Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐥 𝐆𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐡𝐢’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 “𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧” 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐬! He travels the nation claiming to defend India’s youth, yet stays silent as nearly 40 lakh students in Congress-ruled Telangana await ₹15,000 crore in unpaid fee reimbursements. Colleges withhold certificates, higher education stalls, jobs suffer, and... families drown in debt. Even the High Court has questioned the state government, yet the silence continues. The same failures haunt Karnataka and Keralam, where paper leaks and exam irregularities rob students of years and peace of mind. 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲. 𝐒𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬. 🎥show more

BJP

23,040,535 subscribers

77,414 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Nachrichten & Politik Sport

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨 BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari launches a blistering attack on Congress and AAP over paper leaks and youth issues! He says that while AAP-ruled Punjab and Congress-backed Jharkhand have faced allegations of paper leaks and rising unemployment, the Modi government has focused on expanding educational opportunities and strengthening safeguards against exam fraud. According to Bhandari, the Centre has increased the Education Budget from ₹79,451 crore (2013–14) to ₹1,39,289.48 crore (2026–27) — a 75.3% rise. He also highlighted: • IIT and NEET seats expanded by 1.5x to 2x. • 2 lakh+ startups created, boosting youth entrepreneurship. • A strict Anti-Paper Leak law with penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment. "Why Congress and AAP remain silent on 20%+ unemployment and alleged lathi-charge incidents involving students in Punjab, paper leak allegations in Jharkhand, and alleged seat corruption in Karnataka."

🚨 BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari launches a blistering attack on Congress and AAP over paper leaks and youth issues! He says that while AAP-ruled Punjab and Congress-backed Jharkhand have faced allegations of paper leaks and rising unemployment, the Modi government has focused on expanding educational opportunities and strengthening safeguards against exam fraud. According to Bhandari, the Centre has increased the Education Budget from ₹79,451 crore (2013–14) to ₹1,39,289.48 crore (2026–27) — a 75.3% rise. He also highlighted: • IIT and NEET seats expanded by 1.5x to 2x. • 2 lakh+ startups created, boosting youth entrepreneurship. • A strict Anti-Paper Leak law with penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment. "Why Congress and AAP remain silent on 20%+ unemployment and alleged lathi-charge incidents involving students in Punjab, paper leak allegations in Jharkhand, and alleged seat corruption in Karnataka."

Megh Updates 🚨™

21,286 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

𝐇𝐨𝐧'𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐢 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 (𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐥-𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡) 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧. Now, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has shamelessly admitted that he will give Rs. 1,000 crore from Telangana to the Sonia-Rahul family. Why is Revanth Reddy so worried about the economic condition of the Gandhi family instead of his own state where the 6 guarantees and 420 promises have not seen the light of the day? The truth is because for the past two years, Telangana’s RR Tax has become an ATM for the Congress party. After the BRS went on a borrowing spree pushing the state into a deficit, the Congress has now ensured that the Telangana Debt burden reaches Rs. 10 Lakh crores and still have not managed to show anything of worth that has been built in the state. The CM himself confessed publicly in a TV interview that Telangana doesn't have money to invest even Rs. 500 crores every month for Capital expenditure projects. Then how does he have 1,000 crores for the Sonia-Rahul Family? The RR Tax can be seen in several projects that the Congress government is executing in Telangana including in the demolishing of houses of the poor in the name of HYDRAA, taking away the land of tribals in Lagacharla in the name of industry, trying to forcibly seize the land of University of Hyderabad and Maulana Azaad universities, and taking away the land of industries in the name of HILT policy. All they are doing is looting Telangana like gangsters and keeping it for themselves. The Telangana Congress regularly travels to Delhi carrying gunny bags of RR Tax collections to protect their own positions.

𝐇𝐨𝐧'𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐢 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 (𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐥-𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡) 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧. Now, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has shamelessly admitted that he will give Rs. 1,000 crore from Telangana to the Sonia-Rahul family. Why is Revanth Reddy so worried about the economic condition of the Gandhi family instead of his own state where the 6 guarantees and 420 promises have not seen the light of the day? The truth is because for the past two years, Telangana’s RR Tax has become an ATM for the Congress party. After the BRS went on a borrowing spree pushing the state into a deficit, the Congress has now ensured that the Telangana Debt burden reaches Rs. 10 Lakh crores and still have not managed to show anything of worth that has been built in the state. The CM himself confessed publicly in a TV interview that Telangana doesn't have money to invest even Rs. 500 crores every month for Capital expenditure projects. Then how does he have 1,000 crores for the Sonia-Rahul Family? The RR Tax can be seen in several projects that the Congress government is executing in Telangana including in the demolishing of houses of the poor in the name of HYDRAA, taking away the land of tribals in Lagacharla in the name of industry, trying to forcibly seize the land of University of Hyderabad and Maulana Azaad universities, and taking away the land of industries in the name of HILT policy. All they are doing is looting Telangana like gangsters and keeping it for themselves. The Telangana Congress regularly travels to Delhi carrying gunny bags of RR Tax collections to protect their own positions.

G Kishan Reddy

30,256 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

YSRCP is trying to troll me on this video, shows the quality of the education of the YCP trolls. 🤦‍♂️ Isn’t it ironic? Here is the same video they’ve been posting, I’m sure edited in many different ways to twist my words. I think this is the problem, we had people in the last 5 years who don’t understand head or tail about education dictating the future of our state’s youth. As I’ve always been saying - YCP wants the poor to always remain poor, remain backward and never grow in their life. I don’t expect them to see reason though. You can make a blind person see with treatment, but you can never make a fake blind person who doesn’t want to see. NDA sympathizers, neutrals and anyone that is interested in higher education, this post is for you. Let me demonstrate with some select examples, there are many more - Issue 1 Promise - A very poorly thought out promise to make fee reimbursement full for total amount to all students. What they actually did - Realized they don’t have money, cut the approved fees of all good affiliated colleges in the state by half. By doing so, and not paying in time, forced good colleges to cut corners ( like reducing faculty salaries, reducing amenities to survive). Skipped 2 reimbursement cycle payments competely! All student who could afford and who understood quality is falling left the state or joined private universities. But who was the loser? Meritocratic low income students. Let’s take Gayathri Vidya Parishad as an example. Their fees were cut from about 1.6 Lakhs to about 80,000 per student if govt is committed to pay fully, they should have paid 1.6 Lakhs reimbursement right? Issue 2 Complete destruction of Andhra University and AP state universities. Andhra university in particular, by appointing an outright YCP activist as a VC who made AU as YCP party office in those 5 years. Sidelining all good people and only prioritizing people loyal to him and YCP. Not to the cause of education! Celebrating their party leaders birthdays on campus, installing statues, distribution of party flags, diverting funds for political purposes and forcing students to participate in political activity. Such a shame, was sad to see. Issue 3 The only way to protect the future of AP state universities was doing faculty recruitment, particularly assistant professors. We initiated recruitment of 2000 assistant professors in 2017/2018, which they went to court and stopped. And in their 5 years, they have done zero full time recruitment of faculty in State universities. Now we’re left with the mess they’ve left behind. Which we will resolve soon. Conclusion - I can keep going, but I’ll pause here. On behalf of the NDA government, we will not hesitate to point out problems and work hard to fix them. Our selection of VCs for 9 AP state universities has demonstrated our commitment to walk the talk. Any constructive criticism, I will take it positively and improve. But I will not back down from speaking the truth. Where is Prof GP Rajasekhar, current AU VC, who was formerly Dean and faculty member in IIT Kharagpur, India’s oldest IIT and where is the quality/values of the VC that YCP selected for AU and other universities in their 5 years. This simple comparison should be enough to demonstrate the difference between our approaches. Find my full speech at AU centenary curtain raiser below -

YSRCP is trying to troll me on this video, shows the quality of the education of the YCP trolls. 🤦‍♂️ Isn’t it ironic? Here is the same video they’ve been posting, I’m sure edited in many different ways to twist my words. I think this is the problem, we had people in the last 5 years who don’t understand head or tail about education dictating the future of our state’s youth. As I’ve always been saying - YCP wants the poor to always remain poor, remain backward and never grow in their life. I don’t expect them to see reason though. You can make a blind person see with treatment, but you can never make a fake blind person who doesn’t want to see. NDA sympathizers, neutrals and anyone that is interested in higher education, this post is for you. Let me demonstrate with some select examples, there are many more - Issue 1 Promise - A very poorly thought out promise to make fee reimbursement full for total amount to all students. What they actually did - Realized they don’t have money, cut the approved fees of all good affiliated colleges in the state by half. By doing so, and not paying in time, forced good colleges to cut corners ( like reducing faculty salaries, reducing amenities to survive). Skipped 2 reimbursement cycle payments competely! All student who could afford and who understood quality is falling left the state or joined private universities. But who was the loser? Meritocratic low income students. Let’s take Gayathri Vidya Parishad as an example. Their fees were cut from about 1.6 Lakhs to about 80,000 per student if govt is committed to pay fully, they should have paid 1.6 Lakhs reimbursement right? Issue 2 Complete destruction of Andhra University and AP state universities. Andhra university in particular, by appointing an outright YCP activist as a VC who made AU as YCP party office in those 5 years. Sidelining all good people and only prioritizing people loyal to him and YCP. Not to the cause of education! Celebrating their party leaders birthdays on campus, installing statues, distribution of party flags, diverting funds for political purposes and forcing students to participate in political activity. Such a shame, was sad to see. Issue 3 The only way to protect the future of AP state universities was doing faculty recruitment, particularly assistant professors. We initiated recruitment of 2000 assistant professors in 2017/2018, which they went to court and stopped. And in their 5 years, they have done zero full time recruitment of faculty in State universities. Now we’re left with the mess they’ve left behind. Which we will resolve soon. Conclusion - I can keep going, but I’ll pause here. On behalf of the NDA government, we will not hesitate to point out problems and work hard to fix them. Our selection of VCs for 9 AP state universities has demonstrated our commitment to walk the talk. Any constructive criticism, I will take it positively and improve. But I will not back down from speaking the truth. Where is Prof GP Rajasekhar, current AU VC, who was formerly Dean and faculty member in IIT Kharagpur, India’s oldest IIT and where is the quality/values of the VC that YCP selected for AU and other universities in their 5 years. This simple comparison should be enough to demonstrate the difference between our approaches. Find my full speech at AU centenary curtain raiser below -

Bharat Mathukumilli

67,406 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Cockroach Janta Party and the Fraud of Imported Revolution. (Take 2 minutes to read, please) CJP is a peculiar kind of politics that has appeared overnight. It does not build movements. It does not stand in the sun with students. It does not take lathis outside exam centres, universities or government offices. It waits in the cracks of public frustration and crawls out when there is enough pain to harvest. That is the politics of the Cockroach Janta Party. Its founder Abhijeet Dipke ex-chief strategist of the AAP, wants to speak the language of India’s youth while living at a comfortable distance from the anxieties of that youth, in the US. They want to lecture students on “system change” without understanding what it means for a 23-year-old to spend years preparing for an exam only to see the paper leak, the future pushed back and life being full of uncertainty. They want to sell rebellion like a product, but rebellion in India has never been a foreign-funded seminar, a drawing-room strategy session or a social media stunt. It has been sweat, risk, sacrifice and presence. And that is where their fraud begins. Those who remember the Anna Hazare movement know that India has seen this playbook before. A movement born in the name of anti-corruption was turned into a political launchpad. Arvind Kejriwal, once projected as the moral face of clean politics, eventually entered the very political arena he had claimed to stand above. The anti-corruption moment did produce a party, but Delhi later saw that moral capital collapse under scams, power games and the MASSIVE liquor policy case. The irony writes itself: the movement that claimed to cleanse politics ended up showing how easily outrage can be packaged, captured and converted into power. Anna Hazare’s 2011 anti-corruption campaign had Arvind Kejriwal among its most visible faces, and the movement later led to the decision by Team Anna members to enter politics. The Cockroach Janta Party is simply the latest version of the same experiment, after all gang members learn best from the boss. But Indian youth are not props in somebody’s political start-up. The real power of young India is not in imported cockroaches. It is in those who have repeatedly put their bodies between the people and an arrogant administration. It is in the Indian Youth Congress workers who have been on the streets against paper leaks, unemployment, price rise, exam injustice and institutional apathy. When students are betrayed, they protest. When youth are detained, they still confront. When police barricades are placed before them, they do not discover courage, when money hits the bank. They walk into the barricades. That is the difference between a movement and a marketing campaign. The Indian Youth Congress does not need to pretend to understand the anger of the unemployed, because it has stood with them. It does not need to manufacture solidarity with students, because it has been dragged, detained and bruised while raising their issues. It does not need to borrow the language of resistance from abroad, because its politics is rooted in the grammar of Indian streets: dharna, gherao, memorandum, arrest, march, lathi, comeback. The Cockroach Janta Party wants to appear radical without paying the price of radical politics. It wants the glamour of youth mobilisation without the discipline of organisation. It wants the aesthetics of revolution without the discomfort of accountability. Congress, has something these overnight political experiments will never understand: institutional memory. It has youth workers who know that fighting for students is not a seasonal campaign. It is not a donor-funded experiment. It is a long, exhausting, often thankless struggle against governments that think young people can be managed while their futures are stolen from them. This is why the attempt to sell the Cockroach Janta Party as a youth alternative must be called out clearly. It is a distraction. It is not a people’s uprising. It is an outsourced performance of rebellion. It does not represent Gen Z anger. It tries to colonise it. The youth of India do not need another political cockroach crawling out of crisis and calling itself hope. They need organisations that can fight before elections, during elections and after elections. They need people who do not disappear when the street becomes difficult. They need politics that is willing to bleed a little for them. That is where the Indian Youth Congress stands apart. Because real youth politics is not born in foreign-funded comfort. It is born on Indian roads, outside Indian institutions, in the middle of Indian anger. And unlike the Cockroach Janta Party, it does not crawl out of darkness. It stands in the open. The land of our great nation is witness: the Congress Party is the only party that can fight BJP on the streets. Congress Indian Youth Congress Indian Youth CongressTelangana

The Cockroach Janta Party and the Fraud of Imported Revolution. (Take 2 minutes to read, please) CJP is a peculiar kind of politics that has appeared overnight. It does not build movements. It does not stand in the sun with students. It does not take lathis outside exam centres, universities or government offices. It waits in the cracks of public frustration and crawls out when there is enough pain to harvest. That is the politics of the Cockroach Janta Party. Its founder Abhijeet Dipke ex-chief strategist of the AAP, wants to speak the language of India’s youth while living at a comfortable distance from the anxieties of that youth, in the US. They want to lecture students on “system change” without understanding what it means for a 23-year-old to spend years preparing for an exam only to see the paper leak, the future pushed back and life being full of uncertainty. They want to sell rebellion like a product, but rebellion in India has never been a foreign-funded seminar, a drawing-room strategy session or a social media stunt. It has been sweat, risk, sacrifice and presence. And that is where their fraud begins. Those who remember the Anna Hazare movement know that India has seen this playbook before. A movement born in the name of anti-corruption was turned into a political launchpad. Arvind Kejriwal, once projected as the moral face of clean politics, eventually entered the very political arena he had claimed to stand above. The anti-corruption moment did produce a party, but Delhi later saw that moral capital collapse under scams, power games and the MASSIVE liquor policy case. The irony writes itself: the movement that claimed to cleanse politics ended up showing how easily outrage can be packaged, captured and converted into power. Anna Hazare’s 2011 anti-corruption campaign had Arvind Kejriwal among its most visible faces, and the movement later led to the decision by Team Anna members to enter politics. The Cockroach Janta Party is simply the latest version of the same experiment, after all gang members learn best from the boss. But Indian youth are not props in somebody’s political start-up. The real power of young India is not in imported cockroaches. It is in those who have repeatedly put their bodies between the people and an arrogant administration. It is in the Indian Youth Congress workers who have been on the streets against paper leaks, unemployment, price rise, exam injustice and institutional apathy. When students are betrayed, they protest. When youth are detained, they still confront. When police barricades are placed before them, they do not discover courage, when money hits the bank. They walk into the barricades. That is the difference between a movement and a marketing campaign. The Indian Youth Congress does not need to pretend to understand the anger of the unemployed, because it has stood with them. It does not need to manufacture solidarity with students, because it has been dragged, detained and bruised while raising their issues. It does not need to borrow the language of resistance from abroad, because its politics is rooted in the grammar of Indian streets: dharna, gherao, memorandum, arrest, march, lathi, comeback. The Cockroach Janta Party wants to appear radical without paying the price of radical politics. It wants the glamour of youth mobilisation without the discipline of organisation. It wants the aesthetics of revolution without the discomfort of accountability. Congress, has something these overnight political experiments will never understand: institutional memory. It has youth workers who know that fighting for students is not a seasonal campaign. It is not a donor-funded experiment. It is a long, exhausting, often thankless struggle against governments that think young people can be managed while their futures are stolen from them. This is why the attempt to sell the Cockroach Janta Party as a youth alternative must be called out clearly. It is a distraction. It is not a people’s uprising. It is an outsourced performance of rebellion. It does not represent Gen Z anger. It tries to colonise it. The youth of India do not need another political cockroach crawling out of crisis and calling itself hope. They need organisations that can fight before elections, during elections and after elections. They need people who do not disappear when the street becomes difficult. They need politics that is willing to bleed a little for them. That is where the Indian Youth Congress stands apart. Because real youth politics is not born in foreign-funded comfort. It is born on Indian roads, outside Indian institutions, in the middle of Indian anger. And unlike the Cockroach Janta Party, it does not crawl out of darkness. It stands in the open. The land of our great nation is witness: the Congress Party is the only party that can fight BJP on the streets. Congress Indian Youth Congress Indian Youth CongressTelangana

Congress Hai Hum

87,825 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

President Donald Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and giving Elon Musk access to confidential Treasury records, say the media and Democrats. The American people didn’t elect Musk, said Democrats in a rally on Friday, where some House members were disallowed from entering the Department of Education. A judge on Friday restricted Musk’s team’s access to Treasury records. Trump yesterday, in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox, said that Musk would soon begin seeking efficiencies in the Departments of Defense and Education. As such, what’s happening is a “constitutional crisis,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin on Meet the Press, where he threatened a class action lawsuit on behalf of the American people. But there is no constitutional crisis. The American people elected Trump as president, and he, not Congress, exercises authority over all executive branch agencies, including USAID, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Treasury Department. Trump has clear Constitutional authority to audit the finances overseen by the Treasury and every other agency, and that includes assigning that audit to whoever he chooses. The Constitution grants Congress oversight duties but those powers do not include members being allowed to enter any executive branch building whenever they please. None of that means that the administration should ignore Congress, court orders, or the potential public health problems that could be created by the closure of USAID and freezing of its funds. Said the surgeon, New Yorker author, and former USAID official, Atul Gawande, on X, “20M people with HIV, including 500,000 children, have been cut off from access to medicines keeping them alive. Global HIV transmission, resistance, and deaths will now increase, endangering all.” Gawande added that, as a result of the loss of USAID, the US has lost critical bird flu surveillance, sacrificed humanitarian aid in Gaza, and halted the resettlement of former Islamic State combatants. USAID may have been doing and funding projects that were worthwhile. And it may be that Congress will need to pass legislation to continue those projects through the State Department. But it’s emotional blackmail to suggest the USAID closure and freeze on aid will kill African children. The Trump administration already created a waiver for HIV treatment and resumed aid for tuberculosis, malaria, and newborn health. And USAID’s health programs should be subject to scrutiny, given the agency’s history of using such programs as cover for other activities, including regime change and biodefense research. For example, under President Barack Obama’s administration, USAID was caught using an HIV program to foment rebellion in Cuba. USAID used EcoHealth Alliance as a passthrough organization to funnel $1.1 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting risky gain-of-function experiments that may have caused the Covid pandemic. As such, anyone who truly believes in public health for poor people in poor nations must agree that USAID needs to be reined in and cleaned up. That starts first with precisely the kind of audit the Democrats are trying to stop. After that, USAID — and other government agencies eventually — must justify what they are spending money on. The public’s interest is ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money is accounted for and justified. A major reason that the American people elected Trump was precisely because they believed he would reform the government, and that meant rooting out abuse, fraud, and waste. There is a large body of evidence of all three in USAID, the DOD, and the Department of Education. And, as for complying with the law on the closure of USAID, support for just such a law is growing in Congress. The media and others in Washington, D.C., have known for decades that USAID was a hub of fraud and abuse. The Washington Post cited two individuals with the Center for Global Development, a center-left think tank funded by Bill Gates that has been defending USAID, who told the Washington Post that a claim by Musk that just 10% of USAID money reached people on the ground was “wildly incorrect and misleading.” But their clarification — that just “10 percent of USAID payments are made directly to organizations in the developing world” and the “remaining 90 percent” is delivered by organizations in the US and developed world — underscored that USAID fundamentally isn’t working. Think about it. If USAID were so effective in achieving its ostensible goal of “development,” why are the countries it works in still so poor and underdeveloped? In truth, Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized for decades that USAID needed reform. In 2015, even the Center for Global Development urged a “top-to-bottom review of USAID’s sector- and country-based activities based upon program effectiveness, allocation of USAID resources, alignment with partner priorities, and national security implications” followed by “comprehensive reform.” As recently as 2021, the media acknowledged the obvious. That year, the New York Times published an article headlined, “U.S. Aid to Central America Hasn’t Slowed Migration. Can Kamala Harris?” In it the Times acknowledged that “experts say the reasons that years of aid have not curbed migration” is in part because “much of the money is handed over to American companies, which swallow a lot of it for salaries, expenses and profits, often before any services are delivered” — precisely the reason President Trump shut down USAID. Wrote the Times, “From 2016 to 2020, 80 percent of the American-financed development projects in Central America were entrusted to American contractors, according to data provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development.” It’s the same story for education. Just 10 days ago, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the latest test scores showing yet another decline in reading and continued flat-lining in math for eighth graders. The media described the test results as a “new low” and “even worse” than in the past and “disheartening.” Democrats and the media thus know perfectly well that the Department of Education’s work is either insufficient to counteract the decline or is actively contributing to it, and thus reform of the Department of Education is highly reasonable. And yet Democrats demanded they be allowed to enter the Department of Education headquarters in Washington as though to defend it. From what? Improvement? The position of the Democrats is even more ridiculous when one considers the example of the Defense Department. Will Democrats now, after decades of attacking military spending as wasteful, defend it? If they do, they will alienate their own partisans. But if they don’t, then they will find it difficult to answer the question of why reform is necessary in the military but not in the Department of Education or USAID? Making the situation even more surreal is that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who made the biggest push for government efficiency and reform in the last thirty years. In 1993, shortly after taking office, President Bill Clinton empowered Vice President Al Gore to oversee a “Reinventing Government” initiative. The aim was to streamline bureaucracy, cut costs, and improve government efficiency. It emphasized customer service, performance-based management, and innovation — all things that Musk is famous for implementing at his companies. It’s not obvious why Democrats are opposing Trump’s actions. Doing so reinforces that they are the party of waste, fraud, and abuse. Polling shows that public support for Trump is at an all-time high of 53%, according to a new CBS poll. By contrast, 57% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the worst numbers in 17 years. Nor is it obvious why the media has maintained its anti-Trump bias. The Washington Post’s daily traffic declined by nearly 90% from 23 million daily active users in January 2021 to 2.5 to 3 million in the middle of last year. In the week ending November 24, CNN and MSNBC lost 47% and 53% of their primetime viewership. Last month, CNN announced it was laying off 200 employees while MSNBC saw its president step down. Politico’s cofounder said last week that “The left right now, liberal media, has probably never been weaker in my lifetime than right now.” The public desperately wants reform, and 60% of the public has long supported cutting foreign aid, which has long been popular with the public. Why can’t Democrats and the media just embrace Trump’s government efficiency effort? Why are they engaging in such seemingly self-destructive behavior? Please subscribe now to support Public's award winning journalism, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article by alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger !

President Donald Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and giving Elon Musk access to confidential Treasury records, say the media and Democrats. The American people didn’t elect Musk, said Democrats in a rally on Friday, where some House members were disallowed from entering the Department of Education. A judge on Friday restricted Musk’s team’s access to Treasury records. Trump yesterday, in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox, said that Musk would soon begin seeking efficiencies in the Departments of Defense and Education. As such, what’s happening is a “constitutional crisis,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin on Meet the Press, where he threatened a class action lawsuit on behalf of the American people. But there is no constitutional crisis. The American people elected Trump as president, and he, not Congress, exercises authority over all executive branch agencies, including USAID, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Treasury Department. Trump has clear Constitutional authority to audit the finances overseen by the Treasury and every other agency, and that includes assigning that audit to whoever he chooses. The Constitution grants Congress oversight duties but those powers do not include members being allowed to enter any executive branch building whenever they please. None of that means that the administration should ignore Congress, court orders, or the potential public health problems that could be created by the closure of USAID and freezing of its funds. Said the surgeon, New Yorker author, and former USAID official, Atul Gawande, on X, “20M people with HIV, including 500,000 children, have been cut off from access to medicines keeping them alive. Global HIV transmission, resistance, and deaths will now increase, endangering all.” Gawande added that, as a result of the loss of USAID, the US has lost critical bird flu surveillance, sacrificed humanitarian aid in Gaza, and halted the resettlement of former Islamic State combatants. USAID may have been doing and funding projects that were worthwhile. And it may be that Congress will need to pass legislation to continue those projects through the State Department. But it’s emotional blackmail to suggest the USAID closure and freeze on aid will kill African children. The Trump administration already created a waiver for HIV treatment and resumed aid for tuberculosis, malaria, and newborn health. And USAID’s health programs should be subject to scrutiny, given the agency’s history of using such programs as cover for other activities, including regime change and biodefense research. For example, under President Barack Obama’s administration, USAID was caught using an HIV program to foment rebellion in Cuba. USAID used EcoHealth Alliance as a passthrough organization to funnel $1.1 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting risky gain-of-function experiments that may have caused the Covid pandemic. As such, anyone who truly believes in public health for poor people in poor nations must agree that USAID needs to be reined in and cleaned up. That starts first with precisely the kind of audit the Democrats are trying to stop. After that, USAID — and other government agencies eventually — must justify what they are spending money on. The public’s interest is ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money is accounted for and justified. A major reason that the American people elected Trump was precisely because they believed he would reform the government, and that meant rooting out abuse, fraud, and waste. There is a large body of evidence of all three in USAID, the DOD, and the Department of Education. And, as for complying with the law on the closure of USAID, support for just such a law is growing in Congress. The media and others in Washington, D.C., have known for decades that USAID was a hub of fraud and abuse. The Washington Post cited two individuals with the Center for Global Development, a center-left think tank funded by Bill Gates that has been defending USAID, who told the Washington Post that a claim by Musk that just 10% of USAID money reached people on the ground was “wildly incorrect and misleading.” But their clarification — that just “10 percent of USAID payments are made directly to organizations in the developing world” and the “remaining 90 percent” is delivered by organizations in the US and developed world — underscored that USAID fundamentally isn’t working. Think about it. If USAID were so effective in achieving its ostensible goal of “development,” why are the countries it works in still so poor and underdeveloped? In truth, Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized for decades that USAID needed reform. In 2015, even the Center for Global Development urged a “top-to-bottom review of USAID’s sector- and country-based activities based upon program effectiveness, allocation of USAID resources, alignment with partner priorities, and national security implications” followed by “comprehensive reform.” As recently as 2021, the media acknowledged the obvious. That year, the New York Times published an article headlined, “U.S. Aid to Central America Hasn’t Slowed Migration. Can Kamala Harris?” In it the Times acknowledged that “experts say the reasons that years of aid have not curbed migration” is in part because “much of the money is handed over to American companies, which swallow a lot of it for salaries, expenses and profits, often before any services are delivered” — precisely the reason President Trump shut down USAID. Wrote the Times, “From 2016 to 2020, 80 percent of the American-financed development projects in Central America were entrusted to American contractors, according to data provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development.” It’s the same story for education. Just 10 days ago, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the latest test scores showing yet another decline in reading and continued flat-lining in math for eighth graders. The media described the test results as a “new low” and “even worse” than in the past and “disheartening.” Democrats and the media thus know perfectly well that the Department of Education’s work is either insufficient to counteract the decline or is actively contributing to it, and thus reform of the Department of Education is highly reasonable. And yet Democrats demanded they be allowed to enter the Department of Education headquarters in Washington as though to defend it. From what? Improvement? The position of the Democrats is even more ridiculous when one considers the example of the Defense Department. Will Democrats now, after decades of attacking military spending as wasteful, defend it? If they do, they will alienate their own partisans. But if they don’t, then they will find it difficult to answer the question of why reform is necessary in the military but not in the Department of Education or USAID? Making the situation even more surreal is that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who made the biggest push for government efficiency and reform in the last thirty years. In 1993, shortly after taking office, President Bill Clinton empowered Vice President Al Gore to oversee a “Reinventing Government” initiative. The aim was to streamline bureaucracy, cut costs, and improve government efficiency. It emphasized customer service, performance-based management, and innovation — all things that Musk is famous for implementing at his companies. It’s not obvious why Democrats are opposing Trump’s actions. Doing so reinforces that they are the party of waste, fraud, and abuse. Polling shows that public support for Trump is at an all-time high of 53%, according to a new CBS poll. By contrast, 57% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the worst numbers in 17 years. Nor is it obvious why the media has maintained its anti-Trump bias. The Washington Post’s daily traffic declined by nearly 90% from 23 million daily active users in January 2021 to 2.5 to 3 million in the middle of last year. In the week ending November 24, CNN and MSNBC lost 47% and 53% of their primetime viewership. Last month, CNN announced it was laying off 200 employees while MSNBC saw its president step down. Politico’s cofounder said last week that “The left right now, liberal media, has probably never been weaker in my lifetime than right now.” The public desperately wants reform, and 60% of the public has long supported cutting foreign aid, which has long been popular with the public. Why can’t Democrats and the media just embrace Trump’s government efficiency effort? Why are they engaging in such seemingly self-destructive behavior? Please subscribe now to support Public's award winning journalism, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article by alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger !

Michael Shellenberger

123,199 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Rahul Gandhi has done it AGAIN. The man with the perpetual passport in his pocket has landed in Great Nicobar, posed in front of a few trees, and produced yet another video designed for one purpose only. To sabotage a project of national, strategic and defence importance for India. This is not concern. This is a pattern. Every single project that strengthens India gets the same treatment from this man. Rafale was a scam. Vande Bharat was an insult. Chandrayaan was a stunt. The new Parliament was a coronation. CAA was anti Muslim. Sengol was theatre. Every road, every port, every airport, every defence deal that makes Bharat stronger becomes, in his vocabulary, a “scam” or a “crime.” Whose interests is he actually serving when he travels thousands of kilometres only to demoralise a project that sits at the doorstep of the Strait of Malacca, through which 30 percent of global maritime trade passes? Whose strategy is he advancing when he tries to block India’s answer to China’s String of Pearls, the very port that will end our dependence on Colombo and Singapore for transhipment? Now let us bring out the data Rahul Gandhi will never put in his videos. The total area of Great Nicobar Island is around 910 square kilometres. Out of this, 853 square kilometres, that is 92 percent of the entire island, is constitutionally protected as Tribal Reserve under the 1956 regulation. The project footprint is 166 square kilometres. That is roughly 18 percent of the island, and the tribal reserve remains overwhelmingly intact. The tribal population Rahul Gandhi is suddenly weeping for is approximately 1,200. The Shompen, around 200. The Nicobarese, around 1,000. Eight hundred square kilometres of pristine, protected forest stays exclusively reserved for them. Untouched. Guaranteed by law. And here comes the inconvenient truth that destroys his entire video. The Tribal Council itself has issued a No Objection Certificate to the Government of India. The very communities Rahul Gandhi claims to speak for have already given written consent. The Gram Sabhas have passed resolutions. Yet this man parachutes in from Delhi, ignores the actual voice of the actual tribals on the actual ground, and decides HE will speak for them in English on Twitter for his foreign audience. Why English, Rahul ji? Why is the video tailored for international consumption? Why does every Congress attack on a strategic Indian project get amplified by the exact same Western NGOs and Survival International style outfits that have a track record of stopping infrastructure in developing countries while remaining suspiciously silent about Chinese ports in Hambantota and Gwadar? The pattern is too consistent to be coincidence. When India built Sela Tunnel, he was missing. When China built villages inside Arunachal, he was silent. When Galwan happened, he hugged the Chinese narrative. When Adani built ports for India, he attacked. When Chinese ports encircle India, he says nothing. Great Nicobar is not just an island. It is India’s southernmost frontier, 145 kilometres from Indonesia, sitting on the jugular of world trade. A transhipment port here means crores of dollars stay in India instead of going to Colombo. An airport here means our Navy and Air Force project power into the Indo Pacific. A township here means India finally populates and secures a territory that was nearly lost in 2004. This is exactly why someone, somewhere, wants this project killed. And Rahul Gandhi has volunteered, as always, to be the loudest voice for that someone. 1,200 tribals have said yes. 140 crore Indians want this project. The Supreme Court appointed committee has cleared it. The NGT has cleared it. The Environment Ministry has cleared it. Only one man stands in the way, video camera in hand, lecturing the nation from a forest he visited for the first time in his life. Bharat knows this script by heart now. And Bharat is not buying it anymore.

Rahul Gandhi has done it AGAIN. The man with the perpetual passport in his pocket has landed in Great Nicobar, posed in front of a few trees, and produced yet another video designed for one purpose only. To sabotage a project of national, strategic and defence importance for India. This is not concern. This is a pattern. Every single project that strengthens India gets the same treatment from this man. Rafale was a scam. Vande Bharat was an insult. Chandrayaan was a stunt. The new Parliament was a coronation. CAA was anti Muslim. Sengol was theatre. Every road, every port, every airport, every defence deal that makes Bharat stronger becomes, in his vocabulary, a “scam” or a “crime.” Whose interests is he actually serving when he travels thousands of kilometres only to demoralise a project that sits at the doorstep of the Strait of Malacca, through which 30 percent of global maritime trade passes? Whose strategy is he advancing when he tries to block India’s answer to China’s String of Pearls, the very port that will end our dependence on Colombo and Singapore for transhipment? Now let us bring out the data Rahul Gandhi will never put in his videos. The total area of Great Nicobar Island is around 910 square kilometres. Out of this, 853 square kilometres, that is 92 percent of the entire island, is constitutionally protected as Tribal Reserve under the 1956 regulation. The project footprint is 166 square kilometres. That is roughly 18 percent of the island, and the tribal reserve remains overwhelmingly intact. The tribal population Rahul Gandhi is suddenly weeping for is approximately 1,200. The Shompen, around 200. The Nicobarese, around 1,000. Eight hundred square kilometres of pristine, protected forest stays exclusively reserved for them. Untouched. Guaranteed by law. And here comes the inconvenient truth that destroys his entire video. The Tribal Council itself has issued a No Objection Certificate to the Government of India. The very communities Rahul Gandhi claims to speak for have already given written consent. The Gram Sabhas have passed resolutions. Yet this man parachutes in from Delhi, ignores the actual voice of the actual tribals on the actual ground, and decides HE will speak for them in English on Twitter for his foreign audience. Why English, Rahul ji? Why is the video tailored for international consumption? Why does every Congress attack on a strategic Indian project get amplified by the exact same Western NGOs and Survival International style outfits that have a track record of stopping infrastructure in developing countries while remaining suspiciously silent about Chinese ports in Hambantota and Gwadar? The pattern is too consistent to be coincidence. When India built Sela Tunnel, he was missing. When China built villages inside Arunachal, he was silent. When Galwan happened, he hugged the Chinese narrative. When Adani built ports for India, he attacked. When Chinese ports encircle India, he says nothing. Great Nicobar is not just an island. It is India’s southernmost frontier, 145 kilometres from Indonesia, sitting on the jugular of world trade. A transhipment port here means crores of dollars stay in India instead of going to Colombo. An airport here means our Navy and Air Force project power into the Indo Pacific. A township here means India finally populates and secures a territory that was nearly lost in 2004. This is exactly why someone, somewhere, wants this project killed. And Rahul Gandhi has volunteered, as always, to be the loudest voice for that someone. 1,200 tribals have said yes. 140 crore Indians want this project. The Supreme Court appointed committee has cleared it. The NGT has cleared it. The Environment Ministry has cleared it. Only one man stands in the way, video camera in hand, lecturing the nation from a forest he visited for the first time in his life. Bharat knows this script by heart now. And Bharat is not buying it anymore.

Oxomiya Jiyori 🇮🇳

17,967 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

For the last decade, the media has called the idea that America is ruled by a secret government of deep state intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Journalists at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR have portrayed claims about a “deep state” as paranoid fabrications pushed by Donald Trump and his supporters to discredit legitimate government institutions. They insisted that accusations of political bias or covert influence by agencies like the CIA or FBI had no basis in fact and served only to inflame public distrust. And yet over the same period, investigative reporting, including by the two of us, and official disclosures revealed that these agencies interfered in domestic politics in ways that aligned with that very narrative. The FBI launched a surveillance operation against the Trump campaign based on unverified opposition research. Dozens of former intelligence officials falsely claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story bore the “classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation, just weeks before the 2020 election. The Department of Homeland Security, along with the FBI and other agencies, coordinated with social media platforms to suppress speech under the banner of combating “misinformation.” These actions, taken together, suggest not a shadowy cabal, but a real and expanding infrastructure of state-aligned influence aimed at shaping public perception and countering populist dissent, just as the so-called conspiracy theorists claimed. The strongest argument against the existence of a secret government run by the deep state was the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024. If agencies like the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security truly exercised covert and unchecked control over American politics, it is difficult to explain how their most outspoken critic, and avowed enemy, returned to power. Trump did not merely criticize the intelligence community; he ran on a platform promising its reform. He vowed to purge partisan operatives, dismantle what he called politically weaponized agencies, and hold officials accountable for a pattern of lawless interference. And despite his direct confrontation with the national security establishment, Trump defeated Kamala Harris decisively, winning 312 electoral votes and a narrow popular vote majority. But now the Trump administration is attempting to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal under the rug, with the Justice Department claiming that there is no client list and that no further disclosure is warranted, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi explicitly stated publicly that there were “tens of thousands of videos” which means the ability to identify the individuals involved in sex with minors, and that anyone in the Epstein files who tries to keep their name private has “no legal basis to do so.” On April 28, 2025, in a candid off-the-record exchange caught on video, Bondi told a bystander, “There are tens of thousands of videos… and it’s all with little kids.” She later reiterated on May 7 that these were “videos of Epstein with children or child porn.” Bondi’s comments directly contradicted the official stance of the administration, which has dismissed calls for a client list and slowed efforts to release the full contents of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the deep state and hold elites accountable, his administration now appears to be protecting the same intelligence and law enforcement networks it once condemned. Strong evidence suggests that Epstein was part of a sex blackmail operation tied to intelligence agencies. Visitor logs show that William Burns, who served as CIA Director under President Biden, visited Epstein’s New York townhouse multiple times. The Wall Street Journal reported those visits in 2023 based on Epstein’s private calendar. In 2017, Alex Acosta, the Justice Department official who gave Epstein his 2008 plea deal, told Trump transition officials that he was told to back off Epstein because he “belonged to intelligence.” The Justice Department later admitted that all eleven months of Acosta’s emails from that period had disappeared. This failure to follow through seriously undermines Trump’s explicit commitments to reform and shine light on the deep state. This is not just about Epstein. The Trump administration has not been particularly transparent about much else. The CIA, to its credit, released an internal evaluation last week admitting it had erred in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment by claiming that Russia “aspired to” help elect Trump. But it stood by the overall assessment, signaling the agency’s reluctance to admit fault, its continued defensiveness in the face of mounting evidence, and its impunity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has disclosed a limited amount of information about intelligence community abuses during the pandemic, including the targeting of COVID vaccine dissenters as potential violent extremists. But beyond that, the Trump administration has released very little, even on issues where transparency would appear to be in its political interest. The administration has kept classified large volumes of material related to COVID origins, the FBI’s role in Russiagate, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and unidentified anomalous phenomena. It is thus hard not to conclude that the intelligence community continues to operate in violation of the constitutional system of checks and balances by evading meaningful congressional oversight. The Constitution grants Congress the power and responsibility to oversee the executive branch, including intelligence agencies, through budgetary control, public hearings, and access to classified information. And yet the intelligence community is withholding and heavily redacting documents, delaying responses to lawful inquiries, and using national security classifications to avoid scrutiny. This persistent obstruction undermines the legislative branch’s ability to hold agencies accountable and distorts the balance of power the framers designed. When unelected intelligence officials can withhold information not only from the public but from elected representatives, constitutional oversight becomes a formality rather than a functioning safeguard. Few independent journalists have done more than we have to defend Donald Trump and the MAGA movement against the weaponization of the intelligence community and deep state agencies. Over the past two and a half years, we have published hundreds of investigative articles and testified before Congress about unconstitutional abuses of power by the CIA, FBI, DHS, and their proxies. We exposed efforts to censor Trump and his supporters through a sprawling Censorship Industrial Complex, documented the manipulation of the justice system to prosecute Trump on politicized grounds, and revealed how U.S. and foreign agencies coordinated mass surveillance of speech. We defended Trump from false and malicious claims, showed that his administration obeyed court orders, and disproved the narrative that he violated democratic norms more than Democrats. We were the first to report new evidence that President Obama’s CIA Director ordered spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance and interfere in the 2016 election. After Trump’s reelection, we published investigations revealing abuses of power by USAID and the Department of Education. We editorialized in support of his lawful executive orders ending DEI and gender-affirming procedures for minors. We exposed the CIA and USAID’s role in supporting the 2019 impeachment effort and their connection to the Russia collusion hoax. In all this, we have consistently made the case that Trump’s victory was not just political, it was moral. Given all we have done to expose the Censorship Industrial Complex and intelligence community abuses of power, Public’s readers rightly expect us to follow through on these concerns, no matter who holds office. We did not spend years documenting unconstitutional secrecy, surveillance, and coercion only to remain silent when the administration we defended begins to mirror the behavior we condemned. Our commitment is not to any one leader or party, but to the Constitution, to civil liberties, and to the principle that no government, Democratic or Republican, should be allowed to rule through secrecy, coercion, or fear. To prove it is not simply the latest custodian of the deep state, the Trump administration must release the Epstein videos and related evidence, fully expose the scope of the sex trafficking and apparent IC blackmail operation, and ensure that every perpetrator, regardless of power or position, is held accountable under the law. It must also release the long-withheld files on COVID origins, Russiagate, the Hunter Biden laptop, January 6, unidentified aerial phenomena, and other topics. Even if these files do not reveal any “smoking guns,” the public has a right to full transparency. Only through this transparency can the credibility of the intelligence community be restored. Congress must step up as well. Legislative leaders must hold public hearings on each of these issues, issue subpoenas if necessary, and demand full executive branch compliance with oversight. The Constitution grants Congress, not the intelligence agencies, the power to check secrecy, correct abuse, and uphold the rule of law. These are not matters of political convenience but constitutional obligation. The American people have the right to know what their government has done in their name and against their rights. If the Trump administration fails to act, it will confirm the fear that even the most populist and combative president can be captured or neutralized by the very system he vowed to dismantle. And it will lose much of the legitimacy it gained by surviving and overcoming the lawfare, censorship, and weaponization of the deep state against it. Many within the Trump administration acknowledge this and note that this is hardly the end of the Epstein affair. “This is a total fucking disaster,” someone within the Intelligence Community told us this afternoon, as we were going to press with this editorial. After we pointed out that the Attorney General said one thing and now the Justice Department, FBI Director, and Deputy FBI Director are all saying the opposite, the person said, “I hope you ask these questions. These are the questions that need to be asked. We’re in a time when information flows more freely. If people think that this is going to go away — I don’t see how it can.” Nor, we would add, should it.

Michael Shellenberger

2,054,594 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“Totalitarian” Powers, Fear, And Psychopathy Behind CIA’s Secret Rule Over U.S. The agency remains out of control, beyond the law, and a direct threat to democracy and freedom, including in the U.S. by Michael Shellenberger Last week, we published two stories about a senior CIA whistleblower who was one of four CIA analysts who helped write a January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that falsely claimed, with high confidence, that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help elect President Donald Trump in 2016. The person said that the CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, had a “pathological need for control” and put the writers of the ICA “under duress” to include a mention of a fraudulent dossier, commissioned by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The CIA also included in the classified version of the ICA an annex consisting of the dossier written by a former British spy, which went to roughly 200 people in Washington, some of whom leaked related information to journalists. Unfortunately, the CIA employee said, his employer remains corrupted by “systemic rot” and that crucial steps “have not been put in place" to prevent a Russiagate-like abuse of power from happening again, since the arrival of its new director, John Ratcliffe, in January of this year. “Two critical steps that have not been put in place are,” said the senior analyst turned whistleblower, “to first, formalize expectations about the delivery timeline for sensitive intelligence analyses, and second, to remove the CIA Director from the review process of intelligence reporting or finished analysis.” In response to questions from Public, the CIA said it was taking necessary reforms. “Director Ratcliffe has overhauled the Agency senior ranks and revoked clearances from bad actors and even created a mission center to better execute on Presidential priorities like the Southern Border. The notion that he’s not making significant reforms or holding people and the Agency accountable is not just ridiculously false but beyond absurd.” But the CIA’s revoking security clearances and creating a mission center do not address either of the whistleblower’s recommendations, much less the “systemic rot” within the CIA. The whistleblower called for the removal of the Director of the CIA from review and writing of intelligence analysis, and taking a step to avoid rush jobs, like the kind Brennan used to create a deliberately misleading ICA in January 2017. The whistleblower’s credibility is high. They were one of just four CIA analysts chosen to help write a major ICA. That might make them seem biased toward Brennan, but Ratcliffe has retained the person, rather than fired them, which suggests that the Director or the direct reports he trusts view the person as valuable. Our sense was that the person was loyal to the CIA, wants to engage in objective apolitical analyses, and wants to remain at the CIA. Their two modest proposed reforms are consistent with loyalty to the CIA. As such, the person is precisely the kind of professional the CIA, Congress, and the American people should want to have in our institutions. If a legitimate criticism is to be made of the person it would be that they didn’t turn whistleblower earlier, which is the same criticism that could be made against hundreds and perhaps thousands of people involved in the Russiagate hoax. One might hope that it was just a bad day for the PR people at the CIA, and that Ratcliffe will be out with a new statement this week announcing new reforms, but we are not hopeful. The CIA appears to be following its informal motto, “Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counteraccusations.” That was the advice that former CIA Director Porter Goss said he would give to “a graduating class of CIA case officers” in 2006. The Russiagate hoax is hardly an unusual scandal in the history of the CIA. The agency has “long gone beyond the borders of American values,” noted Tim Weiner in his 812-page history, Legacy of Ashes. The CIA has murdered its employees, overthrown democracies, propped up dictatorships, tortured innocent people, trained death squads, induced mental illness in illegal medical experiments, spied illegally on law-abiding Americans, and may have been behind the assassination of an American president. All of these illegal behaviors required cover-ups, many of them elaborate. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,” said James Angleton, one of the CIA’s founders, and its Director of Counterintelligence for two decades, on his deathbed in 1987. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them there soon.” The CIA’s record is poor when evaluated on its own terms. “The CIA was established to prevent unanticipated disasters, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” noted John Judis in 2005, “but it has repeatedly failed to warn the White House of looming threats. It missed the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, and the Chinese entry into the war that fall; Israel, France, and Great Britain's attack on the Suez Canal and Egypt in 1956; the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968; the Shah of Iran's ouster in 1979; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that year; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990; the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 (‘We didn't have a clue,’ CIA director George Tenet remarked afterwards); the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of American military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole in 2000; and of course the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September 2001.” The truth, admitted a CIA station chief, “was that the agency at the height of its powers had a great reputation and a terrible record.” It never had a single Soviet spy “who had deep insight into the workings of the Kremlin,” and thus didn’t know communism was collapsing. “The one crime of lasting consequence has been the CIA’s inability to carry out its central mission: informing the president of what is happening in the world,” writes Weiner. Its record in the real world is one of “fleeting successes and long-lasting failures.” The politicization and weaponization of the CIA for ideological aims has occurred for decades. The CIA’s charter prevents it from spying on Americans and yet it has done so repeatedly, from opening mail to spying on students. Between 1947 and 1963, the CIA was “a dark and invasive force — at home and abroad — violating citizens’ privacy, kidnapping, torturing, and killing at will,” concluded David Talbot in his 686-page history of the CIA, The Devil’s Chessboard. There were many reforms proposed in the 1970s. In 1975, Congress held hearings, revealing CIA misdeeds around the world, including assassinations using a heart attack gun, and efforts at mind control. Congress then took steps to provide greater oversight of the CIA and more protections for whistleblowers. Calls for reforms began again in the 1990s after a decade of CIA scandals in the 1980s, which included selling weapons to the Iranian government and illegally diverting the money to an equally illegal war in Central America. In 1991 and 1996, the US Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan, who had been one of America’s most influential public intellectuals for thirty years, proposed abolishing the CIA entirely and reassigning its various functions to the State Department. The proposal never came up for a vote. In 1998, America’s intelligence leaders warned the White House that America would suffer “a catastrophic, systemic failure,” unless the U.S. dramatically changed how it gathered and analyzed intelligence. That didn’t happen. Then, in 2001, the CIA failed to communicate with the FBI and thus played a central role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. In 2002, the CIA manipulated intelligence that led to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. In response to these failures, Congress in 2004 sought to reform the agency and the broader Intelligence Community. The intent of Congress in passing new legislation was to reduce the power of the CIA, and its Director, and increase the power of a new intelligence coordinator role, which it called the Director of National Intelligence. That didn’t happen. The “CIA is broken,” wrote John Judis one year later. The 2004 reform act didn’t address the “historical problems with the CIA.” “To repair it,” he concluded, “we may need to start from scratch.” That didn’t happen either. In 2016 and 2017, the CIA manipulated intelligence to falsely frame the democratically elected U.S. president as a puppet for a foreign power, and from 2016 to 2020, individuals who worked at the CIA oversaw various efforts to control what people are allowed to say on social media. Neither the Russiagate hoax scandal nor the CIA’s role in creating a Censorship Industrial Complex resulted in reform or even serious calls for it by Congress. Multiple sources tell Public that the CIA remains both the dominant agency of the 18 total in the IC, and the one most resistant to reforms. The Washington Post reported last week that the CIA resisted efforts for greater transparency led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. And now the CIA has said we should ignore the whistleblowing by one of its most trusted senior analysts, and their demands for reform. None of this is new. In 1947, the year Congress created the CIA, the Secretary of State at the time, Dean Acheson, said he “had the gravest forebodings” about it and “warned the President that neither he” nor anyone else would be able “to control it.” Between 1947 and 2005 there were 14 major studies by various bodies into how to reform the IC. The CIA “has had an almost perfect record of resisting fundamental changes,” noted Weiner in his 2006 book. Meanwhile, Congress has failed its Constitutional duty to provide oversight. “The CIA has tried to assassinate foreign leaders, mined harbors, and most recently, tortured prisoners,” wrote Judis in 2005. “If Congress had openly debated these actions, they would not have been approved.” They didn’t and have never much demanded to be able to. Members of Congress “have been derelict in this work for much of the past three decades,” noted Weiner two years later, “but their conduct since 9/11 has bordered on criminal negligence.” Looking at the full historical record, it is hard not to conclude that the American people only partially govern themselves, that we are burdened with a rogue and violent intelligence agency that continuously interferes not only in foreign elections and governments but also our own, and that many on the Right and the Left who appear to be in a position to change that refuse to do so. Why is that? Why have Congress and the American people failed for 80 years to reform a rogue intelligence agency that is not only ineffective but also destructive to the point of undermining national security? And what, if anything, can be done about it? If you're not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech and democracy, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article!

“Totalitarian” Powers, Fear, And Psychopathy Behind CIA’s Secret Rule Over U.S. The agency remains out of control, beyond the law, and a direct threat to democracy and freedom, including in the U.S. by Michael Shellenberger Last week, we published two stories about a senior CIA whistleblower who was one of four CIA analysts who helped write a January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that falsely claimed, with high confidence, that Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to help elect President Donald Trump in 2016. The person said that the CIA Director under Obama, John Brennan, had a “pathological need for control” and put the writers of the ICA “under duress” to include a mention of a fraudulent dossier, commissioned by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The CIA also included in the classified version of the ICA an annex consisting of the dossier written by a former British spy, which went to roughly 200 people in Washington, some of whom leaked related information to journalists. Unfortunately, the CIA employee said, his employer remains corrupted by “systemic rot” and that crucial steps “have not been put in place" to prevent a Russiagate-like abuse of power from happening again, since the arrival of its new director, John Ratcliffe, in January of this year. “Two critical steps that have not been put in place are,” said the senior analyst turned whistleblower, “to first, formalize expectations about the delivery timeline for sensitive intelligence analyses, and second, to remove the CIA Director from the review process of intelligence reporting or finished analysis.” In response to questions from Public, the CIA said it was taking necessary reforms. “Director Ratcliffe has overhauled the Agency senior ranks and revoked clearances from bad actors and even created a mission center to better execute on Presidential priorities like the Southern Border. The notion that he’s not making significant reforms or holding people and the Agency accountable is not just ridiculously false but beyond absurd.” But the CIA’s revoking security clearances and creating a mission center do not address either of the whistleblower’s recommendations, much less the “systemic rot” within the CIA. The whistleblower called for the removal of the Director of the CIA from review and writing of intelligence analysis, and taking a step to avoid rush jobs, like the kind Brennan used to create a deliberately misleading ICA in January 2017. The whistleblower’s credibility is high. They were one of just four CIA analysts chosen to help write a major ICA. That might make them seem biased toward Brennan, but Ratcliffe has retained the person, rather than fired them, which suggests that the Director or the direct reports he trusts view the person as valuable. Our sense was that the person was loyal to the CIA, wants to engage in objective apolitical analyses, and wants to remain at the CIA. Their two modest proposed reforms are consistent with loyalty to the CIA. As such, the person is precisely the kind of professional the CIA, Congress, and the American people should want to have in our institutions. If a legitimate criticism is to be made of the person it would be that they didn’t turn whistleblower earlier, which is the same criticism that could be made against hundreds and perhaps thousands of people involved in the Russiagate hoax. One might hope that it was just a bad day for the PR people at the CIA, and that Ratcliffe will be out with a new statement this week announcing new reforms, but we are not hopeful. The CIA appears to be following its informal motto, “Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counteraccusations.” That was the advice that former CIA Director Porter Goss said he would give to “a graduating class of CIA case officers” in 2006. The Russiagate hoax is hardly an unusual scandal in the history of the CIA. The agency has “long gone beyond the borders of American values,” noted Tim Weiner in his 812-page history, Legacy of Ashes. The CIA has murdered its employees, overthrown democracies, propped up dictatorships, tortured innocent people, trained death squads, induced mental illness in illegal medical experiments, spied illegally on law-abiding Americans, and may have been behind the assassination of an American president. All of these illegal behaviors required cover-ups, many of them elaborate. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,” said James Angleton, one of the CIA’s founders, and its Director of Counterintelligence for two decades, on his deathbed in 1987. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell. I guess I will see them there soon.” The CIA’s record is poor when evaluated on its own terms. “The CIA was established to prevent unanticipated disasters, such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,” noted John Judis in 2005, “but it has repeatedly failed to warn the White House of looming threats. It missed the North Korean invasion of the South in 1950, and the Chinese entry into the war that fall; Israel, France, and Great Britain's attack on the Suez Canal and Egypt in 1956; the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968; the Shah of Iran's ouster in 1979; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that year; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990; the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 (‘We didn't have a clue,’ CIA director George Tenet remarked afterwards); the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; the bombing of American military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and of U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole in 2000; and of course the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September 2001.” The truth, admitted a CIA station chief, “was that the agency at the height of its powers had a great reputation and a terrible record.” It never had a single Soviet spy “who had deep insight into the workings of the Kremlin,” and thus didn’t know communism was collapsing. “The one crime of lasting consequence has been the CIA’s inability to carry out its central mission: informing the president of what is happening in the world,” writes Weiner. Its record in the real world is one of “fleeting successes and long-lasting failures.” The politicization and weaponization of the CIA for ideological aims has occurred for decades. The CIA’s charter prevents it from spying on Americans and yet it has done so repeatedly, from opening mail to spying on students. Between 1947 and 1963, the CIA was “a dark and invasive force — at home and abroad — violating citizens’ privacy, kidnapping, torturing, and killing at will,” concluded David Talbot in his 686-page history of the CIA, The Devil’s Chessboard. There were many reforms proposed in the 1970s. In 1975, Congress held hearings, revealing CIA misdeeds around the world, including assassinations using a heart attack gun, and efforts at mind control. Congress then took steps to provide greater oversight of the CIA and more protections for whistleblowers. Calls for reforms began again in the 1990s after a decade of CIA scandals in the 1980s, which included selling weapons to the Iranian government and illegally diverting the money to an equally illegal war in Central America. In 1991 and 1996, the US Senator from New York, Patrick Moynihan, who had been one of America’s most influential public intellectuals for thirty years, proposed abolishing the CIA entirely and reassigning its various functions to the State Department. The proposal never came up for a vote. In 1998, America’s intelligence leaders warned the White House that America would suffer “a catastrophic, systemic failure,” unless the U.S. dramatically changed how it gathered and analyzed intelligence. That didn’t happen. Then, in 2001, the CIA failed to communicate with the FBI and thus played a central role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. In 2002, the CIA manipulated intelligence that led to the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. In response to these failures, Congress in 2004 sought to reform the agency and the broader Intelligence Community. The intent of Congress in passing new legislation was to reduce the power of the CIA, and its Director, and increase the power of a new intelligence coordinator role, which it called the Director of National Intelligence. That didn’t happen. The “CIA is broken,” wrote John Judis one year later. The 2004 reform act didn’t address the “historical problems with the CIA.” “To repair it,” he concluded, “we may need to start from scratch.” That didn’t happen either. In 2016 and 2017, the CIA manipulated intelligence to falsely frame the democratically elected U.S. president as a puppet for a foreign power, and from 2016 to 2020, individuals who worked at the CIA oversaw various efforts to control what people are allowed to say on social media. Neither the Russiagate hoax scandal nor the CIA’s role in creating a Censorship Industrial Complex resulted in reform or even serious calls for it by Congress. Multiple sources tell Public that the CIA remains both the dominant agency of the 18 total in the IC, and the one most resistant to reforms. The Washington Post reported last week that the CIA resisted efforts for greater transparency led by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. And now the CIA has said we should ignore the whistleblowing by one of its most trusted senior analysts, and their demands for reform. None of this is new. In 1947, the year Congress created the CIA, the Secretary of State at the time, Dean Acheson, said he “had the gravest forebodings” about it and “warned the President that neither he” nor anyone else would be able “to control it.” Between 1947 and 2005 there were 14 major studies by various bodies into how to reform the IC. The CIA “has had an almost perfect record of resisting fundamental changes,” noted Weiner in his 2006 book. Meanwhile, Congress has failed its Constitutional duty to provide oversight. “The CIA has tried to assassinate foreign leaders, mined harbors, and most recently, tortured prisoners,” wrote Judis in 2005. “If Congress had openly debated these actions, they would not have been approved.” They didn’t and have never much demanded to be able to. Members of Congress “have been derelict in this work for much of the past three decades,” noted Weiner two years later, “but their conduct since 9/11 has bordered on criminal negligence.” Looking at the full historical record, it is hard not to conclude that the American people only partially govern themselves, that we are burdened with a rogue and violent intelligence agency that continuously interferes not only in foreign elections and governments but also our own, and that many on the Right and the Left who appear to be in a position to change that refuse to do so. Why is that? Why have Congress and the American people failed for 80 years to reform a rogue intelligence agency that is not only ineffective but also destructive to the point of undermining national security? And what, if anything, can be done about it? If you're not already a subscriber, please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech and democracy, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

48,655 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

What happened to that Kenyan taxi driver in Qatar is barbaric, unacceptable, and a painful reminder of what our people go through every single day in the Gulf. A man simply trying to earn a living was assaulted so violently that he nearly lost his life. This is not “misconduct,” this is attempted murder and it must be condemned without hesitation. According to the dash-cam footage, the assault began after the Kenyan driver rejected an inappropriate advance from his passenger. Instead of accepting a clear “no,” the attacker grabbed him in a rear-neck chokehold that almost strangled him. The vehicle veered, nearly crashing, and that driver survived only by instinct and grace. No one should face death simply because they refused unwanted behavior. Cases like this often disappear into silence. The systems in those countries have a long history of protecting their own whenever foreigners demand justice. And our own government? It has perfected the art of shifting blame, offering excuses, and pretending they are powerless. Kenyans abroad bleed, scream, and die and Nairobi drafts statements instead of solutions. Our people in the Gulf are surviving conditions that no human being should ever be subjected to. Some are overworked. Some are abused. Some live like prisoners in employer homes. And when they rush to embassies for help, they find officials too busy enjoying diplomatic comfort to lift a finger. The suffering is real, but the offices meant to protect them are deserted when it matters. Let’s not forget the shameful truth: our Head of State negotiated the weakest, most humiliating labor terms for Kenyans in the Gulf. He goes on and on in speeches about Singapore, Japan, Korea, Malaysia yet refuses to explain why a Kenyan doing the same job as a Malaysian or Filipino earns 35,000 while others earn 55,000–60,000. That gap is not an accident; it is a failure of leadership. And that so-called Kazi Majūu project? It was nothing but smoke and slogans. Kenyans have died in Saudi Arabia from depression, abuse, negligence, sexual assault and the same ministry that promised protection cannot even bring bodies home with dignity. Families cry; the government shrugs. What hurts even more is how victims are mocked instead of defended. When Kenyans raise complaints about mistreatment, the same officials responsible for their welfare call them “mannerless,” “problematic,” or “undisciplined.” So people suffer twice first abroad, then again when their own leaders insult them for begging for help. And to those who think this is tribal banter whether the victim is Kalenjin, Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya, Somali, Meru understand this clearly: poverty, desperation, and exploitation do not check tribe before they strike. These are the jobs the president tells our youth to take, and when violence follows, no protection is offered. Only excuses. Only silence. I condemn this attack. I condemn the wider injustice. Kenyans are not disposable. Our people do not deserve violent abuse abroad and indifference at home. Until our government defends its citizens with the same energy it uses to defend its image, this cycle of suffering will continue and every death, every assault, every broken family will sit squarely on the conscience of those in power who chose to look away.

What happened to that Kenyan taxi driver in Qatar is barbaric, unacceptable, and a painful reminder of what our people go through every single day in the Gulf. A man simply trying to earn a living was assaulted so violently that he nearly lost his life. This is not “misconduct,” this is attempted murder and it must be condemned without hesitation. According to the dash-cam footage, the assault began after the Kenyan driver rejected an inappropriate advance from his passenger. Instead of accepting a clear “no,” the attacker grabbed him in a rear-neck chokehold that almost strangled him. The vehicle veered, nearly crashing, and that driver survived only by instinct and grace. No one should face death simply because they refused unwanted behavior. Cases like this often disappear into silence. The systems in those countries have a long history of protecting their own whenever foreigners demand justice. And our own government? It has perfected the art of shifting blame, offering excuses, and pretending they are powerless. Kenyans abroad bleed, scream, and die and Nairobi drafts statements instead of solutions. Our people in the Gulf are surviving conditions that no human being should ever be subjected to. Some are overworked. Some are abused. Some live like prisoners in employer homes. And when they rush to embassies for help, they find officials too busy enjoying diplomatic comfort to lift a finger. The suffering is real, but the offices meant to protect them are deserted when it matters. Let’s not forget the shameful truth: our Head of State negotiated the weakest, most humiliating labor terms for Kenyans in the Gulf. He goes on and on in speeches about Singapore, Japan, Korea, Malaysia yet refuses to explain why a Kenyan doing the same job as a Malaysian or Filipino earns 35,000 while others earn 55,000–60,000. That gap is not an accident; it is a failure of leadership. And that so-called Kazi Majūu project? It was nothing but smoke and slogans. Kenyans have died in Saudi Arabia from depression, abuse, negligence, sexual assault and the same ministry that promised protection cannot even bring bodies home with dignity. Families cry; the government shrugs. What hurts even more is how victims are mocked instead of defended. When Kenyans raise complaints about mistreatment, the same officials responsible for their welfare call them “mannerless,” “problematic,” or “undisciplined.” So people suffer twice first abroad, then again when their own leaders insult them for begging for help. And to those who think this is tribal banter whether the victim is Kalenjin, Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya, Somali, Meru understand this clearly: poverty, desperation, and exploitation do not check tribe before they strike. These are the jobs the president tells our youth to take, and when violence follows, no protection is offered. Only excuses. Only silence. I condemn this attack. I condemn the wider injustice. Kenyans are not disposable. Our people do not deserve violent abuse abroad and indifference at home. Until our government defends its citizens with the same energy it uses to defend its image, this cycle of suffering will continue and every death, every assault, every broken family will sit squarely on the conscience of those in power who chose to look away.

𝙋𝘼𝙐𝙇. 𝐎. 𝐍𝐄𝐊𝐎

3,220,339 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Over the last two and a half years, the two of us, Michael Shellenberger and alex gutentag, have written and published hundreds of articles and testified before Congress on multiple occasions about the clear violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. We exposed a sweeping effort by former and current officials with the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and its intermediary organizations to construct a Censorship Industrial Complex to censor President Donald Trump and millions of his supporters. We documented that Democrats and Democrat-appointed judges were abusing the justice system in an unconstitutional effort to incarcerate Trump or otherwise prevent him from running for office. And we published extensively on efforts by Democrats, Europeans, and Brazilians to engage in mass surveillance of social media accounts and text messaging apps to search for disfavored speech. In addition, we have repeatedly defended Trump and the Trump administration from false and malicious claims that they have violated the Constitution or undermined democratic norms any more than Democrats. We showed that Trump and Republican demands for censorship have paled against the totalitarian weaponization by Democrats of the Intelligence Community to spy on the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in elections, and create a global Censorship Industrial Complex. We repeatedly pointed out that between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration obeyed court orders, consistent with the clear requirement under the Constitution that it do so. And we were the first to report on new evidence that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director had ordered the spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in the 2016 election, and undermine a duly elected president. Since Trump’s reelection, we have defended his administration’s justified cuts to USAID, the Department of Education, and other agencies. We have welcomed his use of legal executive authority to make sweeping orders to end “gender-affirming care” for minors and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We documented and condemned the role of the CIA and USAID in instigating and justifying the impeachment of Trump in 2019, and USAID for contributing to the Russia collusion hoax. We have argued that Democrats and the media’s claims that these actions are unconstitutional are false and politically motivated. Few formerly Left-wing journalists and commentators have done more to recognize and document the Left’s descent into totalitarianism and irrationality. We have made the case that, given Democrats’ many failures and abuses of power, Trump’s victory was a moral win, not just an electoral one. Given all of this, we believe it is necessary to speak out against the Trump Administration’s recent violations of the spirit and, and perhaps the letter, of the United States Constitution with regards to free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. The Trump administration detained and may deport a Palestinian student activist named Mahmoud Khalil for his involvement in university protests and his alleged support for Hamas. The Trump administration is using AI to review the social media accounts of tens of thousands of foreign students for wrongthink. And the administration, over the weekend, ignored a judge’s order to return planeloads of alleged gang members from Venezuela to the United States and instead sent them to El Salvador, claiming that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act allows for its noncompliance because it is non-justiciable outside of the court’s authority. These actions do not, either individually or together, approach anything close to the unconstitutional “whole-of-society” censorship and weaponization of government by the Democratic Party, but they may become a pattern that, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine the administration’s moral authority. Given the ongoing assault on free speech and individual rights in Europe, maintaining this authority is sorely needed if civil liberties and Enlightenment values are to be upheld in the West. The courts may still rule that some of those actions are constitutional. The fact that the Palestinian student activist is not a citizen may make his deportation constitutional. Democrats have been using the National Science Foundation for the last decade to fund universities the development of AI-based censorship tools to give or sell to social media platforms. And the Justice Department has complied with orders by a judge for a sworn declaration, and the court will hold another hearing on Friday. Even so, the Trump administration’s actions violate the spirit of the Constitution’s protections for freedom of speech, privacy, and due process. Khalil was indeed involved in negotiations between Columbia University and student protestors, and many foreign students have expressed anti-Israel views, but deporting someone for exercising what appears to be a lawful exercise of free speech and using AI surveillance tools to surveil foreign students’ views on a complex topic, establish a dangerous precedent that will likely have an intended chilling effect on speech for foreign students and citizens alike, particularly around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Such a chilling effect is overreaching, counterproductive, and wrong. Both critics and supporters of Israel alike should reject such broad measures and instead support open discourse and debate on university campuses. And, given that American presidents have only activated the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 during wars, and since Congress has not approved of any war with Venezuela, it is for the judiciary, not the executive branch, to decide whether the Act is non-justiciable. The Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked previously during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, and even then, the courts reviewed whether the Act was being appropriately applied. Trump’s invocation of the statute refers to a “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The Act, however, specifies that the “invasion or predatory incursion” must be one perpetrated “by any foreign nation or government.” The administration claims that the Venezuelan gang is acting as a “de facto government in the areas in which it is operating,” but this argument is not legally sound. There is also not sufficient evidence to support the DOJ’s claim that the gang is taking directions from the Maduro government. Reinforcing the perception that the Trump administration is violating the Constitutionally protected separation of powers, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday condemned calls for the impeachment of the judge overseeing the Alien Enemies Act case. “For more than two centuries,” said Roberts in a public statement, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Roberts’ statement may have been partly motivated by Trump’s statement, made a few hours earlier, about the Alien Enemies Case judge. “This judge,” wrote Trump on Truth Social, “like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Roberts’ statement likely reflects the opinion of the majority of Supreme Court justices. It is rare for justices to issue public statements, as they tend to let their rulings speak for themselves. Two weeks ago, Roberts and Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in refusing to overturn a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to pay out USAID grants. Barrett’s other rulings suggest that there are at least five justices who agree with Roberts. None of the three cases described above are needed for the Trump administration to implement its agenda. If any foreign students are a proven national security threat then they can be deported on that basis and not on their expressions of sympathy with Gazans or even Hamas. Our highest court has repeatedly ruled that Nazis can march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors as long as they do not immediately incite violence, and we should defend that high bar for censorship, as difficult as it is sometimes. And the Trump administration could have simply returned the alleged gang members to the United States, kept them in detention, and appealed the court’s order. Whatever political gains the Trump administration believes it is getting from such actions are significantly outweighed by their moral and political harm. In all three cases, the administration’s actions undermine the ethos in which our founding fathers created the United States of America as a beacon of freedom, privacy, and rule of law protected through the separation of powers. And the Trump administration’s actions undermine one of the central claims upon which Trump was elected, and which drew him support from independents and Democrats, which is that Trump would protect the public from an out-of-control deep state. “They’re not coming after me,” said Trump, famously, “they’re coming after you. I’m just standing in the way.” A top Democratic pollster recently confirmed that Trump won the popular vote because he persuaded Democrats and Independents to vote for him. While those voters may care more about inflation and immigration than civil liberties, many of them also care about free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. And many of Trump’s new independent and liberal voters were likely alienated by the Democratic Party’s assault on civil liberties. If Trump signals that he is attacking free speech, violating the separation of powers, and “coming after” independent justices, he will undermine his presidency and destroy his nationalist and populist coalition. Trump himself must understand deeply the importance of civil liberties and the separation of powers. The IC illegally spied on his campaign and spread disinformation about him. The FBI invaded the sacred privacy of his home in Florida. The government censored his voters. No president in American history has been more victimized by unconstitutional governmental abuses of power than Trump. It is disrespectful to the civil libertarians and constitutionalists in the Republican coalition for the Trump administration to behave in ways that run contrary to their values. Many independents, Democrats, and liberals were reassured by Trump’s alliance with former liberal Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who are lifelong advocates for freedom of speech and privacy. The Transportation Security Administration apparently spied on Gabbard through its “Quiet Skies” program because of her foreign policy views. And the Biden Administration demanded and achieved censorship of Kennedy for his constitutionally protected speech. Trump’s former campaign manager and current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, understands the importance of building a big tent, including one that includes civil libertarians; it was at the heart of her successful strategy to win a majority of the popular vote in the 2024 election. Vice President JD Vance received his law degree from Yale Law School and has spoken out eloquently against European censorship. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that he wants to put free speech at the center of America’s foreign policy diplomacy. Why, then, is the Trump administration engaged in such self-destructive behavior? Why has it been ignoring the multiple warnings it has been given, including from its own supporters and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Please, subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Over the last two and a half years, the two of us, Michael Shellenberger and alex gutentag, have written and published hundreds of articles and testified before Congress on multiple occasions about the clear violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. We exposed a sweeping effort by former and current officials with the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and its intermediary organizations to construct a Censorship Industrial Complex to censor President Donald Trump and millions of his supporters. We documented that Democrats and Democrat-appointed judges were abusing the justice system in an unconstitutional effort to incarcerate Trump or otherwise prevent him from running for office. And we published extensively on efforts by Democrats, Europeans, and Brazilians to engage in mass surveillance of social media accounts and text messaging apps to search for disfavored speech. In addition, we have repeatedly defended Trump and the Trump administration from false and malicious claims that they have violated the Constitution or undermined democratic norms any more than Democrats. We showed that Trump and Republican demands for censorship have paled against the totalitarian weaponization by Democrats of the Intelligence Community to spy on the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in elections, and create a global Censorship Industrial Complex. We repeatedly pointed out that between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration obeyed court orders, consistent with the clear requirement under the Constitution that it do so. And we were the first to report on new evidence that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director had ordered the spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in the 2016 election, and undermine a duly elected president. Since Trump’s reelection, we have defended his administration’s justified cuts to USAID, the Department of Education, and other agencies. We have welcomed his use of legal executive authority to make sweeping orders to end “gender-affirming care” for minors and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. We documented and condemned the role of the CIA and USAID in instigating and justifying the impeachment of Trump in 2019, and USAID for contributing to the Russia collusion hoax. We have argued that Democrats and the media’s claims that these actions are unconstitutional are false and politically motivated. Few formerly Left-wing journalists and commentators have done more to recognize and document the Left’s descent into totalitarianism and irrationality. We have made the case that, given Democrats’ many failures and abuses of power, Trump’s victory was a moral win, not just an electoral one. Given all of this, we believe it is necessary to speak out against the Trump Administration’s recent violations of the spirit and, and perhaps the letter, of the United States Constitution with regards to free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. The Trump administration detained and may deport a Palestinian student activist named Mahmoud Khalil for his involvement in university protests and his alleged support for Hamas. The Trump administration is using AI to review the social media accounts of tens of thousands of foreign students for wrongthink. And the administration, over the weekend, ignored a judge’s order to return planeloads of alleged gang members from Venezuela to the United States and instead sent them to El Salvador, claiming that the 1798 Alien Enemies Act allows for its noncompliance because it is non-justiciable outside of the court’s authority. These actions do not, either individually or together, approach anything close to the unconstitutional “whole-of-society” censorship and weaponization of government by the Democratic Party, but they may become a pattern that, if left unchecked, threatens to undermine the administration’s moral authority. Given the ongoing assault on free speech and individual rights in Europe, maintaining this authority is sorely needed if civil liberties and Enlightenment values are to be upheld in the West. The courts may still rule that some of those actions are constitutional. The fact that the Palestinian student activist is not a citizen may make his deportation constitutional. Democrats have been using the National Science Foundation for the last decade to fund universities the development of AI-based censorship tools to give or sell to social media platforms. And the Justice Department has complied with orders by a judge for a sworn declaration, and the court will hold another hearing on Friday. Even so, the Trump administration’s actions violate the spirit of the Constitution’s protections for freedom of speech, privacy, and due process. Khalil was indeed involved in negotiations between Columbia University and student protestors, and many foreign students have expressed anti-Israel views, but deporting someone for exercising what appears to be a lawful exercise of free speech and using AI surveillance tools to surveil foreign students’ views on a complex topic, establish a dangerous precedent that will likely have an intended chilling effect on speech for foreign students and citizens alike, particularly around the Israel-Palestine conflict. Such a chilling effect is overreaching, counterproductive, and wrong. Both critics and supporters of Israel alike should reject such broad measures and instead support open discourse and debate on university campuses. And, given that American presidents have only activated the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 during wars, and since Congress has not approved of any war with Venezuela, it is for the judiciary, not the executive branch, to decide whether the Act is non-justiciable. The Alien Enemies Act has only been invoked previously during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, and even then, the courts reviewed whether the Act was being appropriately applied. Trump’s invocation of the statute refers to a “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The Act, however, specifies that the “invasion or predatory incursion” must be one perpetrated “by any foreign nation or government.” The administration claims that the Venezuelan gang is acting as a “de facto government in the areas in which it is operating,” but this argument is not legally sound. There is also not sufficient evidence to support the DOJ’s claim that the gang is taking directions from the Maduro government. Reinforcing the perception that the Trump administration is violating the Constitutionally protected separation of powers, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday condemned calls for the impeachment of the judge overseeing the Alien Enemies Act case. “For more than two centuries,” said Roberts in a public statement, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Roberts’ statement may have been partly motivated by Trump’s statement, made a few hours earlier, about the Alien Enemies Case judge. “This judge,” wrote Trump on Truth Social, “like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” Roberts’ statement likely reflects the opinion of the majority of Supreme Court justices. It is rare for justices to issue public statements, as they tend to let their rulings speak for themselves. Two weeks ago, Roberts and Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in refusing to overturn a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to pay out USAID grants. Barrett’s other rulings suggest that there are at least five justices who agree with Roberts. None of the three cases described above are needed for the Trump administration to implement its agenda. If any foreign students are a proven national security threat then they can be deported on that basis and not on their expressions of sympathy with Gazans or even Hamas. Our highest court has repeatedly ruled that Nazis can march through neighborhoods of Holocaust survivors as long as they do not immediately incite violence, and we should defend that high bar for censorship, as difficult as it is sometimes. And the Trump administration could have simply returned the alleged gang members to the United States, kept them in detention, and appealed the court’s order. Whatever political gains the Trump administration believes it is getting from such actions are significantly outweighed by their moral and political harm. In all three cases, the administration’s actions undermine the ethos in which our founding fathers created the United States of America as a beacon of freedom, privacy, and rule of law protected through the separation of powers. And the Trump administration’s actions undermine one of the central claims upon which Trump was elected, and which drew him support from independents and Democrats, which is that Trump would protect the public from an out-of-control deep state. “They’re not coming after me,” said Trump, famously, “they’re coming after you. I’m just standing in the way.” A top Democratic pollster recently confirmed that Trump won the popular vote because he persuaded Democrats and Independents to vote for him. While those voters may care more about inflation and immigration than civil liberties, many of them also care about free speech, privacy, and the separation of powers. And many of Trump’s new independent and liberal voters were likely alienated by the Democratic Party’s assault on civil liberties. If Trump signals that he is attacking free speech, violating the separation of powers, and “coming after” independent justices, he will undermine his presidency and destroy his nationalist and populist coalition. Trump himself must understand deeply the importance of civil liberties and the separation of powers. The IC illegally spied on his campaign and spread disinformation about him. The FBI invaded the sacred privacy of his home in Florida. The government censored his voters. No president in American history has been more victimized by unconstitutional governmental abuses of power than Trump. It is disrespectful to the civil libertarians and constitutionalists in the Republican coalition for the Trump administration to behave in ways that run contrary to their values. Many independents, Democrats, and liberals were reassured by Trump’s alliance with former liberal Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who are lifelong advocates for freedom of speech and privacy. The Transportation Security Administration apparently spied on Gabbard through its “Quiet Skies” program because of her foreign policy views. And the Biden Administration demanded and achieved censorship of Kennedy for his constitutionally protected speech. Trump’s former campaign manager and current chief of staff, Susie Wiles, understands the importance of building a big tent, including one that includes civil libertarians; it was at the heart of her successful strategy to win a majority of the popular vote in the 2024 election. Vice President JD Vance received his law degree from Yale Law School and has spoken out eloquently against European censorship. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that he wants to put free speech at the center of America’s foreign policy diplomacy. Why, then, is the Trump administration engaged in such self-destructive behavior? Why has it been ignoring the multiple warnings it has been given, including from its own supporters and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Please, subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

647,545 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Canada has fallen a long way in a very short time and the evidence is everywhere for anyone willing to look without the rose colored glasses the government keeps handing out. What used to be one of the safest wealthiest and freest countries on earth now feels like a place where basic order affordability and common sense have been deliberately sacrificed on the altar of ideology and political vanity. Start with the streets themselves. Violent crime has exploded upward fifty percent since the middle of the last decade. Homicides are up nearly forty percent sexual assaults have almost doubled and home invasions in major cities have tripled in some years. Auto theft has become so routine that insurance companies treat it like weather. None of this is random. A huge share of these crimes are committed by people who were already out on bail or probation when they struck again. In Saskatchewan almost half the people charged with murder in a recent year were on judicial release at the time. Across the country hundreds of murders have been committed by individuals the system had already caught and then let walk. The phrase catch and release is not hyperbole it is the lived reality of police officers victims and anyone paying attention. The bail disaster traces directly to Bill C75 passed in 2019 under the banner of progressive reform. That law turned the principle of restraint in custody into a default preference for release no matter how violent or repeat the offender. Judges were told to find alternatives to detention and the result was entirely predictable. Roughly seventy percent of accused now get bail even when they have long records and even when the new charges involve guns drugs or serious violence. When foreign nationals commit crimes that should trigger automatic deportation the same broken process applies. They get bail they disappear and the Canada Border Services Agency admits hundreds of convicted foreign criminals are currently unaccounted for inside the country. Some have convictions for sexual assault or trafficking yet they walk free while their removal orders gather dust in a backlog that never shrinks. Cost of living has become a daily punishment. Groceries for a family of four now run close to fourteen hundred dollars a month and that number keeps climbing even as headline inflation supposedly cools. Rent in every major city has risen between twenty and fifty percent in five years while wages have barely moved. Household debt sits at the highest level in the G7 and mortgage renewals at five percent plus interest rates are about to crush another wave of families. Food bank use has doubled tent cities sprawl in parks that used to be safe for children and one in four Canadian kids now lives in a household that cannot reliably put food on the table. The carbon tax alone added hundreds of dollars a year to heating and fuel costs for the average home before it was finally paused in a panic last year. None of the promised rebates ever covered the real hit especially for rural families and low income workers. Free speech the thing Canada used to brag about has been systematically strangled. The government passed Bill C11 giving itself power to regulate what algorithms show Canadians online. It tried to pass Bill C63 which would have allowed house arrest for things people might say in the future. And through Bill C18 it created the absurd situation where news from legitimate Canadian outlets is still banned on Facebook and Instagram more than two years later. Ottawa knew Meta would block news rather than pay the forced link tax and they passed the law anyway. When the blackout hit they shrugged and blamed the company. The result is that millions of Canadians get their information from random memes influencers and conspiracy accounts while local journalism dies and emergency alerts during wildfires get buried under cat videos. The same government that claims to defend democracy has engineered a system where the largest public square in the country is deliberately stripped of verifiable news. Corruption and unaccountability are no longer exceptions they are the operating model. Politicians face ethics investigations and simply prorogue Parliament to kill them. Contracts worth hundreds of millions go to connected insiders with no competitive bid. A single two person consulting firm with no employees managed to bill the government more than a hundred million dollars for work it subcontracted out at massive markups. Green slush funds handed out four hundred million dollars with almost two hundred conflicts of interest. Banks launder money for foreign cartels and pay fines in other countries while no executive here sees a courtroom. The ethics commissioner issues reports that go nowhere because the office has no real power. Scandals that would end careers in any serious democracy are treated as minor public relations problems to be managed until the news cycle moves on. Healthcare waits have become a national humiliation. The median wait time from referral to treatment is now over thirty weeks longer than anywhere else in the developed world. Two and a half million people have no family doctor. People die on wait lists for heart surgery and cancer care while the system pushes medical assistance in dying as a cost saving measure. Mental health supports are a cruel joke with waits measured in years not months. Immigration policy turned a manageable program into a population tsunami that outran every piece of infrastructure the country had. Temporary residents alone now exceed three million people many working low wage jobs that used to go to young Canadians. Housing construction never kept pace rents soared and the feel of entire neighborhoods changed overnight. The government finally admitted the scale was unsustainable and began slashing numbers but the damage is done and the reversal is slow. Taken together these failures paint a picture of a country that has chosen ideology over competence control over freedom and short term political wins over long term national health. The people in charge spent a decade telling Canadians everything was fine while debt exploded crime surged speech narrowed and the basic social contract frayed. Trust in institutions sits at historic lows and anger is no longer fringe it is mainstream. Canada is not broken beyond repair but the longer the current path continues the harder the eventual correction will be. The evidence is overwhelming the country most of us grew up in has been radically and deliberately transformed and not for the better.

Canada has fallen a long way in a very short time and the evidence is everywhere for anyone willing to look without the rose colored glasses the government keeps handing out. What used to be one of the safest wealthiest and freest countries on earth now feels like a place where basic order affordability and common sense have been deliberately sacrificed on the altar of ideology and political vanity. Start with the streets themselves. Violent crime has exploded upward fifty percent since the middle of the last decade. Homicides are up nearly forty percent sexual assaults have almost doubled and home invasions in major cities have tripled in some years. Auto theft has become so routine that insurance companies treat it like weather. None of this is random. A huge share of these crimes are committed by people who were already out on bail or probation when they struck again. In Saskatchewan almost half the people charged with murder in a recent year were on judicial release at the time. Across the country hundreds of murders have been committed by individuals the system had already caught and then let walk. The phrase catch and release is not hyperbole it is the lived reality of police officers victims and anyone paying attention. The bail disaster traces directly to Bill C75 passed in 2019 under the banner of progressive reform. That law turned the principle of restraint in custody into a default preference for release no matter how violent or repeat the offender. Judges were told to find alternatives to detention and the result was entirely predictable. Roughly seventy percent of accused now get bail even when they have long records and even when the new charges involve guns drugs or serious violence. When foreign nationals commit crimes that should trigger automatic deportation the same broken process applies. They get bail they disappear and the Canada Border Services Agency admits hundreds of convicted foreign criminals are currently unaccounted for inside the country. Some have convictions for sexual assault or trafficking yet they walk free while their removal orders gather dust in a backlog that never shrinks. Cost of living has become a daily punishment. Groceries for a family of four now run close to fourteen hundred dollars a month and that number keeps climbing even as headline inflation supposedly cools. Rent in every major city has risen between twenty and fifty percent in five years while wages have barely moved. Household debt sits at the highest level in the G7 and mortgage renewals at five percent plus interest rates are about to crush another wave of families. Food bank use has doubled tent cities sprawl in parks that used to be safe for children and one in four Canadian kids now lives in a household that cannot reliably put food on the table. The carbon tax alone added hundreds of dollars a year to heating and fuel costs for the average home before it was finally paused in a panic last year. None of the promised rebates ever covered the real hit especially for rural families and low income workers. Free speech the thing Canada used to brag about has been systematically strangled. The government passed Bill C11 giving itself power to regulate what algorithms show Canadians online. It tried to pass Bill C63 which would have allowed house arrest for things people might say in the future. And through Bill C18 it created the absurd situation where news from legitimate Canadian outlets is still banned on Facebook and Instagram more than two years later. Ottawa knew Meta would block news rather than pay the forced link tax and they passed the law anyway. When the blackout hit they shrugged and blamed the company. The result is that millions of Canadians get their information from random memes influencers and conspiracy accounts while local journalism dies and emergency alerts during wildfires get buried under cat videos. The same government that claims to defend democracy has engineered a system where the largest public square in the country is deliberately stripped of verifiable news. Corruption and unaccountability are no longer exceptions they are the operating model. Politicians face ethics investigations and simply prorogue Parliament to kill them. Contracts worth hundreds of millions go to connected insiders with no competitive bid. A single two person consulting firm with no employees managed to bill the government more than a hundred million dollars for work it subcontracted out at massive markups. Green slush funds handed out four hundred million dollars with almost two hundred conflicts of interest. Banks launder money for foreign cartels and pay fines in other countries while no executive here sees a courtroom. The ethics commissioner issues reports that go nowhere because the office has no real power. Scandals that would end careers in any serious democracy are treated as minor public relations problems to be managed until the news cycle moves on. Healthcare waits have become a national humiliation. The median wait time from referral to treatment is now over thirty weeks longer than anywhere else in the developed world. Two and a half million people have no family doctor. People die on wait lists for heart surgery and cancer care while the system pushes medical assistance in dying as a cost saving measure. Mental health supports are a cruel joke with waits measured in years not months. Immigration policy turned a manageable program into a population tsunami that outran every piece of infrastructure the country had. Temporary residents alone now exceed three million people many working low wage jobs that used to go to young Canadians. Housing construction never kept pace rents soared and the feel of entire neighborhoods changed overnight. The government finally admitted the scale was unsustainable and began slashing numbers but the damage is done and the reversal is slow. Taken together these failures paint a picture of a country that has chosen ideology over competence control over freedom and short term political wins over long term national health. The people in charge spent a decade telling Canadians everything was fine while debt exploded crime surged speech narrowed and the basic social contract frayed. Trust in institutions sits at historic lows and anger is no longer fringe it is mainstream. Canada is not broken beyond repair but the longer the current path continues the harder the eventual correction will be. The evidence is overwhelming the country most of us grew up in has been radically and deliberately transformed and not for the better.

Vote Canada

25,186 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

📚 The Final Book of Accusations: From the Dawn of Empire to The Occupation of Holy Land By Noah The Kings and Their Crimes The King List of Sumer is hailed as the first chronicle of rulership. Scholars often treat it as myth, but behind every name was a dynasty, behind every dynasty a system of tribute, forced labor, and conquest. Each “lugal,” the great man, raised himself high by pressing his people low. Each temple was fed by the toil of slaves, each monument raised upon broken backs. Their crimes echo across millennia, and their names stand condemned. The Antediluvian Kings The King List begins with rulers before the flood: Alulim of Eridu, Alalngar of Eridu, En-men-lu-ana of Bad-tibira, En-men-gal-ana, Dumuzid the Shepherd, En-sipad-zid-ana of Larak, En-men-dur-ana of Sippar, Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppak. Whether legendary or historical, their reigns are counted in tens of thousands of years. Even in myth, their rule was remembered as unnatural. Lifespans stretched into the absurd, suggesting not blessing but domination. These “first kings” were enshrined as semi-divine, an echo of how the earliest rulers cloaked themselves in godhood to sanctify their crimes. They instituted temple slavery, demanded offerings, and introduced the practice of kings seizing women as divine right. Kish and the Early Dynasties After the flood, “kingship was lowered from heaven” to Kish. Here began the first recorded pattern of hereditary domination. Etana of Kish is remembered as “the shepherd who ascended to heaven.” In truth, he was the first to conscript whole communities for temple agriculture. His subjects labored under sun and whip to feed priests and soldiers. Families who resisted tribute were executed. His successors, including Balih and En-me-nuna, carried on the same model: rule by tribute, maintained by armed levy. The names are half-forgotten, but their crimes are not. The forced seizure of crops, the taking of daughters into royal households, the reduction of men into soldiers against their will. Uruk and the Tyranny of Gilgamesh From Uruk, power shifted with Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, rulers wrapped in legend. But the most infamous was Gilgamesh. He is called the hero of the first epic, but in the record of his people, he was a tyrant. The complaint was immortal: “Gilgamesh leaves not the son to his father, nor the maiden to the warrior, nor the wife to her husband.” He claimed every woman of Uruk as his own. He conscripted young men to fight endless wars against Kish, Umma, and others, marching them to death for his pride. His legacy was mythologized to hide atrocity, yet even myth preserves the truth: his people cried out against him. Umma, Lagash, and the Wars of Cities The city-states of Umma and Lagash fought endless wars over land and water. Eannatum of Lagash (c. 2450 BC) boasts on the “Stele of Vultures” of slaying thousands of men from Umma, piling their bodies into fields, leaving corpses for carrion. He claimed divine blessing as he enslaved survivors and seized their farmland. Enannatum I and Enmetena of Lagash continued the same cycle: pillage, forced tribute, and enslavement of conquered citizens. Lugal-Zage-Si of Umma, who united much of Sumer, proclaimed himself chosen by Enlil. But his unification was by fire. He burned Lagash, sacked temples, enslaved priests, dragged women into captivity, and razed shrines. His boast that he ruled “from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea” was written in the blood of his own people. Akkad and the Birth of Empire Then came Sargon of Akkad, who established the first empire in history. He conquered Sumer’s cities, executed their rulers, deported their peoples. He instituted standing armies fed by plunder, not by the harvest of his own land. He uprooted families, scattering them across the empire, breaking cultures to destroy resistance. His successors extended the crimes: Rimush slaughtered fifteen revolting kings, looting their treasuries, enslaving their subjects. Manishtushu led campaigns across Elam, dragging prisoners by the thousands, branding them for resale. Naram-Sin claimed divinity. His stele immortalizes massacre: enemies speared, trampled, their wives and children enslaved. He sacked Nippur, desecrated the temple of Enlil, enraging even his own citizens. Shar-kali-sharri presided over famine and raids, forcing conscription as drought starved the land. Ur III and the Codification of Slavery Ur-Nammu raised the ziggurat of Ur, a mountain of bricks made by forced labor. His laws imposed fines on the rich but corporal punishment on the poor. Shulgi, declaring himself divine, ordered temple women into ritual prostitution. Surviving tablets list names of women reduced to “offerings.” His reign institutionalized rape as a sacred duty. His successors, Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin, and Ibbi-Sin, presided over decline. As famine spread, they tightened tribute, seizing children as collateral for taxes unpaid. Babylon and the Pride of Hammurabi Hammurabi codified atrocity. His laws legalized debt slavery, enshrined hierarchy, and protected nobles at the expense of commoners. He conquered rivals through slaughter, then celebrated himself as chosen of Marduk. His empire was built on ledgers of debt, chains of slaves, and bloodied swords. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Captivity Centuries later, Nebuchadnezzar II completed the cycle with the most infamous crime: the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. He starved children to death inside city walls. He slaughtered priests at the altar. He raped women as his army pillaged. He tore down the Temple of God, looted its treasures, and dragged survivors into captivity. He mocked captives, demanding songs of joy while they wept in chains. Priests, Merchants, and the Complicity of the Temples Throughout every dynasty, the priests of the ziggurats were partners in crime. They issued loans at interest, seized land when repayment failed, sold sons and daughters into slavery. Temple archives survive recording the names of children sold to cover debts. Religion was used as a veil for usury. Merchants too, empowered by kings, trafficked slaves across the Fertile Crescent, turning flesh into currency. At this point I am running out of space. The list of rulers continues. Later Babylonian kings like Nabopolassar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Assyrian conquerors of Babylon Tiglath-Pileser III, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal were each guilty of their own massacres, deportations, and desecrations. 🧵Video Thread Series 📽️👇 Countless hours of my life have been devoted to the careful crafting of Part 2. Every sentence was shaped with deliberation, every thought refined with the utmost precision, not for my sake, but so that it might serve as a lantern in the fog for those who seek truth. If you found even a measure of illumination within these words, I ask only one thing in return... allow it to travel further. Share it with those whose hearts are still restless, whose minds remain clouded, whose souls yearn for remembrance. For knowledge, once awakened, is not meant to be hoarded in silence. It grows in strength when carried from one soul to another, as flame kindles flame, until what began in a solitary hand becomes a great light upon the earth. By sharing, you do not merely extend my labor; you become a participant in its purpose, a co-bearer of its message, and a steward of the awakening it was written to inspire. I stand permanently barred from every channel of monetization, and I accept this reality without hesitation or regret. As with all of my writings and every piece of content I have ever produced, what I create will be given freely to all who seek it. I devote uncounted hours, often at great personal cost, not for profit nor recognition, but out of an unwavering passion for the dignity of humanity. My labor is not transactional but sacrificial, poured out with the singular hope that through these words, at least one soul might awaken, one mind might break free from illusion, and one heart might remember its divine inheritance. To teach under such circumstances is not merely to instruct but to bear witness. It is to believe that truth, when offered without price, carries a resonance that no barrier can silence and no ban can extinguish. This is why I persist, why I endure exclusion, why I choose generosity over gain. For what value has wealth if it is hoarded, and what meaning has knowledge if it is withheld? To awaken even a solitary spirit is to alter the course of eternity itself, and it is for this reason that my work will never be bound by the machinery of monetization.

📚 The Final Book of Accusations: From the Dawn of Empire to The Occupation of Holy Land By Noah The Kings and Their Crimes The King List of Sumer is hailed as the first chronicle of rulership. Scholars often treat it as myth, but behind every name was a dynasty, behind every dynasty a system of tribute, forced labor, and conquest. Each “lugal,” the great man, raised himself high by pressing his people low. Each temple was fed by the toil of slaves, each monument raised upon broken backs. Their crimes echo across millennia, and their names stand condemned. The Antediluvian Kings The King List begins with rulers before the flood: Alulim of Eridu, Alalngar of Eridu, En-men-lu-ana of Bad-tibira, En-men-gal-ana, Dumuzid the Shepherd, En-sipad-zid-ana of Larak, En-men-dur-ana of Sippar, Ubara-Tutu of Shuruppak. Whether legendary or historical, their reigns are counted in tens of thousands of years. Even in myth, their rule was remembered as unnatural. Lifespans stretched into the absurd, suggesting not blessing but domination. These “first kings” were enshrined as semi-divine, an echo of how the earliest rulers cloaked themselves in godhood to sanctify their crimes. They instituted temple slavery, demanded offerings, and introduced the practice of kings seizing women as divine right. Kish and the Early Dynasties After the flood, “kingship was lowered from heaven” to Kish. Here began the first recorded pattern of hereditary domination. Etana of Kish is remembered as “the shepherd who ascended to heaven.” In truth, he was the first to conscript whole communities for temple agriculture. His subjects labored under sun and whip to feed priests and soldiers. Families who resisted tribute were executed. His successors, including Balih and En-me-nuna, carried on the same model: rule by tribute, maintained by armed levy. The names are half-forgotten, but their crimes are not. The forced seizure of crops, the taking of daughters into royal households, the reduction of men into soldiers against their will. Uruk and the Tyranny of Gilgamesh From Uruk, power shifted with Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, rulers wrapped in legend. But the most infamous was Gilgamesh. He is called the hero of the first epic, but in the record of his people, he was a tyrant. The complaint was immortal: “Gilgamesh leaves not the son to his father, nor the maiden to the warrior, nor the wife to her husband.” He claimed every woman of Uruk as his own. He conscripted young men to fight endless wars against Kish, Umma, and others, marching them to death for his pride. His legacy was mythologized to hide atrocity, yet even myth preserves the truth: his people cried out against him. Umma, Lagash, and the Wars of Cities The city-states of Umma and Lagash fought endless wars over land and water. Eannatum of Lagash (c. 2450 BC) boasts on the “Stele of Vultures” of slaying thousands of men from Umma, piling their bodies into fields, leaving corpses for carrion. He claimed divine blessing as he enslaved survivors and seized their farmland. Enannatum I and Enmetena of Lagash continued the same cycle: pillage, forced tribute, and enslavement of conquered citizens. Lugal-Zage-Si of Umma, who united much of Sumer, proclaimed himself chosen by Enlil. But his unification was by fire. He burned Lagash, sacked temples, enslaved priests, dragged women into captivity, and razed shrines. His boast that he ruled “from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea” was written in the blood of his own people. Akkad and the Birth of Empire Then came Sargon of Akkad, who established the first empire in history. He conquered Sumer’s cities, executed their rulers, deported their peoples. He instituted standing armies fed by plunder, not by the harvest of his own land. He uprooted families, scattering them across the empire, breaking cultures to destroy resistance. His successors extended the crimes: Rimush slaughtered fifteen revolting kings, looting their treasuries, enslaving their subjects. Manishtushu led campaigns across Elam, dragging prisoners by the thousands, branding them for resale. Naram-Sin claimed divinity. His stele immortalizes massacre: enemies speared, trampled, their wives and children enslaved. He sacked Nippur, desecrated the temple of Enlil, enraging even his own citizens. Shar-kali-sharri presided over famine and raids, forcing conscription as drought starved the land. Ur III and the Codification of Slavery Ur-Nammu raised the ziggurat of Ur, a mountain of bricks made by forced labor. His laws imposed fines on the rich but corporal punishment on the poor. Shulgi, declaring himself divine, ordered temple women into ritual prostitution. Surviving tablets list names of women reduced to “offerings.” His reign institutionalized rape as a sacred duty. His successors, Amar-Sin, Shu-Sin, and Ibbi-Sin, presided over decline. As famine spread, they tightened tribute, seizing children as collateral for taxes unpaid. Babylon and the Pride of Hammurabi Hammurabi codified atrocity. His laws legalized debt slavery, enshrined hierarchy, and protected nobles at the expense of commoners. He conquered rivals through slaughter, then celebrated himself as chosen of Marduk. His empire was built on ledgers of debt, chains of slaves, and bloodied swords. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Captivity Centuries later, Nebuchadnezzar II completed the cycle with the most infamous crime: the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. He starved children to death inside city walls. He slaughtered priests at the altar. He raped women as his army pillaged. He tore down the Temple of God, looted its treasures, and dragged survivors into captivity. He mocked captives, demanding songs of joy while they wept in chains. Priests, Merchants, and the Complicity of the Temples Throughout every dynasty, the priests of the ziggurats were partners in crime. They issued loans at interest, seized land when repayment failed, sold sons and daughters into slavery. Temple archives survive recording the names of children sold to cover debts. Religion was used as a veil for usury. Merchants too, empowered by kings, trafficked slaves across the Fertile Crescent, turning flesh into currency. At this point I am running out of space. The list of rulers continues. Later Babylonian kings like Nabopolassar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Assyrian conquerors of Babylon Tiglath-Pileser III, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal were each guilty of their own massacres, deportations, and desecrations. 🧵Video Thread Series 📽️👇 Countless hours of my life have been devoted to the careful crafting of Part 2. Every sentence was shaped with deliberation, every thought refined with the utmost precision, not for my sake, but so that it might serve as a lantern in the fog for those who seek truth. If you found even a measure of illumination within these words, I ask only one thing in return... allow it to travel further. Share it with those whose hearts are still restless, whose minds remain clouded, whose souls yearn for remembrance. For knowledge, once awakened, is not meant to be hoarded in silence. It grows in strength when carried from one soul to another, as flame kindles flame, until what began in a solitary hand becomes a great light upon the earth. By sharing, you do not merely extend my labor; you become a participant in its purpose, a co-bearer of its message, and a steward of the awakening it was written to inspire. I stand permanently barred from every channel of monetization, and I accept this reality without hesitation or regret. As with all of my writings and every piece of content I have ever produced, what I create will be given freely to all who seek it. I devote uncounted hours, often at great personal cost, not for profit nor recognition, but out of an unwavering passion for the dignity of humanity. My labor is not transactional but sacrificial, poured out with the singular hope that through these words, at least one soul might awaken, one mind might break free from illusion, and one heart might remember its divine inheritance. To teach under such circumstances is not merely to instruct but to bear witness. It is to believe that truth, when offered without price, carries a resonance that no barrier can silence and no ban can extinguish. This is why I persist, why I endure exclusion, why I choose generosity over gain. For what value has wealth if it is hoarded, and what meaning has knowledge if it is withheld? To awaken even a solitary spirit is to alter the course of eternity itself, and it is for this reason that my work will never be bound by the machinery of monetization.

Noah B. Price

31,747 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Mehdi Hasan unmasked: this is how he sees non-Muslims as animals, as diseased and ignorant kafirs. A Muslim for whom the Quran as presented here serves as his lens on the world; and yet he lies and conceals this fact from us to advance the Quran's goal: our destruction. In these recordings he is caught saying his true thoughts about us without realizing it. 1. different from the rest of the non-Muslims, from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfill any desire. Once we do that, we are lost. In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to. It is to remain ignorant, to cover up knowledge, after all, what is Kafir? Kafir comes from the root word, which means to cover up, to conceal. 2. The Kafir is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamendes, he once wrote that the Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind. SubhanAllah, non-Muslims point this out to us. 3. and of course the Kafir, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and blind to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran, they are described in the Quran as quote, a people of no intelligence, Allah said, not of no morality, not of no belief, a people of no intelligence. because they are incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran described the atheists as cattle, as cattle as those who go into graves and do not suffer wonder about this world. 4. All of these unanimously agree that at the very minimum, If Yazid was not a Kafir then at the very minimum, he was a Fasiq, a transgressor, a breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music lover, a homosexual, a paedophile a sexual deviant, someone who slept with his own mother. Quran 7:179 And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. Islamic Art of War By: Ofer Binshtok Islam wages a continuous global war through various methods and with varying intensity against non-Muslims 24/7, as commanded by the Quran and Muhammad, a war that has persisted for approximately 1400 years and will continue indefinitely. In places where non-Muslims grow weary of conflict and seek peace, avoiding confrontation and attempting to appease Islam, believing they have achieved tranquility through signing agreements with Islam and even allowing its migration into their territories, during this time, Islam builds its strength and attacks them when it senses it has the upper hand, from within and from outside, in the most brutal way possible. This war strategy relies on the Islamic Art of War, based on the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. Quran 8:39 - The goal: a world containing only Muslims through war. Quran 98:6 - Demonization of non-Muslims. Quran 3:28 - Deceive non-Muslims. Quran 47:35 - Do not seek peace when you have the upper hand. In other words, attack. Quran 8:60 - During a hudna (ceasefire), Islam prepares for war. Quran 9:123 - Attack nearby non-Muslims. Quran 9:5 - Kill every non-Muslim in the world. In 622 AD, Muhammad migrated from Mecca to the settlement of Medina (Yathrib) in the Arabian Peninsula, where he was received as a refugee by the Jews who had established and controlled the prosperous region, granting him shelter. Within approximately eight years, after building his strength, Muhammad eliminated the presence of Jews and other non-Muslims in the area. In 628 AD, Muhammad signed a ten-year hudna (truce) agreement in Hudaibiya with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, as his forces were weaker than theirs. In 630 AD, when his power was sufficiently strong, he violated the agreement with the Quraysh, attacked Mecca, conquered it with ease, and eradicated all other cultures present there. Muhammad's Sunnah, which is binding in Islam according to Quran 33:21, commands every Muslim to emulate all of Muhammad’s words and deeds, which are considered sacred. A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah" By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Because Muhammad admitted to using terrorism, committing an act of terrorism is considered as a holy deed in Islam." (122) CHAPTER. The statement of the Prophet: I have been made victorious for a distance of one month journey with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy). The Statement of Allah: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve...(V.3:151) Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Hadith 2977 - Narrated AbU Hurairah: Allah's Messenger A said: "....and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)... Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Quran 68.4 And indeed, you are (Muhammad) of a great moral character. Quran 33.21 "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day, and remembers Allâh much." "When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, the Quran creates a lens for him through which he sees and understands the non-Muslim, composed of these three verses (and there are many more):" 8:55, 98:6, and 9:28. Verses 8:55 and 98:6 portray non-Muslims as the worst creatures, even worse than cockroaches, bedbugs, and ticks. Verse 9:28 portrays non-Muslims as physically and spiritually filthy, akin to the filth of excrement. In summary: When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, he sees him through the lens of the Quran as the worst creatures, worse than cockroaches and ticks, and physically and spiritually filthy to the level of excrement. Quran 8.55 “Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.” Quran 98.6: "Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." Quran 9.28: “O you who believe (in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad!) Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). [1] So let them not come near Al-Masjidal-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allâh will enrich you if He wills, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (V.9:28) Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual, because they don’t believe in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Prophet Muhammad; and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and blood). And the word Najas is used only for those persons who have spiritual impurity e.g. Al-Mushrikûn. Quran 9.14 "Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." "The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law." By: Ofer binshtok. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.

Mehdi Hasan unmasked: this is how he sees non-Muslims as animals, as diseased and ignorant kafirs. A Muslim for whom the Quran as presented here serves as his lens on the world; and yet he lies and conceals this fact from us to advance the Quran's goal: our destruction. In these recordings he is caught saying his true thoughts about us without realizing it. 1. different from the rest of the non-Muslims, from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfill any desire. Once we do that, we are lost. In Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to. It is to remain ignorant, to cover up knowledge, after all, what is Kafir? Kafir comes from the root word, which means to cover up, to conceal. 2. The Kafir is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar Lamendes, he once wrote that the Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind. SubhanAllah, non-Muslims point this out to us. 3. and of course the Kafir, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and blind to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran, they are described in the Quran as quote, a people of no intelligence, Allah said, not of no morality, not of no belief, a people of no intelligence. because they are incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran described the atheists as cattle, as cattle as those who go into graves and do not suffer wonder about this world. 4. All of these unanimously agree that at the very minimum, If Yazid was not a Kafir then at the very minimum, he was a Fasiq, a transgressor, a breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music lover, a homosexual, a paedophile a sexual deviant, someone who slept with his own mother. Quran 7:179 And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones. Islamic Art of War By: Ofer Binshtok Islam wages a continuous global war through various methods and with varying intensity against non-Muslims 24/7, as commanded by the Quran and Muhammad, a war that has persisted for approximately 1400 years and will continue indefinitely. In places where non-Muslims grow weary of conflict and seek peace, avoiding confrontation and attempting to appease Islam, believing they have achieved tranquility through signing agreements with Islam and even allowing its migration into their territories, during this time, Islam builds its strength and attacks them when it senses it has the upper hand, from within and from outside, in the most brutal way possible. This war strategy relies on the Islamic Art of War, based on the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. Quran 8:39 - The goal: a world containing only Muslims through war. Quran 98:6 - Demonization of non-Muslims. Quran 3:28 - Deceive non-Muslims. Quran 47:35 - Do not seek peace when you have the upper hand. In other words, attack. Quran 8:60 - During a hudna (ceasefire), Islam prepares for war. Quran 9:123 - Attack nearby non-Muslims. Quran 9:5 - Kill every non-Muslim in the world. In 622 AD, Muhammad migrated from Mecca to the settlement of Medina (Yathrib) in the Arabian Peninsula, where he was received as a refugee by the Jews who had established and controlled the prosperous region, granting him shelter. Within approximately eight years, after building his strength, Muhammad eliminated the presence of Jews and other non-Muslims in the area. In 628 AD, Muhammad signed a ten-year hudna (truce) agreement in Hudaibiya with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, as his forces were weaker than theirs. In 630 AD, when his power was sufficiently strong, he violated the agreement with the Quraysh, attacked Mecca, conquered it with ease, and eradicated all other cultures present there. Muhammad's Sunnah, which is binding in Islam according to Quran 33:21, commands every Muslim to emulate all of Muhammad’s words and deeds, which are considered sacred. A Muslim must be loyal only to the Islamic Ummah" By: Ofer Binshtok The identity of the Muslim is solely to be a part of the global Islamic Ummah, without any connection to a nation-state or to another culture that is not the Islamic Ummah. The idea of independent Islamic nation-states contradicts the Islamic idea as it is found in the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah. A Muslim, wherever he is in the world, is part of the Islamic Ummah. A Ummah that should be ruled by a caliph through Sharia law. Islam is a global political-religious worldview of a world without borders. The existing Islamic nation-states are actually an act of heresy. A disbeliever who converts to Islam must completely break away from his former identity, become part of the Islamic Ummah, and serve its purposes personally. Every Muslim, wherever he is, is personally obligated to act so that the Islamic Ummah will be established—that is to say, to collapse every nation-state that exists in the world so that the Islamic Ummah will replace it. The fact that the idea of Ummah is included in the central motif of the Quran is evidence of the vital significance of this concept. In Islamic terminology, the term "Ummah" refers to the religious community, also known as the Islamic holy community. This is the primary interpretation of the phrase found in the Quran. Quran 5.51: "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)." Quran 2.143 "Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves; and We appointed the Qibla to which thou wast used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful." Quran 3.104 "Let there be one nation of you, calling to good, and bidding to honour, and forbidding dishonour; those are the prosperers." Quran 3.110 "You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient." Quran 16.92 "And be not like her who undoes the thread which she has spun after it has become strong, by taking your oaths a means of deception among yourselves, lest a nation may be more numerous than another nation. Allah only tests you by this [i.e who obeys Allah and fulfills Allah's Covenant and who disobeys Allah and breaks Allah's Covenant]. And on the Day of Resurrection, He will certainly make clear to you that wherein you used to differ [i.e. a believer confesses and believes in the Oneness of Allah and in the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad SAW which the disbeliever denies it and that was their difference amongst them in the life of this world]." Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, volume 1, page 649: Muhammad said, "The earth was made a mosque for me." Sahih al-Bukhari, 3167: "The Prophet said, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." Because Muhammad admitted to using terrorism, committing an act of terrorism is considered as a holy deed in Islam." (122) CHAPTER. The statement of the Prophet: I have been made victorious for a distance of one month journey with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy). The Statement of Allah: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve...(V.3:151) Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Hadith 2977 - Narrated AbU Hurairah: Allah's Messenger A said: "....and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)... Sahih Al-B ukhari\ translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan.- Riyadh. Volume 4. (122) CHAPTER. (56 - THE BOOK OF JIHAD) (Fighting for Allah's Cause) Page – 140. Quran 68.4 And indeed, you are (Muhammad) of a great moral character. Quran 33.21 "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day, and remembers Allâh much." "When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, the Quran creates a lens for him through which he sees and understands the non-Muslim, composed of these three verses (and there are many more):" 8:55, 98:6, and 9:28. Verses 8:55 and 98:6 portray non-Muslims as the worst creatures, even worse than cockroaches, bedbugs, and ticks. Verse 9:28 portrays non-Muslims as physically and spiritually filthy, akin to the filth of excrement. In summary: When a Muslim looks at a non-Muslim, he sees him through the lens of the Quran as the worst creatures, worse than cockroaches and ticks, and physically and spiritually filthy to the level of excrement. Quran 8.55 “Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.” Quran 98.6: "Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures." Quran 9.28: “O you who believe (in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad!) Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). [1] So let them not come near Al-Masjidal-Harâm (at Makkah) after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allâh will enrich you if He wills, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allâh is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (V.9:28) Their impurity is spiritual and physical: spiritual, because they don’t believe in Allâh’s Oneness and in His Prophet Muhammad; and physical, because they lack personal hygiene (filthy as regards urine, stools and blood). And the word Najas is used only for those persons who have spiritual impurity e.g. Al-Mushrikûn. Quran 9.14 "Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Quran 8.39: "...fight them until disbelief (non-Muslims) disappears and the whole Dean (way of life) is for Allah alone...(for Islam)” Quran 9.5: “...kill the Mushrikun (non-Muslims) wherever you find them…" Al-Bukhari: "To wage war against Allah means to reject faith in Him." Quran 2.191: "The sin of disbelief in Allah is greater than committing murder." "The concept of Jihad as defined by Sharia law." By: Ofer binshtok. 09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as: (1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216); (2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89); (3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"; and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (0: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace), "He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad," and Allah Most High having said: "Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each. Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). 09.2 jihad is personally obligatory upon all 'those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity (dis: pH)) (0: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one's mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force). 09.3 Jihad is also (0: personally) obligatory for everyone (0: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (0: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above-mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war. If conditions do not permit this, as when the enemy has overrun the Muslims such that they are unable to provision or prepare themselves for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to lin indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible). Source: Reliance of the Traveller - Revised Edition. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices. Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.

Ofer Binshtok - Kafir - עופר בינשטוק

86,713 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐕𝐃𝐇 — 𝐓𝐔𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌 𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐀𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓’𝐒 𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐒 Victor Davis Hanson sat down with historian Raymond Ibrahim — author of 𝘚𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳, three seminal books on the 14-century rivalry between Islam and the West — to address something that would have been unthinkable five years ago: a segment of the American right, including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and a recalibrated Megyn Kelly, is now more sympathetic to Islam than to Israel. VDH’s frame: “𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭.” Ibrahim gives this dynamic a name. It’s a seesaw. “𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭, 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘶𝘱. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. You can critique Israeli policy on any grounds you choose. But Islam was an existential enemy of the West long before the State of Israel was founded — across 14 centuries and counting. The timeline is not debatable. From the death of Muhammad in 632 AD, within two years the Arabs consolidated under Islam. By 635 they were waging war on Byzantium and the Sassanid Persians. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝟔𝟑𝟐 𝐭𝐨 𝟕𝟑𝟐 — 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 — 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐟𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐠𝐲𝐩𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐨, 𝐒𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Fast forward to Black Tuesday, May 29, 1453, when the Ottoman Sultan’s army scaled the Theodosian walls of Constantinople. The thinned Byzantine defenders — some 7,000 to 8,000 — had to take penance before God for k!lling in battle. The attackers needed no such penance. They were promised paradise for breaking through. That asymmetry in moral accounting partly explains why they won. The Tucker critique doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Tucker visits Saudi Arabia and says he feels great as a Christian. Ibrahim’s response: “𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘩, 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪 𝘈𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶.” 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. The data from Open Doors backs Ibrahim up. Every year, the World Watch List ranks the 50 nations where Christians face the most severe persecution. 𝐎𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝟓𝟎, 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐲 𝟑𝟕 𝐭𝐨 𝟑𝟖 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦-𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.” Of the top 13 “extreme persecutors” — nations where being identified as a Christian can get you k!lled on the spot — about 11 are Muslim. If you are a Christian who takes Christian persecution seriously, you have to reckon with that list. Britain is the test case unfolding in real time. VDH and Ibrahim discuss the stabbing of Henry Nowak, a student with no criminal record, just walking by. He was stabbed repeatedly and bled on the ground for 61 minutes. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐥𝐮𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭. The attacker carried an eight-inch knife — illegal under British law — but held it legally under a Sikh ceremony exemption. The family hid the knife. The brother called police claiming his sibling had been racially attacked. The mechanisms of Western self-loathing activated exactly when they were most dangerous. What’s driving the right’s realignment? VDH points to two forces. First, the post-October-7 demonization of Israel — even though October 7th itself should have made the pro-Israel case more obvious, not less. Second: Gulf money pouring into American universities. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have directed hundreds of millions into elite academic institutions. The narrative shift in elite discourse didn’t happen by accident. Eastern Europe hasn’t made this mistake. 𝐕𝐢𝐤𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐎𝐫𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐎𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. Hungarians and Poles have a living memory of what it meant to be ruled under Ottoman Islam through the 18th and 19th centuries. That memory hasn’t been overwritten by progressive revisionism. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨-𝐬𝐮𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐬𝐚𝐰. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

30,301 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Federal officials doubted truth of Kamloops mass graves claim What if I told you that a major federal agency quietly questioned one of the most explosive claims in recent Canadian memory — but said nothing publicly, because the prime minister had already turned it into a national tragedy? That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s Parks Canada. Internal records obtained by Blacklock's Reporter now reveal that as early as 2023, Parks Canada officials were privately skeptical of the headline-grabbing claim that 215 children’s remains had been discovered in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. The agency’s own archaeologists and historians concluded: there was no physical evidence. Not “insufficient evidence.” No evidence at all. But publicly? Silence. Instead, the agency lowered flags, sent tearful internal emails, and parroted the political line. One exec said he was “in shambles” after reading about it in The Guardian — not a forensic report, mind you, The Guardian. Another manager cancelled a staff meeting as an act of mourning. And this blind allegiance wasn’t limited to bureaucrats. Legacy media — supposed watchdogs of democracy — became the lapdogs of the narrative. CTV, for instance, is still spreading the misinformation. A story from May 28, 2021, features a headline that reads: "Remains of 215 children discovered on site of former residential school." That’s false. Full stop. There has been no discovery of remains, not a single confirmed body. In Kamloops, a tooth was later found to be from an animal. A rib bone? Undetermined. And despite $12.1 million in federal funds being handed to the band for excavation and forensic analysis, no excavation ever occurred. And yet, the national broadcaster didn’t just echo the myth — they weaponized it against anyone asking for proof and honesty. During the 2025 federal leaders’ debate, Rebel News' own Drea Humphrey asked now former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh a tough, necessary question: why hasn’t he condemned the arson attacks against Christian churches — a wave of hate crimes that followed the unproven Kamloops claim? Rather than answer, Singh smeared Rebel News as purveyors of misinformation — a charge he’s repeated often, never substantiated. But what happened next was even worse. CBC’s Rosemary Barton went on national television and slandered Drea directly, claiming her question was “woven with some truth and some things that weren’t true,” and falsely declared: "Yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found." That wasn’t commentary. That was state-funded defamation. Barton never apologized. When Drea tried to approach her to correct the record, Barton refused to speak to her. And while the CBC quietly posted a retraction — tucked away in a dusty corner of their “Corrections and Clarifications” page — it violated CBC’s own Journalistic Standards and Practices. Their own policy states that corrections should be made in the same format and audience as the original error. In this case? A national broadcast. Yet the retraction didn’t air. Barton never took responsibility. Because the truth doesn’t matter when you’re a regime journalist. The goal isn’t informing the public — it’s protecting the narrative. Parks Canada knew the grave claims didn’t hold up. But they stayed quiet while Trudeau visited Kamloops “to pay (his) respects to the graves,” and lowered the Peace Tower flag for five straight months. Mainstream media amplified it. Politicians exploited it. And journalists who challenged it — like Drea — were vilified for doing their jobs. This isn’t about denying the painful legacy of residential schools. It’s about refusing to let the government — and its media arm — turn speculation into dogma. When emotion overrides evidence, when no one dares question the story because they’re afraid of being labelled a heretic, you don’t get truth. You get mythology. And that mythology is now carved into public policy, enshrined on historic plaques, and weaponized against anyone who dares to ask: Where are the bodies? REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

Federal officials doubted truth of Kamloops mass graves claim What if I told you that a major federal agency quietly questioned one of the most explosive claims in recent Canadian memory — but said nothing publicly, because the prime minister had already turned it into a national tragedy? That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s Parks Canada. Internal records obtained by Blacklock's Reporter now reveal that as early as 2023, Parks Canada officials were privately skeptical of the headline-grabbing claim that 215 children’s remains had been discovered in unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. The agency’s own archaeologists and historians concluded: there was no physical evidence. Not “insufficient evidence.” No evidence at all. But publicly? Silence. Instead, the agency lowered flags, sent tearful internal emails, and parroted the political line. One exec said he was “in shambles” after reading about it in The Guardian — not a forensic report, mind you, The Guardian. Another manager cancelled a staff meeting as an act of mourning. And this blind allegiance wasn’t limited to bureaucrats. Legacy media — supposed watchdogs of democracy — became the lapdogs of the narrative. CTV, for instance, is still spreading the misinformation. A story from May 28, 2021, features a headline that reads: "Remains of 215 children discovered on site of former residential school." That’s false. Full stop. There has been no discovery of remains, not a single confirmed body. In Kamloops, a tooth was later found to be from an animal. A rib bone? Undetermined. And despite $12.1 million in federal funds being handed to the band for excavation and forensic analysis, no excavation ever occurred. And yet, the national broadcaster didn’t just echo the myth — they weaponized it against anyone asking for proof and honesty. During the 2025 federal leaders’ debate, Rebel News' own Drea Humphrey asked now former NDP leader Jagmeet Singh a tough, necessary question: why hasn’t he condemned the arson attacks against Christian churches — a wave of hate crimes that followed the unproven Kamloops claim? Rather than answer, Singh smeared Rebel News as purveyors of misinformation — a charge he’s repeated often, never substantiated. But what happened next was even worse. CBC’s Rosemary Barton went on national television and slandered Drea directly, claiming her question was “woven with some truth and some things that weren’t true,” and falsely declared: "Yes, there have been remains of Indigenous children found." That wasn’t commentary. That was state-funded defamation. Barton never apologized. When Drea tried to approach her to correct the record, Barton refused to speak to her. And while the CBC quietly posted a retraction — tucked away in a dusty corner of their “Corrections and Clarifications” page — it violated CBC’s own Journalistic Standards and Practices. Their own policy states that corrections should be made in the same format and audience as the original error. In this case? A national broadcast. Yet the retraction didn’t air. Barton never took responsibility. Because the truth doesn’t matter when you’re a regime journalist. The goal isn’t informing the public — it’s protecting the narrative. Parks Canada knew the grave claims didn’t hold up. But they stayed quiet while Trudeau visited Kamloops “to pay (his) respects to the graves,” and lowered the Peace Tower flag for five straight months. Mainstream media amplified it. Politicians exploited it. And journalists who challenged it — like Drea — were vilified for doing their jobs. This isn’t about denying the painful legacy of residential schools. It’s about refusing to let the government — and its media arm — turn speculation into dogma. When emotion overrides evidence, when no one dares question the story because they’re afraid of being labelled a heretic, you don’t get truth. You get mythology. And that mythology is now carved into public policy, enshrined on historic plaques, and weaponized against anyone who dares to ask: Where are the bodies? REPORT by Sheila Gunn Reid:

Rebel News

22,776 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr