supposedly, they try to point to this every day, that he does not actually use campaign funds, that he used personal funds. Well, let's get this straight. Suppose Donald Trump had used campaign funds to make a personal expense. They'd be going after him for that." "So if they're going to get him going or they're going to get him coming, that is the best proof that this is a politicized sham. Let's go through it piece by piece." "If you tell somebody to go buy you a suit and you want to look good on television because that'll affect the voters, the way voters vote for you, you know what? They prosecute politicians if they use campaign funds to buy a suit." "If they say, go get a haircut, if you use campaign funds to get a haircut because you want to look good to the voters, they will actually prosecute you for using campaign funds for a personal expense." "Yet the entire legal theory of this, in case, the whole case that Alvin Bragg has brought, depends on one premise for them to charge this as a felony, is that Donald Trump somehow should have used campaign funds to make an allegedly personal payment." "Yet if he had done that, their case against him would be even stronger. This is garbage. That is the best proof that you have that if they're going to get him, Cohen or get him coming, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is a sham. This is not the United States of America. This is some third rate banana republic." "If this were happening in another country, we would be laughing at them as a sham democracy. I am ashamed as an American citizen to sit here in a courtroom watching the former leader of the free world, and let's be honest, likely next leader of the free world sitting with the indigenous dignity in this dingy, third rate courtroom with fourth rate prosecutors and a fifth rate lawyer on the stand as a witness who actually is violating attorney client privilege left and right. Nobody's even talking about that." "So this is a shame. Shame on the spirit in our country's history. But we will get through it and be stronger, because you know, who ultimately actually cast the vote on this case, it's not just the jurors in that jury box. It's every one of you at home. It's every American who votes this November to say no to the weaponization of justice." "And if you're at home, you may say, you know what? I don't agree with everything Donald Trump's ever said. You know what, I may not agree with some of his policies, even though they were great policies for four years, but you do agree, whether you are Democrat or Republican or black or white or gay or straight or man or woman, that our justice system should be blind to politics." "That regardless of whether your last name is Biden or Trump, regardless of whether you've been a politician or not, you get a fair shake in our own legal system." "And when you have a prosecutor who campaigned on the pledge of going after Trump and then keeps his campaign pledge, when you have a judge whose kids are collecting money from democratic operatives by fundraising off the very trial that that judge is presiding over, and then telling the US president that he's subject to a gag order, that he can't talk about it, that is not justice. That is a bastardization of what this country was founded on." "And I'm here, and all of us are here as friends of Donald Trump, supporting him in our personal capacity, sharing our opinions. That's why we're here today. But I hope every American at home who isn't able to be in that courtroom is able to see what's actually happening there." "And when you do, we will have a landslide of historic proportion this November. If every American understands the injustice that's playing out in that courtroom today, so may God bless our country. I pray for our future, and let's pray for our country being stronger on the other side of this disgusting sham politician." WATCH

Simon Ateba

2,878,475 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Ottawa — Well, that didn’t take long. In what can only be described as a public humiliation, Conservative MP Frank Caputo (Frank Caputo) dismantled Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, in a fiery parliamentary showdown that laid bare the rot at the heart of the Liberal government’s so-called border and public safety agenda. “The Globe and Mail reported 600 people are missing. You’re the minister. You’re expected to know this. The buck stops with you.” That was Caputo’s opening shot and the Minister never recovered. Now, for context: those 600 people are foreign nationals who were ordered deported from Canada — 70 percent of them violent criminals, including sex offenders. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a national disgrace. So Caputo asked the obvious question: Where are they? What did Minister Anandasangaree say? Nothing. He filibustered. He squirmed. He muttered something about “unprecedented removals.” Caputo cut through it instantly: “Do you know where they are — yes or no?” Still nothing. Then came the TikTok moment... literally. When Caputo pressed the Minister on the 1,000 border agents the Liberals promised but never hired, the Minister sneered, “I’m not here for your TikTok videos.” Excuse me? TikTok! The Chinese spyware app banned on government phones, is now a Liberal talking point? Caputo didn’t blink: “TikTok is banned. I don’t have an account. I’m here for Canadians. I’m here for answers.” It got worse. The Minister admitted, under pressure, that the RCMP haven’t hired a single one of the 1,000 officers they promised, despite a spike in violent crime across the country. Caputo’s response: “Okay, that’s a zero, I take it then.” Then Caputo dropped the hammer. He played the leaked audio... audio where Minister Anandasangaree admits the Liberal gun buyback scheme is a political stunt that won’t work. His words: “Don’t ask me to explain the logic to you. I’m not an expert on this.” And now he wants Canadians to believe the program is going “great” in Cape Breton, where, shocker, a Liberal MP’s brother-in-law just happens to be involved. When Caputo asked if the Minister spoke to that chief directly, Anandasangaree dodged again, reciting talking points from the Mass Casualty Commission like a robot. Caputo wasn’t having it: “He doesn’t get to talk out the clock… He has to speak to the questions he’s given. And I won’t stand for this.” And he didn’t. What happened in that committee room was simple: a government caught lying, stalling, and hiding, and one MP willing to call them out. Caputo exposed the truth: Carneys hand-picked “public safety” minister doesn’t know where violent criminals are, hasn’t hired a single new cop, and is overseeing a disarmament program he doesn’t even believe in — all while claiming it’s for “our safety.” This is the Liberal Party in 2025: globalist talking points, zero accountability, and a minister who can’t answer basic questions. But don’t worry — they’re watching your bank account and planning new laws to censor you online.

Ottawa — Well, that didn’t take long. In what can only be described as a public humiliation, Conservative MP Frank Caputo (Frank Caputo) dismantled Trudeau’s Public Safety Minister, Gary Anandasangaree, in a fiery parliamentary showdown that laid bare the rot at the heart of the Liberal government’s so-called border and public safety agenda. “The Globe and Mail reported 600 people are missing. You’re the minister. You’re expected to know this. The buck stops with you.” That was Caputo’s opening shot and the Minister never recovered. Now, for context: those 600 people are foreign nationals who were ordered deported from Canada — 70 percent of them violent criminals, including sex offenders. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a national disgrace. So Caputo asked the obvious question: Where are they? What did Minister Anandasangaree say? Nothing. He filibustered. He squirmed. He muttered something about “unprecedented removals.” Caputo cut through it instantly: “Do you know where they are — yes or no?” Still nothing. Then came the TikTok moment... literally. When Caputo pressed the Minister on the 1,000 border agents the Liberals promised but never hired, the Minister sneered, “I’m not here for your TikTok videos.” Excuse me? TikTok! The Chinese spyware app banned on government phones, is now a Liberal talking point? Caputo didn’t blink: “TikTok is banned. I don’t have an account. I’m here for Canadians. I’m here for answers.” It got worse. The Minister admitted, under pressure, that the RCMP haven’t hired a single one of the 1,000 officers they promised, despite a spike in violent crime across the country. Caputo’s response: “Okay, that’s a zero, I take it then.” Then Caputo dropped the hammer. He played the leaked audio... audio where Minister Anandasangaree admits the Liberal gun buyback scheme is a political stunt that won’t work. His words: “Don’t ask me to explain the logic to you. I’m not an expert on this.” And now he wants Canadians to believe the program is going “great” in Cape Breton, where, shocker, a Liberal MP’s brother-in-law just happens to be involved. When Caputo asked if the Minister spoke to that chief directly, Anandasangaree dodged again, reciting talking points from the Mass Casualty Commission like a robot. Caputo wasn’t having it: “He doesn’t get to talk out the clock… He has to speak to the questions he’s given. And I won’t stand for this.” And he didn’t. What happened in that committee room was simple: a government caught lying, stalling, and hiding, and one MP willing to call them out. Caputo exposed the truth: Carneys hand-picked “public safety” minister doesn’t know where violent criminals are, hasn’t hired a single new cop, and is overseeing a disarmament program he doesn’t even believe in — all while claiming it’s for “our safety.” This is the Liberal Party in 2025: globalist talking points, zero accountability, and a minister who can’t answer basic questions. But don’t worry — they’re watching your bank account and planning new laws to censor you online.

Dan Knight

59,758 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

Imagine a man running for mayor and the local election authorities disqualify him because he praised a “Lord of the Rings” television mini-series, made the “okay” sign with his fingers, and went to a book fair. That’s what’s happened to Joachim Paul. He was the front-runner in the mayoral race in the working-class German city of Ludwigshafen (population: 180,000) when the local election council, which is supposed to be politically neutral, declared that he could not run in the September 21 mayoral election. The council relied upon an analysis by the Ministry of Interior, which is the equivalent of the Department of Homeland Security in the United States, for the Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz) state. As evidence that Paul was a threat to the Constitution, the Ministry quoted from Paul’s praise of the Amazon series “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.” “The protagonists in ‘Lord of the Rings’ fight for a cause that is greater than themselves,” Paul wrote for an Austrian magazine in 2022, “the homeland, the continuation of their culture, a just order, the defense against a world danger. They are prepared to risk their lives for it.” Said Paul, “They say that, by writing positively about ‘Lord of the Rings,’ I want to support nationalism and the ‘Conservative Revolution’. But I didn’t mention nationalism. I didn’t mention ‘Conservative Revolution.’ It’s all made up. The intent was to draw a picture of me as somebody who is far right…. [U.S. Vice President] J.D. Vance nor Giorgia Maloni, the president of Italy, couldn’t run for office in Ludwigshafen.” Paul is the candidate for the right-wing populist and nationalist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), which advocates for repatriating immigrants back to their native countries and other policies with which reasonable people might disagree. But one need not agree with any of AfD’s politics to see that the reasons given by the Interior Ministry for Rhineland-Palatinate, which is supposed to focus on potentially violent extremists, are frivolous or highly subjective. For example, the Interior Ministry accused him of making the “OK” sign. “Leftist groups say making the OK sign means white power,” he said, “but it’s crazy to talk about the OK sign as a white power sign.” One of the Ministry’s bullet points notes that “On 18 and 19 of October 2024, Joachim Paul was invited to a book bazaar in the ‘Quartier Kirschstein.’ Among other things, the Chemnitz-based ’Antiquariat Zeitenstrom’ exhibited various right-wing literature there.” Paul says the “right-wing literature” they are referring to is Ernst Jünger’s Storm of Steel, a classic of German war literature taught in universities that some on the Left say glorifies war and violence. “To consider these books as right-wing is childish,” said Paul. “Literature is literature. Even if I read right-wing books, that doesn’t mean I agree with every single word. No book has for me the value of a party program. It’s crazy thinking.” Paul’s Social Democrat opponents weaponized both the Ministry and the local election council, he says. “I was a member of an election council and I approved every candidate, left, right, and ecological [Green]. Their duty is only to check formal correctness, not political positions,” Paul said. “But now the Social Democrats have developed a strategy to weaponize election councils.” All of this occurs within the context of widespread censorship by the German government, despite Germany's ostensible status as a liberal democracy. What the government is doing to Paul is, he says, a new and “hidden strategy… my case is unique.” Paul’s lawyer is confident that the electoral court is in violation of the constitution. Still, it has kept Paul off the ballot, stating that if higher courts rule in Paul’s favor, they will conduct the election again. “The federal constitution says that you can be stripped of your right to run for office only by a court and only if you are convicted of dangerous crimes like sabotage, espionage, or defrauding elections,” said Paul. “But the court said, ‘We don't want to discuss this any further. Even if it's not constitutional, we can’t fix it on this level anyway, and so it's better to have the election now. They’ve opened the door to weaponizing the council for party politics to get rid of opponents.” What is going on? Why is the German government openly undermining democracy? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech and democracy, and to read the rest of the article and watch the rest of the video!

Imagine a man running for mayor and the local election authorities disqualify him because he praised a “Lord of the Rings” television mini-series, made the “okay” sign with his fingers, and went to a book fair. That’s what’s happened to Joachim Paul. He was the front-runner in the mayoral race in the working-class German city of Ludwigshafen (population: 180,000) when the local election council, which is supposed to be politically neutral, declared that he could not run in the September 21 mayoral election. The council relied upon an analysis by the Ministry of Interior, which is the equivalent of the Department of Homeland Security in the United States, for the Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz) state. As evidence that Paul was a threat to the Constitution, the Ministry quoted from Paul’s praise of the Amazon series “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.” “The protagonists in ‘Lord of the Rings’ fight for a cause that is greater than themselves,” Paul wrote for an Austrian magazine in 2022, “the homeland, the continuation of their culture, a just order, the defense against a world danger. They are prepared to risk their lives for it.” Said Paul, “They say that, by writing positively about ‘Lord of the Rings,’ I want to support nationalism and the ‘Conservative Revolution’. But I didn’t mention nationalism. I didn’t mention ‘Conservative Revolution.’ It’s all made up. The intent was to draw a picture of me as somebody who is far right…. [U.S. Vice President] J.D. Vance nor Giorgia Maloni, the president of Italy, couldn’t run for office in Ludwigshafen.” Paul is the candidate for the right-wing populist and nationalist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), which advocates for repatriating immigrants back to their native countries and other policies with which reasonable people might disagree. But one need not agree with any of AfD’s politics to see that the reasons given by the Interior Ministry for Rhineland-Palatinate, which is supposed to focus on potentially violent extremists, are frivolous or highly subjective. For example, the Interior Ministry accused him of making the “OK” sign. “Leftist groups say making the OK sign means white power,” he said, “but it’s crazy to talk about the OK sign as a white power sign.” One of the Ministry’s bullet points notes that “On 18 and 19 of October 2024, Joachim Paul was invited to a book bazaar in the ‘Quartier Kirschstein.’ Among other things, the Chemnitz-based ’Antiquariat Zeitenstrom’ exhibited various right-wing literature there.” Paul says the “right-wing literature” they are referring to is Ernst Jünger’s Storm of Steel, a classic of German war literature taught in universities that some on the Left say glorifies war and violence. “To consider these books as right-wing is childish,” said Paul. “Literature is literature. Even if I read right-wing books, that doesn’t mean I agree with every single word. No book has for me the value of a party program. It’s crazy thinking.” Paul’s Social Democrat opponents weaponized both the Ministry and the local election council, he says. “I was a member of an election council and I approved every candidate, left, right, and ecological [Green]. Their duty is only to check formal correctness, not political positions,” Paul said. “But now the Social Democrats have developed a strategy to weaponize election councils.” All of this occurs within the context of widespread censorship by the German government, despite Germany's ostensible status as a liberal democracy. What the government is doing to Paul is, he says, a new and “hidden strategy… my case is unique.” Paul’s lawyer is confident that the electoral court is in violation of the constitution. Still, it has kept Paul off the ballot, stating that if higher courts rule in Paul’s favor, they will conduct the election again. “The federal constitution says that you can be stripped of your right to run for office only by a court and only if you are convicted of dangerous crimes like sabotage, espionage, or defrauding elections,” said Paul. “But the court said, ‘We don't want to discuss this any further. Even if it's not constitutional, we can’t fix it on this level anyway, and so it's better to have the election now. They’ve opened the door to weaponizing the council for party politics to get rid of opponents.” What is going on? Why is the German government openly undermining democracy? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech and democracy, and to read the rest of the article and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

119,681 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

NEW Queen Rania of Jordan continues to speak out on Israel and Gaza. In her second interview on CNN since October 7, Queen Rania is even more critical of the Israeli government and anyone who pushes back against a cease fire. Summary of interview: There has to be a collective call for a cease fire. I know there are people who say that calling for a cease fire is helping Hamas, but in that call they are justifying and endorsing the death of thousands of civilians. That is morally reprehensible. It is also short sighted. If you eliminate all of Hamas, what next? The root cause of this conflict is an illegal occupation, routine human rights abuses, illegal settlements, disregard to UN resolutions, and international law. If we do not address these root causes, you can kill the combatant, but you can’t kill the cause. Another group will rise. Another group more determined than Hamas. Israel needs to realize, if it wants its security, the surest route is through peace. Not the strongest military, or the most capable intelligence services, or the iron dome. If we want to make sure that we are never in this situation agin, we have to ask ourselves how we got there. After the Oslo Accords, in 1996 a poll was taken that 80 percent of Palestinians supported the accords and support for violent resistance dropped to 20 percent. If Palestinians had a political horizon, they themselves would be against any form of violence. But they need to be given that prospect. I cannot begin to describe the scale and scope of the catastrophic humanitarian crisis. There’s an acronym in Gaza, WCNSF - wounded child with no surviving family, that is an acronym that should never exist. I think the world is screaming, how many people have to die for our global conscience to awake. Or is it forever dormant when it comes to the Palestinians? After 10,000 people have been killed, for the Israelis to claim they are protecting human life is an insult to our intelligence. There is no safe place in Gaza. Even the so-called safe zones are being hit. I do not believe these evacuation orders are for the benefit of Gaza civilians. They are not the target audience, the rest of the world is. Israel is trying to legitimize its actions. Of course the use of human shields is criminal. But even if one side puts human beings in harms way, that civilian is still protected under international law. I find it really outrageous when Israeli officials audaciously dismiss Palestinian casualties as “human shields.” In the most crowded areas of Gaza, a civilian death is a foregone conclusion and that makes it a war crime. On antisemitism and Islamophobia: I absolutely and wholeheartedly condemn antisemitism and Islamophobia, it’s never ok and never justified to attack someone based on their political beliefs. I also want to remind everyone that Israel does not represent all the Jewish people in the world. Israel is a state and it alone is responsible for its own crimes. Jewish people around the world are appalled by what they’re seeing. Muslims have to be the first to condemn antisemitism. This is not about religion, this is about politics. Antisemitism is being weaponized to shut down criticism of Israel. Let me be very clear, being pro-Palestinian is not being antisemitic.

NEW Queen Rania of Jordan continues to speak out on Israel and Gaza. In her second interview on CNN since October 7, Queen Rania is even more critical of the Israeli government and anyone who pushes back against a cease fire. Summary of interview: There has to be a collective call for a cease fire. I know there are people who say that calling for a cease fire is helping Hamas, but in that call they are justifying and endorsing the death of thousands of civilians. That is morally reprehensible. It is also short sighted. If you eliminate all of Hamas, what next? The root cause of this conflict is an illegal occupation, routine human rights abuses, illegal settlements, disregard to UN resolutions, and international law. If we do not address these root causes, you can kill the combatant, but you can’t kill the cause. Another group will rise. Another group more determined than Hamas. Israel needs to realize, if it wants its security, the surest route is through peace. Not the strongest military, or the most capable intelligence services, or the iron dome. If we want to make sure that we are never in this situation agin, we have to ask ourselves how we got there. After the Oslo Accords, in 1996 a poll was taken that 80 percent of Palestinians supported the accords and support for violent resistance dropped to 20 percent. If Palestinians had a political horizon, they themselves would be against any form of violence. But they need to be given that prospect. I cannot begin to describe the scale and scope of the catastrophic humanitarian crisis. There’s an acronym in Gaza, WCNSF - wounded child with no surviving family, that is an acronym that should never exist. I think the world is screaming, how many people have to die for our global conscience to awake. Or is it forever dormant when it comes to the Palestinians? After 10,000 people have been killed, for the Israelis to claim they are protecting human life is an insult to our intelligence. There is no safe place in Gaza. Even the so-called safe zones are being hit. I do not believe these evacuation orders are for the benefit of Gaza civilians. They are not the target audience, the rest of the world is. Israel is trying to legitimize its actions. Of course the use of human shields is criminal. But even if one side puts human beings in harms way, that civilian is still protected under international law. I find it really outrageous when Israeli officials audaciously dismiss Palestinian casualties as “human shields.” In the most crowded areas of Gaza, a civilian death is a foregone conclusion and that makes it a war crime. On antisemitism and Islamophobia: I absolutely and wholeheartedly condemn antisemitism and Islamophobia, it’s never ok and never justified to attack someone based on their political beliefs. I also want to remind everyone that Israel does not represent all the Jewish people in the world. Israel is a state and it alone is responsible for its own crimes. Jewish people around the world are appalled by what they’re seeing. Muslims have to be the first to condemn antisemitism. This is not about religion, this is about politics. Antisemitism is being weaponized to shut down criticism of Israel. Let me be very clear, being pro-Palestinian is not being antisemitic.

Yashar Ali 🐘

3,097,429 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

We Exposed Censorship By Brazil’s Supreme Court, And Now President Lula Is Persecuting Me PLUS: Brazil’s Attorney General Is Seeking To Entirely Shut Down X, Formerly Known As Twitter Thirty years ago this year, I asked Brazil’s current president, who goes by the single name “Lula,” if he would turn his country into Cuba, complete with censorship. He said "no" and that he and the Brazilian people loved their freedom too much. At no point since then did I ever imagine that I would be the victim of Cuba-style censorship and repression at the hands of Lula . And yet, that is precisely what is happening. All of this is happening at the same time that Brazil’s Attorney General and Supreme Court are reportedly seeking a way to entirely shut down X, Brazil’s only free speech platform. The Brazilian government recently retaliated against X by cutting off advertising on X. X’s top attorney in Brazil resigned to protect his safety less than two weeks ago. Yesterday, Brazil’s attorney general, Jorge Messias, urged the Supreme Court to pursue “criminal prosecution” and investigation to “identify and punish the possible culprits.” My alleged crime was publishing the “Twitter Files - Brazil.” At no point does the Attorney General suggest that either I or my coauthors Eli Vieira and David Ágape lied or presented inaccurate information in the Twitter Files - Brazil. Rather, the Attorney General office’s six-page memo, released publicly, claims that I released “excerpts of content from confidential judicial decisions” in an “attempt to destabilize the democratic state.” This is untrue. None of the Twitter Files - Brazil contained “confidential judicial decisions.” The Twitter Files - Brazil were strictly emails between Twitter staff. There is not a single instance where we published “confidential judicial decisions.” But even if we had, the Brazilian constitution says, “the law may only restrict the publicity of procedural acts when the defense of privacy or social interests so require" (Article 5, LX). In this case, it was imperative that we publish the Twitter Files precisely to protect the public’s right to privacy, freedom of speech, and democracy. What’s more, the attack on me is highly selective. Brazilian news media have, for years, reported on confidential judiciary decisions and have not been subjected to such an outrageous criminal investigation as the one I am under. Finally, there is no law against attempting to “destabilize the democratic state” through non-violent methods. The law only prohibits violent attacks on democracy. As such, the Attorney General abuses his powers and acts as a lawmaker, usurping Brazil’s Congress. And just imagine if Brazil criminalized something as vague as “destabilizing the democratic state.” Such a law would allow President Lula to lock up nonviolent protesters, journalists, and his political rivals. Why is the Attorney General doing this? The first thing to understand is

We Exposed Censorship By Brazil’s Supreme Court, And Now President Lula Is Persecuting Me PLUS: Brazil’s Attorney General Is Seeking To Entirely Shut Down X, Formerly Known As Twitter Thirty years ago this year, I asked Brazil’s current president, who goes by the single name “Lula,” if he would turn his country into Cuba, complete with censorship. He said "no" and that he and the Brazilian people loved their freedom too much. At no point since then did I ever imagine that I would be the victim of Cuba-style censorship and repression at the hands of Lula . And yet, that is precisely what is happening. All of this is happening at the same time that Brazil’s Attorney General and Supreme Court are reportedly seeking a way to entirely shut down X, Brazil’s only free speech platform. The Brazilian government recently retaliated against X by cutting off advertising on X. X’s top attorney in Brazil resigned to protect his safety less than two weeks ago. Yesterday, Brazil’s attorney general, Jorge Messias, urged the Supreme Court to pursue “criminal prosecution” and investigation to “identify and punish the possible culprits.” My alleged crime was publishing the “Twitter Files - Brazil.” At no point does the Attorney General suggest that either I or my coauthors Eli Vieira and David Ágape lied or presented inaccurate information in the Twitter Files - Brazil. Rather, the Attorney General office’s six-page memo, released publicly, claims that I released “excerpts of content from confidential judicial decisions” in an “attempt to destabilize the democratic state.” This is untrue. None of the Twitter Files - Brazil contained “confidential judicial decisions.” The Twitter Files - Brazil were strictly emails between Twitter staff. There is not a single instance where we published “confidential judicial decisions.” But even if we had, the Brazilian constitution says, “the law may only restrict the publicity of procedural acts when the defense of privacy or social interests so require" (Article 5, LX). In this case, it was imperative that we publish the Twitter Files precisely to protect the public’s right to privacy, freedom of speech, and democracy. What’s more, the attack on me is highly selective. Brazilian news media have, for years, reported on confidential judiciary decisions and have not been subjected to such an outrageous criminal investigation as the one I am under. Finally, there is no law against attempting to “destabilize the democratic state” through non-violent methods. The law only prohibits violent attacks on democracy. As such, the Attorney General abuses his powers and acts as a lawmaker, usurping Brazil’s Congress. And just imagine if Brazil criminalized something as vague as “destabilizing the democratic state.” Such a law would allow President Lula to lock up nonviolent protesters, journalists, and his political rivals. Why is the Attorney General doing this? The first thing to understand is

Michael Shellenberger

2,484,831 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

U.K. activist grilled by police over 'offensive' social posts British activist Kellie-Jay Keen (Kellie-Jay Keen) received a phone call from the Metropolitan Police. She then turned a recording of the call into a Lego-style animated video and posted it on social media. The officer on the line informed Keen she was under two separate investigations. The first concerned a speech she gave at a rally in which she called for Islam to be removed from British classrooms and institutions. The second concerned a series of tweets — including one about "Muslim fatigue" listing gang rapes, terrorism, Sharia courts, female genital mutilation, and the "two-tier system," and another calling Islam "a vile woman-hating marrying child rape hazing death." The charge being considered was malicious communications, with the officer explaining the offence does not require criminal intent — only that someone read the tweet, took offence, and made a report. "Malicious communications is about somebody's feelings," Keen asked on the call, "irrespective of whether or not it's a criminal sentiment. It's just if someone doesn't like it, the police have got some time on their hands." The officer invited her to a "voluntary" interview at a London police station, under caution, with anything she said usable as evidence against her. She declined. "I think what we can do here is test the elasticity of pace," she told the officer pleasantly. Ezra noted the trap embedded in the offer. A voluntary interview where your words can be used against you, conducted by professional interrogators, is an invitation most ordinary people — especially working-class Britons who can't afford a lawyer — would walk into unarmed and terrified. Keen pointed out that in 2017, when she was first contacted about tweeting that it was wrong to castrate children, she was told that if she refused the voluntary interview and was subsequently pulled over for speeding, she could be arrested on the spot. "For most law-abiding people who aren't used to how terrifying the police have become," she said, "they have become the thought police." The Metropolitan Police, Keen said, has more than 100 officers whose sole job is monitoring social media. The Times of London has reported 30 people are arrested per day in the UK for non-crime hate incidents, a figure that does not include cases like Keen's where the caller was not arrested. A woman who photographed a migrant hotel and posted about it online was recently arrested at home by three officers while caring for her elderly mother with Alzheimer's. Meanwhile, Keen said, if you are burgled, sometimes even if someone is in your house, the police do not come out. The broader picture Keen described is one of a country where 80 Sharia courts operate openly, not a single female genital mutilation case has ever been prosecuted, 25% of meat is halal-slaughtered with only 6% of the population Muslim, the call to prayer is broadcast in some cities, and more and more women are wearing the niqab. "There are 50-plus countries where if you want to go and live like that, you can," she said. "But the UK is not one of those countries. And if we don't speak about it now, there will come a time when nobody can." Ezra also pointed out that Keen is also banned from entering Canada, and he is banned from the United Kingdom. "We'll have to meet in the middle of the Atlantic," he said, "and have a conference of the exiles." REPORT by Ezra Levant 🍁🚛:

U.K. activist grilled by police over 'offensive' social posts British activist Kellie-Jay Keen (Kellie-Jay Keen) received a phone call from the Metropolitan Police. She then turned a recording of the call into a Lego-style animated video and posted it on social media. The officer on the line informed Keen she was under two separate investigations. The first concerned a speech she gave at a rally in which she called for Islam to be removed from British classrooms and institutions. The second concerned a series of tweets — including one about "Muslim fatigue" listing gang rapes, terrorism, Sharia courts, female genital mutilation, and the "two-tier system," and another calling Islam "a vile woman-hating marrying child rape hazing death." The charge being considered was malicious communications, with the officer explaining the offence does not require criminal intent — only that someone read the tweet, took offence, and made a report. "Malicious communications is about somebody's feelings," Keen asked on the call, "irrespective of whether or not it's a criminal sentiment. It's just if someone doesn't like it, the police have got some time on their hands." The officer invited her to a "voluntary" interview at a London police station, under caution, with anything she said usable as evidence against her. She declined. "I think what we can do here is test the elasticity of pace," she told the officer pleasantly. Ezra noted the trap embedded in the offer. A voluntary interview where your words can be used against you, conducted by professional interrogators, is an invitation most ordinary people — especially working-class Britons who can't afford a lawyer — would walk into unarmed and terrified. Keen pointed out that in 2017, when she was first contacted about tweeting that it was wrong to castrate children, she was told that if she refused the voluntary interview and was subsequently pulled over for speeding, she could be arrested on the spot. "For most law-abiding people who aren't used to how terrifying the police have become," she said, "they have become the thought police." The Metropolitan Police, Keen said, has more than 100 officers whose sole job is monitoring social media. The Times of London has reported 30 people are arrested per day in the UK for non-crime hate incidents, a figure that does not include cases like Keen's where the caller was not arrested. A woman who photographed a migrant hotel and posted about it online was recently arrested at home by three officers while caring for her elderly mother with Alzheimer's. Meanwhile, Keen said, if you are burgled, sometimes even if someone is in your house, the police do not come out. The broader picture Keen described is one of a country where 80 Sharia courts operate openly, not a single female genital mutilation case has ever been prosecuted, 25% of meat is halal-slaughtered with only 6% of the population Muslim, the call to prayer is broadcast in some cities, and more and more women are wearing the niqab. "There are 50-plus countries where if you want to go and live like that, you can," she said. "But the UK is not one of those countries. And if we don't speak about it now, there will come a time when nobody can." Ezra also pointed out that Keen is also banned from entering Canada, and he is banned from the United Kingdom. "We'll have to meet in the middle of the Atlantic," he said, "and have a conference of the exiles." REPORT by Ezra Levant 🍁🚛:

Rebel News

25,463 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐌𝐀𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐆𝐍𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐌𝐎𝐂𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐂 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄. 𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐌 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐈𝐓. 𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐀𝐋𝐒𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐑𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓. Bill Maher spent eight minutes on Real Time last Friday doing something no Democrat with a national microphone has done honestly in a decade. He told his own party why they lost. The core of the monologue: “𝘝𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯’𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘷𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢.” Read that again. Slowly. The second-most-famous liberal talk-show host in America — a man who has spent 30 years telling audiences how dumb Republicans are — just told Democrats that the issues do not matter, that voters pick based on 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢, and that Donald Trump has all three while the Democratic Party has none of them. This is not a small admission. This is the entire 2024 post-mortem in a single sentence, delivered by a Democrat. Let me walk through what else he said, because it gets better — and worse, depending on which side of the aisle you sit on. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 The Democratic Party’s current approval rating is 𝟐𝟏 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 (Gallup, March 2026). Maher’s joke: “𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘴”. Funny because it is accurate. And the Gallup internal is the part that should terrify every DNC strategist: 𝟒𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫, up 11 points in four years. Nearly half the Democratic base is telling pollsters, on the record, that its own leadership is too far left to win. When almost half your own voters want you to move toward your opponent’s position, you do not have a messaging problem. You have a 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 problem. 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐏𝐢𝐜𝐤: 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧 Maher nominated Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as the Democratic Party’s Trump. Not the populist-movement Trump. The 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘴-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦-𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳-𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴-𝘯𝘰𝘵-𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥-𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮-𝘵𝘩𝘦-𝘕𝘎𝘖-𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵 Trump. Here is Maher’s inventory of Fetterman’s heresies, each of which would have been a career-ender in the Democratic Party of 2020: 𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫: Fetterman says wanting a secure border is not 𝘹𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤 or 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘵. It is common sense. 𝐎𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥: When pro-Hamas protesters showed up at his home, Fetterman went to his roof 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. Read that again. A sitting Democratic United States Senator publicly flew the Star of David in the faces of his own party’s base. 𝐎𝐧 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: Fetterman says four words 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, per Maher: “𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞.” Translate that honestly. Maher just told his audience that the reason Republicans are nervous about 2028 is not a policy agenda. It is the possibility that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞 Maher’s proposed running mate was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and the reasons he gave are almost more revealing than the Fetterman case. Buttigieg 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬 a month ago. Stopped. Quietly scrubbed them. Maher flagged it on national television. Buttigieg’s own recent words, quoted by Maher: Democrats would do better “𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘶𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴”. That is a former Democratic presidential candidate publicly renouncing intersectional identity politics. In 2020 he would have been canceled for that sentence. In 2026 he is using it as a positioning play for 2028. Buttigieg also told Democrats to stop “𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢”. Maher’s rejoinder: “𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚 𝐏𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐜𝐡.” That one is going on the highlight reel. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀 𝐉𝐨𝐤𝐞 Strip away the Mar-a-Lago bits, the CVS clothing line, the 6-foot-8 gag, and look at what Maher actually said about Trump’s victory: “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘰𝘯. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹. 𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬.” Translation: Trump won because he met voters where they actually were on crime and immigration. Americans were not yearning for the agenda; they were yearning for a politician who would 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 about borders, crime, men in women’s sports, and elementary-school pronoun drills. Every Democratic post-mortem since November 2024 has blamed Latinos, blamed young men, blamed podcasts, blamed Elon Musk, blamed disinformation, blamed Russia again for some reason, blamed misogyny, blamed low-information voters, and blamed Joe Biden for staying in too long. Bill Maher — alone, on a Friday night, on a premium cable show — finally said the real answer. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐳𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐅𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧/𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 Here is the problem with Maher’s prescription, and it is the same problem that has been cooking the Democratic Party for 15 years. The Democratic primary electorate — the activists, the donor class, the DSA wing, the 𝘚𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘥 caucus, the identity-studies faculty, the Planned Parenthood board, the teachers unions, the Working Families Party — will never nominate John Fetterman. They will not nominate anyone who waves an Israeli flag at his own base. They will not nominate anyone who says 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘬𝘦. They will not nominate anyone who agrees with Trump on the border. Maher knows this. Every Democrat in Washington knows this. The primary will eat any Fetterman-type candidate alive before the first snow falls in New Hampshire. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐞-𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐮𝐥𝐬𝐢 𝐆𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. The Democratic Party does not actually want to win. It wants to be right about race, gender, and climate. Those are not the same goal, and for twenty years the party has been choosing the second one. 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐮𝐞 I have disagreed with Bill Maher on plenty. I still do. But on this one, he is telling the truth at volume about his own side, on his own network, to his own audience, and he knows the next three weeks of his DMs will be brutal. That is 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚 he said voters reward. He is modeling the trait he is asking his party to rediscover. The fact that the Democratic Party cannot find more than a handful of its elected officials willing to do the same is the entire diagnosis, all by itself. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐨. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 '𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐤𝐞' 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲. 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐲. 𝐈 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥.

M.A. Rothman

85,434 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

👀🤔Is it possible Candace was being fed the 7 charges through a private earpiece channel? And that the final question was timed that way on purpose? I’m sure they would never do that… of course The moment people are treating as salvaging her in the debate may actually be the one which raises the most questions. Remember when she says her ear piece went out and she can't hear? That comment sits in the window right before she asked the charges question near the end. I’m sure it was just a normal production glitch. This debate had to happen in her home. A lot of the production ran through her system and her studio environment. PBD had control of the control room and Andrew brought his own camera, but the location and core setup were hers. Ear pieces can pick up different signals from different transmitters. Sometimes an official control room feed is one signal so the production team can talk to everyone. A second small transmitter somewhere else in the house could talk to the same earpiece on a different frequency. She hears both. Nobody in the shared control room has to know. A second transmitter would only be detectable if someone from PBD’s or Andrew’s team was actively running a spectrum scan and specifically looking for an extra signal while it was still transmitting. Once that private feed is turned off, a later scan finds nothing. In a house already full of wireless production gear, an extra low power signal does not just light up on its own. You have to be searching for it in real time. So if someone was in another room watching the public YouTube feed (which has a normal delay) and feeding her the list, that alone could explain the stall. But that’s just a fun theory & I’m sure no one would ever set that up before a debate they cannot afford to look bad in with an entire newly built Conspiracy cash industry on the line. Across the hours before, she does not appear to have another comparable stall where she looks around the way she did here. Notice she asked him that question near the very end when no more clips were coming. The semantics win of him not being able to name the charges would let them paint him as if he had no real knowledge of the case. She stalls for over a minute looking around… moralizing about not being under a time constraint… then cleanly runs the full list. Exact official order. Correct “next two charges” grouping. No searching once the list starts. The grouping language is unusually precise… almost as if a list is being read. And it matched the document order exactly. So either it was being fed to her (which would explain the delay and the exact grouping) or she simply remembered them all in perfect official order and decided to lecture him first. I’m sure it was the second one. I have not found any prior podcast where she publicly listed all 7 charges in order. Andrew seemed to feel something was off in real time. The phone check only clears texts which is one vector. She would only do the debate in her home. She turned down neutral platforms including the biggest platform in the world Joe Rogan. Home court advantage with a lot of her own system is still an advantage, even with shared control room access. I’m sure that was irrelevant though. Anyway that was just a theory of mine… because that’s how things work now. Nobody distrust the government more than me… you should always question them. With that said … they aren’t always lying. A good analogy is imagine spending an entire year claiming you can prove the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage. Then you finally show up for a 3 hour debate & get m asked for actual footage analysis… lighting any solid inconsistencies… leaked emails or texts… radiation data… and produce of it. Then you close the debate by listing Apollo astronauts & missions in order and because you can that you proved your case?

👀🤔Is it possible Candace was being fed the 7 charges through a private earpiece channel? And that the final question was timed that way on purpose? I’m sure they would never do that… of course The moment people are treating as salvaging her in the debate may actually be the one which raises the most questions. Remember when she says her ear piece went out and she can't hear? That comment sits in the window right before she asked the charges question near the end. I’m sure it was just a normal production glitch. This debate had to happen in her home. A lot of the production ran through her system and her studio environment. PBD had control of the control room and Andrew brought his own camera, but the location and core setup were hers. Ear pieces can pick up different signals from different transmitters. Sometimes an official control room feed is one signal so the production team can talk to everyone. A second small transmitter somewhere else in the house could talk to the same earpiece on a different frequency. She hears both. Nobody in the shared control room has to know. A second transmitter would only be detectable if someone from PBD’s or Andrew’s team was actively running a spectrum scan and specifically looking for an extra signal while it was still transmitting. Once that private feed is turned off, a later scan finds nothing. In a house already full of wireless production gear, an extra low power signal does not just light up on its own. You have to be searching for it in real time. So if someone was in another room watching the public YouTube feed (which has a normal delay) and feeding her the list, that alone could explain the stall. But that’s just a fun theory & I’m sure no one would ever set that up before a debate they cannot afford to look bad in with an entire newly built Conspiracy cash industry on the line. Across the hours before, she does not appear to have another comparable stall where she looks around the way she did here. Notice she asked him that question near the very end when no more clips were coming. The semantics win of him not being able to name the charges would let them paint him as if he had no real knowledge of the case. She stalls for over a minute looking around… moralizing about not being under a time constraint… then cleanly runs the full list. Exact official order. Correct “next two charges” grouping. No searching once the list starts. The grouping language is unusually precise… almost as if a list is being read. And it matched the document order exactly. So either it was being fed to her (which would explain the delay and the exact grouping) or she simply remembered them all in perfect official order and decided to lecture him first. I’m sure it was the second one. I have not found any prior podcast where she publicly listed all 7 charges in order. Andrew seemed to feel something was off in real time. The phone check only clears texts which is one vector. She would only do the debate in her home. She turned down neutral platforms including the biggest platform in the world Joe Rogan. Home court advantage with a lot of her own system is still an advantage, even with shared control room access. I’m sure that was irrelevant though. Anyway that was just a theory of mine… because that’s how things work now. Nobody distrust the government more than me… you should always question them. With that said … they aren’t always lying. A good analogy is imagine spending an entire year claiming you can prove the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage. Then you finally show up for a 3 hour debate & get m asked for actual footage analysis… lighting any solid inconsistencies… leaked emails or texts… radiation data… and produce of it. Then you close the debate by listing Apollo astronauts & missions in order and because you can that you proved your case?

Johnny St.Pete

29,120 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Senator Banks Remembers Brett Scrogham on Senate Floor WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) delivered remarks on the Senate floor about the senseless murder of 23-year-old Brett Scrogham and the urgent need for Indianapolis to end soft on crime policies that have enabled violent crime. “Madam President, 23-year-old Brett Scrogham of Greenwood, Indiana had a bright future ahead of him. After graduating as a top 100 student from the IU Kelley School of Business, Brett had plans to invest in housing properties and help his community grow and prosper. As a young child, Brett helped a neighbor rescue her dogs from a terrible house fire. Friends of his referred to him as “a God-fearing Christian man,” who was always willing to help people. Though I never had the chance to meet him, it’s clear to me that Brett was really an incredible person. And now I’ll never get the chance to meet this bright young man. Tragically, Brett was murdered in cold blood this weekend on his way to an Indians game with his family. The killing took place in a parking garage next to the biggest church in Indianapolis. College students and young families park there every week. I am heartbroken by this senseless act of violence. Brett’s family are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will arrest the murderer soon, who is still at large. The Mayor of Indianapolis put out a weak statement that didn’t even mention Brett’s name, and so I wanted to come down to the floor and talk about who he was and what’s happening in Indianapolis. Brett’s murder is the second murder in downtown Indianapolis in less than a week. Just before the Indy500, Gregory Anderson, a father of five children, was murdered in the downtown bar district in Indianapolis. And then last Sunday, a 16-year-old teenager was murdered in the Northwest Side of Indy. Mr. President, these murders have no place in Indiana, especially in our capitol city. Indianapolis is truly a great city, and it has so much going for it. Indy is home to incredible businesses, world-class sporting events like the Indy500 which took place last week, and so much more. But what’s been happening in Indianapolis is an epidemic. Soft on crime policies are ruining this great city. How much longer will we allow this to go on? The reason Indianapolis is plagued by violent crime is because Marion County lets it happen. Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears refuses to prosecute violent criminals. For example, one man in Indiana has faced over 30 criminal charges, most of them felony charges in Marion County, since 2020. This man should be locked up forever. But he’s not, thanks to Ryan Mears, liberal judges, and all of their soft-on-crime polices. And the rest of Indiana is punished for Marion County’s refusal to act. Ryan Mears is a prosecutor gone rogue. He refuses to keep violent criminals behind bars and is an absolute failure of a prosecutor. And it’s not only the prosecutor that refuses to enforce the law. State Sen. Andrea Hunley, also a Democrat, recently said with regards to crime in Indianapolis that “We are not going to ever enforce our way out of the problem.” That is not only a lie; it’s also an excuse. If we keep making excuses for why we can’t enforce the law and keep violent criminals in prison, we will never have safe neighborhoods and communities—and innocent people like Brett will continue pay the price. Everyone wants to talk about fairness, dignity and legal protections for criminal defendants. But what about Brett? Where was his fairness? Why do we talk about the dignity of criminals and never the dignity of their victims? We know how to keep our cities safe: we need to put large amounts of police officers on patrol, let them do their job, and ensure that criminals remain in prison. But the opposite keeps happening. 93 WIBC Indianapolis

Senator Banks Remembers Brett Scrogham on Senate Floor WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) delivered remarks on the Senate floor about the senseless murder of 23-year-old Brett Scrogham and the urgent need for Indianapolis to end soft on crime policies that have enabled violent crime. “Madam President, 23-year-old Brett Scrogham of Greenwood, Indiana had a bright future ahead of him. After graduating as a top 100 student from the IU Kelley School of Business, Brett had plans to invest in housing properties and help his community grow and prosper. As a young child, Brett helped a neighbor rescue her dogs from a terrible house fire. Friends of his referred to him as “a God-fearing Christian man,” who was always willing to help people. Though I never had the chance to meet him, it’s clear to me that Brett was really an incredible person. And now I’ll never get the chance to meet this bright young man. Tragically, Brett was murdered in cold blood this weekend on his way to an Indians game with his family. The killing took place in a parking garage next to the biggest church in Indianapolis. College students and young families park there every week. I am heartbroken by this senseless act of violence. Brett’s family are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will arrest the murderer soon, who is still at large. The Mayor of Indianapolis put out a weak statement that didn’t even mention Brett’s name, and so I wanted to come down to the floor and talk about who he was and what’s happening in Indianapolis. Brett’s murder is the second murder in downtown Indianapolis in less than a week. Just before the Indy500, Gregory Anderson, a father of five children, was murdered in the downtown bar district in Indianapolis. And then last Sunday, a 16-year-old teenager was murdered in the Northwest Side of Indy. Mr. President, these murders have no place in Indiana, especially in our capitol city. Indianapolis is truly a great city, and it has so much going for it. Indy is home to incredible businesses, world-class sporting events like the Indy500 which took place last week, and so much more. But what’s been happening in Indianapolis is an epidemic. Soft on crime policies are ruining this great city. How much longer will we allow this to go on? The reason Indianapolis is plagued by violent crime is because Marion County lets it happen. Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears refuses to prosecute violent criminals. For example, one man in Indiana has faced over 30 criminal charges, most of them felony charges in Marion County, since 2020. This man should be locked up forever. But he’s not, thanks to Ryan Mears, liberal judges, and all of their soft-on-crime polices. And the rest of Indiana is punished for Marion County’s refusal to act. Ryan Mears is a prosecutor gone rogue. He refuses to keep violent criminals behind bars and is an absolute failure of a prosecutor. And it’s not only the prosecutor that refuses to enforce the law. State Sen. Andrea Hunley, also a Democrat, recently said with regards to crime in Indianapolis that “We are not going to ever enforce our way out of the problem.” That is not only a lie; it’s also an excuse. If we keep making excuses for why we can’t enforce the law and keep violent criminals in prison, we will never have safe neighborhoods and communities—and innocent people like Brett will continue pay the price. Everyone wants to talk about fairness, dignity and legal protections for criminal defendants. But what about Brett? Where was his fairness? Why do we talk about the dignity of criminals and never the dignity of their victims? We know how to keep our cities safe: we need to put large amounts of police officers on patrol, let them do their job, and ensure that criminals remain in prison. But the opposite keeps happening. 93 WIBC Indianapolis

Johnette Cruz

15,472 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Someone stood on a piece of land, looked at a living, breathing dog who had done nothing but exist, and said: "Just shoot him dead." Not "get rid of him." Not "take him to a shelter." Not even "I don't want him anymore." Shoot him dead. I want you to sit with that sentence for a second before you keep scrolling, because everything that comes after it only makes sense once you understand how casually those five words get said in this world. Somewhere, right now, someone is saying a version of that sentence about a living thing that trusted them, or wanted to, or was still learning how. Most of the time nobody films it. Most of the time there's no ending. There's just a decision, made in under a second, by someone who will forget they ever made it. This time, someone didn't listen. This is the part where I'm supposed to tell you what happens next. I'm not going to. Not because I'm holding it hostage for engagement — okay, maybe a little — but mostly because the story doesn't work if I hand it to you pre-chewed. You need to watch a dog decide, in real time, whether the human species is worth the risk. You need to watch that calculation happen behind a pair of eyes that have every reason to say no. That's not something I can describe to you in a tweet. That's something you have to sit through. But I can tell you what it's about. It's about the gap. The invisible, unmeasurable gap between a dog who has been failed by people and a dog who has decided to try again anyway. Nobody talks about that gap. We talk about rescues like they're a single moment — the dramatic snatch, the shelter cage, the "and then everything was fine" — but that's not how trust works, and it's definitely not how fear works. Fear doesn't leave because you fed it once. Fear moves out slowly, one inch at a time, and it takes its shoes off at the door so you don't hear it coming back. PART ONE: THE VERDICT Here's what almost nobody says out loud: dogs get sentenced constantly, by people who will never be held accountable for the sentence. Too old. Too much energy. Too expensive. Doesn't match the new couch. Growled once at a toddler who was pulling its ears. In goes the verdict, out goes the dog — sometimes to a shelter, sometimes to a shed, sometimes to the side of a highway at 60 miles an hour with the door still swinging shut. And sometimes, if the owner is lazy enough and cruel enough at the same time, the sentence is the one you already read. Just shoot him dead. Nobody ever asks the dog's side. Obviously. He can't testify. He can't explain that he was scared of the vacuum, or that he barked at 2am because something moved in the yard, or that he never asked to be born into a house that saw him as a liability the second he became inconvenient. All he can do is react to what happens to him. And what happened to this one was a verdict that most animals never survive to tell. Except — spoiler-adjacent, not a spoiler — he did survive. That's the only thing I'll give you for free. He survived the verdict. What he did with the rest of the sentence, what it cost him to survive it, what he had to unlearn about people before he could stand near one without flinching — that's the part you're going to want your full attention for. PART TWO: THE DISTANCE THAT NOBODY MEASURES There's a very specific kind of animal behavior that people who haven't lived it will never fully understand: the dog who wants to come closer and physically cannot make his legs do it. You've maybe seen a version of it — the shelter dog pressed against the back wall of the kennel, the street dog who follows you for six blocks but won't take food from your hand, the "feral" label slapped onto an animal who is, underneath the label, simply doing math. Every approach is a risk assessment. Every human hand is a variable that could be gentle or could be the last thing he ever feels. You don't get to skip that math just because your intentions are good. The dog doesn't know your intentions. He only knows what hands have done before. So he keeps his distance. Not because he's unfriendly — dogs who've been failed are very often the most desperate to be loved, which is its own kind of tragic irony — but because distance is the only insurance policy he has left. He'll circle. He'll watch. He'll get close enough to almost, almost, and then something — a sound, a movement, a memory with no name attached to it — will send him back to the treeline, and you'll be left standing there wondering what you did wrong, when the honest answer is: nothing. It's not about you. It's about every hand that came before yours. This is the part of the story where most people give up. Not because they don't care, but because patience like that isn't natural. It goes against every instinct you have, watching a scared animal and wanting to just fix it today, right now, with one good meal and a soft voice. It doesn't work that way. It was never going to work that way. And the fact that someone didn't give up on this particular dog — that they let the timeline be the dog's timeline instead of their own — is the actual plot of the video you're about to watch. Not the reunion. The waiting. PART THREE: WHAT NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT REBUILDING TRUST You can't apologize your way into an animal's trust. You can't explain to a dog that you're not like the last person, that this time is different, that you promise. Words mean nothing to an animal whose entire understanding of humans has been written in actions. The only currency that works is repetition — showing up the same way, at the same pace, without asking for anything back, for so long that the dog's nervous system slowly, grudgingly, starts to recalibrate what a human standing nearby actually means. That recalibration has a cost, and the cost is time you don't get to see the value of until it's already paid. Every single day where nothing visibly changes is still doing something. The dog is watching. Filing data. Building, molecule by molecule, a case for why this particular human might be the exception. You don't get updates on that internal process. You just keep showing up and hope the math eventually tips in your favor. And when it does tip — when there's a first moment of contact, a first inch of distance closed that will never open back up the same way again — it doesn't look like a movie. It's not slow motion. It's not a soundtrack swelling. It's small, and quiet, and if you weren't paying close attention you'd almost miss it. Which is exactly why you need to actually watch this one instead of scrolling past assuming you already know how it goes. You don't. Nobody's story of rebuilding trust looks the same, and this one has a shape you haven't seen before. PART FOUR: THE CASUAL CRUELTY OF "JUST GET RID OF IT" Let's go back to that sentence, because I don't think we're done with it. Just shoot him dead. Think about what has to happen in a person's head for those words to come out that easily. It's not usually rage. Rage burns hot and fast and then it's gone. This is colder than that. This is the language of someone who has stopped seeing a living creature as a living creature and started seeing him as an inconvenience with a heartbeat — a problem to be solved, a line item to be closed, and closing it in the most permanent, least effortful way available. That mindset doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from a culture that has quietly taught a lot of people that animals are disposable the second they stop being convenient. That a dog is a product with a return policy. That love, if it was ever there at all, expires the moment it becomes inconvenient. You see it in the volume of animals abandoned every single year for reasons that amount to "we changed our minds." You see it in how easily people say "I'll just get another one" like a dog is a phone case. You see it in a sentence like the one that started this whole post — a sentence casual enough that the person saying it probably forgot they said it by the following week. But here's the thing about casual cruelty: it only wins if nobody's watching, and if nobody's willing to do the inconvenient thing instead. The inconvenient thing here wasn't dramatic. It wasn't a rescue montage. It was choosing, day after day, not to be the kind of person who says that sentence. It was choosing patience over convenience, presence over ultimatums, and a scared dog's timeline over anyone else's schedule. That's not a headline. That's just what actually saving something looks like, most of the time — unglamorous, slow, and completely invisible until suddenly it isn't. PART FIVE: THE QUESTION UNDERNEATH THE VIDEO Here's what I actually want you to sit with while you watch this, more than the dog, more than the backstory, more than the sentence that kicked the whole thing off: what would you have done? Not in theory. Not as the version of yourself that definitely would have been patient and kind and consistent for however many months or years it took. I mean actually — if a scared, unwanted animal showed up on your property and kept its distance for weeks, would you have kept showing up? If it took longer than you expected, would your patience have held? If someone told you it wasn't worth the effort, would you have believed them? Most people like to believe they'd be the exception. Most people, if we're honest, would've given up around week three. That's not a judgment — patience like that is genuinely hard, and most of us are stretched thin enough in our own lives without taking on a slow-motion trust rebuild with an animal who might never fully come around. But some people don't give up. Some people treat a scared, unwanted dog like he's worth more time than the person who wanted him dead ever gave him. And when you watch someone do that — really watch it, not skim past it — it recalibrates something in you too. It's hard to explain why watching a stranger be patient with a dog on the internet can hit as hard as it does. But it does. It always does. There's something in us that recognizes the shape of a second chance being handed to someone — something — who was told they didn't deserve one. PART SIX: WHY THIS ISN'T JUST A DOG VIDEO I know how this sounds. "It's just a dog video." I've said that about other videos too, right before they wrecked me completely. But there's a reason stories like this one land differently than the average "look how cute" clip. It's because underneath the surface, this isn't really about a dog. It's about the exact same question that shows up everywhere in human life, just translated into fur and silence and body language instead of words: what do you do with something — someone — who has been told they're not worth saving? Everyone reading this knows a version of that story that isn't about an animal. Maybe it's a person who was written off young and spent years proving the label wrong. Maybe it's a relationship everyone said wasn't worth the work. Maybe it's a version of yourself from a few years ago that a lot of people, maybe even you, had already given up on. The instinct to walk away from something difficult, something that isn't guaranteed to work out, something that might take way longer than feels reasonable — that instinct doesn't care whether the "something" has four legs or two. It shows up everywhere. And every time someone chooses to stay anyway, chooses the slow rebuild over the easy exit, it's worth paying attention to. Not because it's rare. Because it's rare enough that most of us forget it's even an option. PART SEVEN: WATCH IT PROPERLY So here's my actual ask, and it's a small one. Don't watch this with the sound off while you scroll to the next thing. Don't skip to the end because you already think you know how it goes — you don't, and skipping ahead will genuinely cost you the part that makes this different from every other rescue video you've seen this year. Watch the whole thing, start to finish, and pay attention to the parts that feel like nothing is happening. That's not filler. That's the actual story. The part where nothing seems to be happening is the part where everything is happening, quietly, underneath the surface, one cautious step at a time. By the time you get to the end, you'll understand exactly why that opening sentence exists at all — why I needed you to hear it before you saw a single frame. Because without it, this just looks like a dog being sweet. With it, you understand what that sweetness had to survive to exist. You understand what it costs an animal to trust again after someone decided his life wasn't worth the trouble of finding him a home. You understand that every soft moment in this video is standing on top of a decision that almost went the other way, made by someone who chose completely differently than the person before them. There is a version of this story that ends in a hole in the ground, unmarked, unremembered, unfilmed. Nobody would have known. That's the version that happens more often than any of us want to think about. This isn't that version. This is the other one — the rare one, the one that only exists because somebody looked at the same "inconvenient" animal that someone else wanted gone and decided that inconvenient wasn't the same thing as disposable. You're not going to get the details from me. You're going to have to watch it. But I'll tell you this much: by the end, "just shoot him dead" is going to sound less like a sentence someone said about a dog, and a lot more like a sentence that tells you everything you need to know about the person who said it — and absolutely nothing about the dog who proved them wrong. Watch until the very last second. The last few frames are the whole reason this post exists. If this hit you the way it hit me, don't just scroll past it silently. Send it to the one person in your life who still believes some things — some animals, some people — aren't worth the effort of saving. Let them sit with it the way I made you sit with that first sentence. Some verdicts deserve to be overturned in public. PART EIGHT: THE BIOLOGY OF A FLINCH There's a reason a dog like this doesn't just "get over it" the way people want him to. Fear like that isn't a personality trait. It's a nervous system that got rewired by repetition, the same way trust gets built by repetition — except rewiring fear takes a fraction of the time and undoing it takes ten times as long. One bad hand can undo a hundred good ones if it lands at the wrong moment. That's not the dog being dramatic. That's just how threat memory works in every mammal on this planet, humans included. You don't choose to flinch. Your body decides for you, based on evidence it collected before you were old enough to argue with it. So when you watch an animal hesitate at a hand that means no harm, you're not watching stubbornness. You're watching a very reasonable, very intelligent risk calculation running in real time, built entirely out of things that happened to him before anyone in this story ever showed up. The tragedy isn't that he was cautious. The tragedy is that caution was earned, fairly, by people who never had to answer for teaching it to him. What gets me every time I think about stories like this one is how much strength it actually takes to be cautious and still, eventually, choose to try again anyway. We love to talk about bravery like it only looks one way — loud, dramatic, obvious. Nobody talks about the bravery of a scared animal taking one more step toward a species that has already hurt him, on nothing but a hope that this time might be different. That's not the absence of fear. That's fear, fully present, being overridden by something even stronger. If you want to know what real courage looks like, it rarely looks like a superhero. More often it looks exactly like this — small, quiet, four-legged, and completely unaware that anyone's even watching. PART NINE: THE OTHER DOG NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT There's a supporting character in this story who never asked to be one, and who honestly deserves more credit than he's going to get in the comments section. Every rescue story like this one has a hidden variable that nobody accounts for: the animal who was already there. The one who didn't have to share space, didn't have to share attention, didn't have to be patient with a nervous, unpredictable newcomer showing up on his territory uninvited. He could have made this so much harder. He didn't. And that quiet, uncomplicated generosity — the kind you only get from an animal who has never once calculated whether kindness is worth the risk — is doing more heavy lifting in this story than most people watching will ever notice. It's worth sitting with that for a second, too. Some of the most important characters in any redemption story aren't the ones being redeemed. They're the ones who simply didn't complicate it. Who didn't guard the door. Who treated a stranger's fear as something to be curious about instead of something to be threatened by. If there's a lesson buried in a dog who never asked for one, it might be that one. PART TEN: WHY THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FAKE VERSIONS OF THIS You've probably noticed there's an entire genre of content built around manufactured redemption arcs — staged rescues, dogs that were never actually in danger, timelines compressed into a single afternoon to make the "transformation" hit harder on camera. I'm not going to pretend that genre doesn't exist, because you've almost certainly seen it and been burned by it before, which is exactly why so many people scroll past real stories with the same skepticism they've built up for the fake ones. That skepticism is earned. It's also, in this case, going to work against you if you let it make you scroll past this one too. The difference between the manufactured version and the real one is almost always pacing. The fake version wants to get to the payoff as fast as possible because the payoff is the whole point of making it. The real version drags in places, hesitates in places, spends way too long on moments that don't look like anything is happening — because that's what actually rebuilding trust with a frightened animal looks like when nobody's editing it for maximum dopamine. If a story like this feels slower than you expected, that's not a flaw. That's the tell that it's real. Real trust doesn't hit its mark on a fifteen-second cut. PART ELEVEN: A NOTE FOR ANYONE WHO'S EVER FELT LIKE THE DOG IN THIS STORY I said earlier this isn't just a dog video, and I meant it, but I want to say the quiet part directly instead of leaving it as subtext. If you've ever been the "too much" one — too sensitive, too cautious, too slow to trust, too hard to love without a manual — this story is for you specifically, not just as a metaphor but as evidence. Evidence that the people who wanted to give up on you were wrong about what you were worth, the same way the person in this story was wrong. Evidence that being difficult to reach doesn't mean you're not worth reaching. Evidence that the right kind of patience doesn't get tired of you the way the wrong kind of person did. You don't owe anyone an explanation for how long it takes you to trust again after something breaks that trust. Nobody gets to put a timeline on your healing just because your timeline is inconvenient for them. The dog in this video didn't apologize for taking as long as he took, and he shouldn't have had to. Neither should you. The people worth keeping in your life are the ones who show up consistently enough, for long enough, without demanding a schedule for when you'll finally feel safe. Everyone else was never actually offering you safety in the first place. They were offering you a deadline. PART TWELVE: THE LAST THING I'LL SAY BEFORE YOU GO WATCH IT I've spent this entire post refusing to tell you what actually happens, and I'm going to keep doing that right up until the end, because the not-knowing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do — it's making you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Good. That's the point. Some stories lose everything the second you summarize them. This is one of them. You can read a thousand words about the shape of trust being rebuilt, and none of them will land the way thirty seconds of actual footage will, because words can describe hesitation but they can't make you feel the seconds stretching while it happens. So go watch it. Watch the whole thing, not the highlight, not someone else's twelve-second repost with the context stripped out. Watch it start to finish, the way it was meant to be seen, and pay attention to how long the hard parts last compared to how short the resolution feels — because that ratio is the entire point. That imbalance, months of nothing followed by moments of everything, is what real change actually looks like, in dogs and in people both. It's never as fast as we want it to be. It's always worth it anyway. Somebody said "just shoot him dead" about a dog who turned out to be worth all of this. Go find out exactly how wrong they were. PART THIRTEEN: WHAT YOU'LL PROBABLY DO AFTER YOU WATCH IT I already know roughly how this goes, because it goes the same way every time a story like this actually lands. You'll watch it once, quickly, half-distracted, the way you watch most things in a feed built to keep you moving. And then something in the pacing, or the eyes, or the exact moment the hesitation breaks, is going to make you go back and watch it a second time, slower, actually paying attention this time. That second watch is always the one that gets people. The first watch is for your eyes. The second watch is for whatever part of you still remembers what it feels like to be given up on. Then you'll do the thing everyone does — you'll look at the comments, half expecting someone to have ruined it with a joke, and instead you'll find a wall of strangers who all had the exact same reaction you did, which is somehow both comforting and a little unsettling, because it means this feeling isn't rare. It means a lot of us are quietly carrying around the same soft spot for stories about being chosen after everyone else already walked away. We don't talk about that soft spot very often. We just recognize it instantly in each other whenever something like this shows up in the feed. And then, if the story really got you, you'll do the thing I already asked you to do earlier, except now you'll actually mean it — you'll send it to somebody. Not because you think they haven't seen a rescue video before. Because you want them to sit with that opening sentence the exact way you just did, cold, before they know how it ends. You want to watch their reaction the way someone once wanted to watch yours. That's not manipulation. That's just what people do with stories that matter to them. We pass them forward, hoping they land on someone the way they landed on us. PART FOURTEEN: THE ONE THING I WON'T LET YOU FORGET Before you go tap play, I need you to hold onto one detail, because it's the thread that ties this whole post together and it's easy to lose in a feed that moves as fast as this one does. The dog in this story is not a rare exception. He is not a lottery winner. He is one version, filmed and shared and lucky enough to have someone stubborn enough to see it through, of something that is happening constantly, everywhere, to animals who will never get a camera pointed at them and never get a caption written about them. For every one of him, there are dozens who got the other verdict. The one nobody films. The one that ends exactly where the sentence said it would. That's not meant to guilt you. It's meant to make the three minutes you're about to spend mean something more than entertainment. Every view, every share, every person who stops scrolling long enough to actually watch instead of skip, is a tiny, almost meaningless vote for the version of the story where patience wins instead of convenience. It won't save the ones who already didn't make it. But it might be the reason the next version of this story — the next scared animal on the next uncertain property, in front of the next person deciding whether he's worth the trouble — gets a different ending than the one that almost happened here. So watch it properly. Watch the pauses. Watch the eyes. Watch exactly how long it takes for something to shift, and remember that every second of that footage is standing on top of a decision someone made not to give up when giving up would have been so much easier, and so much faster, and so much more convenient. Somebody wanted him dead. Somebody else decided he was worth all of this instead. Now go watch which one turned out to be right.

Earth Unveiled

70,985 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

Canadian woman accused of striking U.S. teen identified by DHS The Canadian woman who assaulted a teenage girl on a New Jersey boardwalk for wearing Trump clothing has been identified. CTV News is now reporting her name as Kaitlyn E. Tracey, 33, apparently from Toronto. Surveillance footage of the attack has since surfaced — showing Tracey walk up to the teenager and strike her without provocation. Sheila Gunn Reid and Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 reacted on Thursday's Rebel Roundup with an update on a story covered earlier in the week. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed Tracey entered the United States on April 14, 2024 on a visa that expired on September 6, 2024. DHS described her as "a criminal illegal alien from Canada" charged with simple assault, neglect of a child, compounding crime, and harassing communication. She is being held at an ICE detention facility pending immigration proceedings. Toronto Police Service's 11 Division was thanked by the Point Pleasant Beach Police Department for assistance in the investigation, though TPS told CTV the role it played was likely minor and declined to elaborate. "If you are overstaying your visa, you are by virtue a criminal in the United States," Sheila said. "And then when you get a little wild on some teenagers who did nothing more than wear a shirt you didn't like — you're going to an ICE detention facility. That's how it works." Her husband, Matthew Geroni, launched a GoFundMe seeking $9,000 — which had collected roughly $4,500 before GoFundMe pulled it down for violating its policy against supporting individuals involved in violent crime. The same platform, Tamara noted, removed Freedom Convoy fundraising in 2022 without that justification. Geroni blamed a "pro-Trump mob" for the takedown. His own social media posts, surfaced earlier this week, showed him praying that Trump's grandchildren would get cancer and calling for another assassination attempt on the president. "People who are saying mean things about his wife are vile," Sheila said, relaying his complaint. "That's rich." Sheila drew the contrast with Canada's approach to illegal alien criminals. "If you get in trouble in Canada and you're an illegal alien, you will get a judge who will reduce your sentence so that it doesn't hurt your immigration status," she said. "Welcome to the real world, sister. You're from Canada's fallen state. That's not what it's like in the United States." Rebel Roundup airs Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday at 11 a.m. MT / 1 p.m. ET.

Canadian woman accused of striking U.S. teen identified by DHS The Canadian woman who assaulted a teenage girl on a New Jersey boardwalk for wearing Trump clothing has been identified. CTV News is now reporting her name as Kaitlyn E. Tracey, 33, apparently from Toronto. Surveillance footage of the attack has since surfaced — showing Tracey walk up to the teenager and strike her without provocation. Sheila Gunn Reid and Tamara Ugolini 🇨🇦 reacted on Thursday's Rebel Roundup with an update on a story covered earlier in the week. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed Tracey entered the United States on April 14, 2024 on a visa that expired on September 6, 2024. DHS described her as "a criminal illegal alien from Canada" charged with simple assault, neglect of a child, compounding crime, and harassing communication. She is being held at an ICE detention facility pending immigration proceedings. Toronto Police Service's 11 Division was thanked by the Point Pleasant Beach Police Department for assistance in the investigation, though TPS told CTV the role it played was likely minor and declined to elaborate. "If you are overstaying your visa, you are by virtue a criminal in the United States," Sheila said. "And then when you get a little wild on some teenagers who did nothing more than wear a shirt you didn't like — you're going to an ICE detention facility. That's how it works." Her husband, Matthew Geroni, launched a GoFundMe seeking $9,000 — which had collected roughly $4,500 before GoFundMe pulled it down for violating its policy against supporting individuals involved in violent crime. The same platform, Tamara noted, removed Freedom Convoy fundraising in 2022 without that justification. Geroni blamed a "pro-Trump mob" for the takedown. His own social media posts, surfaced earlier this week, showed him praying that Trump's grandchildren would get cancer and calling for another assassination attempt on the president. "People who are saying mean things about his wife are vile," Sheila said, relaying his complaint. "That's rich." Sheila drew the contrast with Canada's approach to illegal alien criminals. "If you get in trouble in Canada and you're an illegal alien, you will get a judge who will reduce your sentence so that it doesn't hurt your immigration status," she said. "Welcome to the real world, sister. You're from Canada's fallen state. That's not what it's like in the United States." Rebel Roundup airs Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday at 11 a.m. MT / 1 p.m. ET.

Rebel News

26,132 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

I’ve been called “wog” before. It nearly destroyed my life. I have no idea how I coped. It stopped me from starting a family, building a business and buying a home. It stopped me from being involved in Australian politics and even impeded my ability to sue a sitting Prime Minister from the executive of a major political party. It was debilitating… ahhhh, no. In truth, Australia is one of the most welcoming and fair-minded places in the world. When my grandparents migrated here from southern Europe some more than 100 years ago, they assimilated. They wanted to be Australian, their kids wanted to be Australian. After all that’s why they came. I was brought up Australian. We spoke English at home, and had friends of all backgrounds. But the one thing we had in common was our shared love for this country and a common Australian culture. I started growing up here before Paul Keating talked about multiculturalism. I don’t understand why people would leave their homelands and not want to be a real and full part of the Australian experience. If people want to keep their culture intact, and raise their children as something other than fully Australian, why come here at all? Some might say that there are cultures that are totally incompatible with our Western system, and I am not prosecuting that case, but if immigration (which has always been a part of the Australian story) is going to work and serve Australia, then surely people must be prepared to accept a new way of life upon arrival. It’s not as if the country has not afforded everyone great opportunities in the past - before the new post Covid era today, where there seems to be a total lack of opportunity for anyone. I always find it disturbing to hear politicians and talking heads in the media call Australia a racist nation - calling Australians racist. Many of these speakers are themselves recent immigrants. They sit in the Australian parliament and are paid by the Australian taxpayer, or they work for the ABC among other senior private and public sector positions. Many have much better lives and opportunities than people who have been here for hundreds of years, and even tens of thousands of years. They are privileged to have a voice, and instead of using that voice to thank the people of this country for the opportunities afforded to them, they slander us all. Call us names and try to shame us. Many of us gave up the cultures of our heritage to be a part of the Australian story and that is the only way we will have anything like social cohesion moving forward. Gratitude goes a long way, especially when one considers the fact that most immigration has been an imposition. There has rarely been a national conversation, or even any airtime given to those who would want to insist on a reduction or ending of the immigration programme. More, it is a sin to suggest that multiculturalism has failed. Forget the loss of trust and rights (like speech) that have been the absolute consequence of a system so obviously under pressure. I don’t care where you come from, what you believe, or who you think you are, if you don’t think you get a fair go here – you could always go back to wherever it is you come from. I’m sure it is the same advice I would be given if I were to go to whatever country that is and whinge about just about anything. The reason people stay is, even with the terrible political situation, it is still the best country in the world to live and raise a family and there are opportunities for anyone who wants to have a go. We must restore trust, and that starts with frank and honest conversations – even if they are unpleasant or inconvenient. I just want Australia back.

I’ve been called “wog” before. It nearly destroyed my life. I have no idea how I coped. It stopped me from starting a family, building a business and buying a home. It stopped me from being involved in Australian politics and even impeded my ability to sue a sitting Prime Minister from the executive of a major political party. It was debilitating… ahhhh, no. In truth, Australia is one of the most welcoming and fair-minded places in the world. When my grandparents migrated here from southern Europe some more than 100 years ago, they assimilated. They wanted to be Australian, their kids wanted to be Australian. After all that’s why they came. I was brought up Australian. We spoke English at home, and had friends of all backgrounds. But the one thing we had in common was our shared love for this country and a common Australian culture. I started growing up here before Paul Keating talked about multiculturalism. I don’t understand why people would leave their homelands and not want to be a real and full part of the Australian experience. If people want to keep their culture intact, and raise their children as something other than fully Australian, why come here at all? Some might say that there are cultures that are totally incompatible with our Western system, and I am not prosecuting that case, but if immigration (which has always been a part of the Australian story) is going to work and serve Australia, then surely people must be prepared to accept a new way of life upon arrival. It’s not as if the country has not afforded everyone great opportunities in the past - before the new post Covid era today, where there seems to be a total lack of opportunity for anyone. I always find it disturbing to hear politicians and talking heads in the media call Australia a racist nation - calling Australians racist. Many of these speakers are themselves recent immigrants. They sit in the Australian parliament and are paid by the Australian taxpayer, or they work for the ABC among other senior private and public sector positions. Many have much better lives and opportunities than people who have been here for hundreds of years, and even tens of thousands of years. They are privileged to have a voice, and instead of using that voice to thank the people of this country for the opportunities afforded to them, they slander us all. Call us names and try to shame us. Many of us gave up the cultures of our heritage to be a part of the Australian story and that is the only way we will have anything like social cohesion moving forward. Gratitude goes a long way, especially when one considers the fact that most immigration has been an imposition. There has rarely been a national conversation, or even any airtime given to those who would want to insist on a reduction or ending of the immigration programme. More, it is a sin to suggest that multiculturalism has failed. Forget the loss of trust and rights (like speech) that have been the absolute consequence of a system so obviously under pressure. I don’t care where you come from, what you believe, or who you think you are, if you don’t think you get a fair go here – you could always go back to wherever it is you come from. I’m sure it is the same advice I would be given if I were to go to whatever country that is and whinge about just about anything. The reason people stay is, even with the terrible political situation, it is still the best country in the world to live and raise a family and there are opportunities for anyone who wants to have a go. We must restore trust, and that starts with frank and honest conversations – even if they are unpleasant or inconvenient. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

56,057 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

In 2002, Elon Musk flew to Moscow three times to buy a refurbished missile. He couldn't close the deal. On the flight home, he asked himself: "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" He started SpaceX instead. 1 year later, he stood in front of Stanford students and spent 45 minutes explaining everything he'd learned about building companies: On starting Zip2: This was 1995. Most VCs on Sand Hill Road hadn't even heard of the internet. "I thought it would be a pretty huge thing. It was one of those things that only came along once in a very long while." He got a deferment from Stanford to start the company. "When I talked to my professor and told him this, he said, 'Well, I don't think you'll be coming back.' That was the last conversation I had with him." The problem: he had no money. "I couldn't afford a place to stay and an office. So I rented an office instead, because I got a cheaper office than I could get a place to stay." "I slept on the futon and showered at the YMCA on Page Mill and El Camino." "I was in the best shape I've ever been. Go to shower, work out, and you're good to go." There was an ISP on the floor below them. "We drilled a hole through the floor and connected a null modem cable. That gave us our internet connectivity for like 100 bucks a month." "We had an absurdly tiny burn rate. And we also had a really tiny revenue stream. But we actually had more revenue than we had expenses." They sold Zip2 to Compaq in early 1999 for over $300 million. "In cash. That's a currency I highly recommend." On starting PayPal: "I didn't really take any time off." He was looking for what remained in the internet. Financial services hadn't seen much innovation. "When you think about it, money is low bandwidth. You don't need some big infrastructure improvement. It's really just an entry in a database." They built a platform that combined banking, brokerage, and insurance in one place. That took enormous effort. Then they added a little feature that took one day: the ability to email money from one customer to another. "Whenever we demonstrated these two sets of features, we'd say, 'Look how you can see your bank statement and your mutual funds and insurance, all on one page. Look how convenient that is.'" "And people would go, 'Ho hum.'" "Then we'd say, 'And by the way, we have this feature where you can enter somebody's email address and transfer funds.'" "And they'd go, 'Wow.'" "So we focused the company's business on email payments." On viral growth: "PayPal is really a perfect case example of viral marketing." "One customer would essentially act as a salesperson for you. They would send money to a friend and essentially recruit that friend into the network." "So you had this exponential growth. The more customers you had, the faster it grew." "It was like bacteria in a Petri dish. It just goes like this S-curve." The results: "I ran PayPal for about the first two years of its existence. We launched after year one. By the end of year two, we had a million customers." "We didn't have a sales force. We didn't have a VP of sales. We didn't have a VP of marketing. And we didn't spend any money on advertising." On why product matters: "The essence of viral marketing is: do you have something where one customer is going to sell another customer without you having to do anything?" "Product matters incredibly. Because if you're going to recommend something to somebody, you've got to really love the product experience. Otherwise you're not going to recommend it." "You don't want to burn your friend." On company culture: "We had a pretty flat hierarchy. Everybody had a roughly similar cube. Anyone could talk to anyone." "We had a philosophy of best idea wins. As opposed to the person proposing the idea winning because they are who they are." "Even though there were times when I thought that should have been the way to go." On decision-making: "If there were two paths and one wasn't obviously better than the other, rather than spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one was slightly better, we would just pick one and do it." "Sometimes we'd be wrong and pick the suboptimal path. But often it's better to pick a path and do it than to just vacillate endlessly on a choice." On focus: "We didn't worry too much about intellectual property, paperwork, legal stuff." "We were very focused on building the best product we possibly could." "We were incredibly obsessive about how to build something that is really going to be the best possible customer experience." "That was a far more effective selling tool than having a giant sales force or thinking of marketing gimmicks or 12-step processes." On why he started SpaceX: "I was trying to figure out why we had not made more progress since Apollo." "In the 60s, we went from basically nothing to putting people on the moon. Yet in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, we've kind of gone sideways." "The computer you could have bought in the early 70s would have filled this room and had less computing power than your cell phone. Just about every sector of technology has improved. Why has this not improved?" He thought maybe public support was the problem. So he planned a privately funded Mars mission: put plants growing on Mars for $15-20 million. But the cheapest US rocket was $50 million. So he flew to Moscow. Three trips. Couldn't close the deal. "When I got back from the third trip, I thought: why is it the Russians can build these low-cost launch vehicles? It's not like we drive Russian cars, fly Russian planes, or have Russian kitchen appliances." "When's the last time you bought something Russian that wasn't vodka?" "I think the US is a pretty competitive place. We should be able to build a cost-efficient launch vehicle." On why rockets are expensive: "The energy and velocity required to get into orbit is so substantial that you have almost no margin to play with." "A launch vehicle will get about 2% of its liftoff mass to orbit." "If you're wrong by 2%, you're not going to get anything to orbit. It'll come crashing down in the Pacific somewhere." "That means all of your calculations have to be right. If you miscalculate something, it blows up." On how SpaceX got costs down: Their rocket: $6 million. Nearest competitor: $25 million for less capability. "There's no silver bullet. It's been really hundreds of small innovations and improvements." "We've done improvements in the propulsion system, the structure, the avionics, and the launch operations." "Our overhead in a 30-person company is an order of magnitude less than Lockheed or Boeing. Just for starters." "Every decision we've made has been with consideration to simplicity. Because simplicity both improves reliability and reduces cost." "If you've got fewer components, that's fewer components to go wrong and fewer components to buy." On being an entrepreneur: "I think really an obsessive nature with respect to the quality of the product is very important." "Being obsessive-compulsive is a good thing in this context." "Really liking what you do is important. If you don't like it, life is too short." "If you like what you're doing, you think about it even when you're not working. Your mind is drawn to it." "If you don't like it, you just really can't make it work." On parallelization: "Try not to serialize dependencies. Put as many elements in parallel as possible." "A lot of things have a gestation period. There's really nothing you can do to accelerate that gestation period." "If you can have all those things gestating in parallel, that is one way to substantially accelerate your timeline." "People tend to serialize things too much." On space as a business: Someone asked if SpaceX was a good first company to start. "No. I would not recommend it." "This is advanced entrepreneuring." "You know how many people have said: the fastest way to make a small fortune in the aerospace industry is to start with a large one." This 45 minute Stanford lecture will teach you more about building companies than every startup book combined. Bookmark & give it 45 minutes today, no matter what.

Jaynit

547,448 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce