DAILY SHMUTZ | COMMENTARY / OPINION | 11/1/24

COMMENTARY / OPINION

 

A Harris victory means a fourth Obama term   Dr. Alex Grobman

Remembering what that means: Obama refused to recognize that Israel’s leaders might have a better grasp of the situation than he did. He also thought it wrong that they would prioritize their nation’s security.  Op-ed.

Nov 1, 2024, 12:47 PM (GMT+2) Israel National News – “A Harris Victory Means a Fourth Obama Term,” proclaimed an editorial in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and “her foreign policy aides are on board for appeasing Iran and putting restraints on Israel.”

This is far from surprising, yet is instructive to examine how Obama viewed the Middle East and Iran.

When Barack Obama became president, he promised to take a different approach in dealing with the Israeli and the Palestinian Arab conflict. He began, what he hoped to be, an historic transformation of America foreign policy by traveling to Cairo to ask for a “new beginning” between America and the Islamic world to correct the misconception of the alleged favoritism toward Israel at the expense of the Muslim nations.

In his first interview, six weeks after assuming office, Obama told Hisham Melhem of the Arab satellite station Al Arabiya that as president his “job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In explaining his Middle East policy, Obama acknowledged there would be some Israelis who would not share his position. “Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel’s security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.”

This strategy led Obama to focus on “linkage” (see below) settlements, which he viewed as illegitimate. As he stated in his Cairo speech, “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

His expression of sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs who suffered “daily humiliations, large and small, that come with occupation,” signaled that the administration held Israel responsible for the conflict, not Palestinian Arab conduct asserted Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to Obama.

Using the term “occupation” conveyed a strong message Ross said: “America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.”

By publicly distancing America from Israel, Obama wanted to demonstrate that the U.S. could be a reliable mediator.

The peace process for Obama, according to Mark Landler, the White House correspondent for The New York Times, is about terminating Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria, which would be “a kind of silver bullet.” Once the Israeli’s vacated the area, Muslim hatred toward Israel and America would decrease, enabling the president to extricate the U.S. from this war-torn region.

“The president has concluded that the Middle East is no longer vital to American interests,” said Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. And even if an American president wanted to intercede in this quagmire, there is very little he could do to neutralize the situation. Intervention would inevitably lead to war, to the deaths of U.S. combatants, and the diminution of American credibility and power, which the country cannot afford.

Obama believes the problem in the Middle East is tribalism, which no American president can neutralize. The failing Arab states have prompted their despondent citizens to return to sect, creed, clan, and village, which is the root cause of a great deal of the problems a Muslim faces today in the area, and it is an additional source of his resignation and fatalism.

The Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria

In an interview with journalist Barak Ravid, Ben Rhodes, a White House Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, who played a dominant role in shaping Obama’s foreign policy, said he believed the settlements were a major cause of the stalemate.

“For Israel, the more there is settlement construction, the more it undermines the ability to achieve that peace, and the more Israel will only have to be defending its settlement policies in the years to come” Rhodes observed. “That’s a reality. It is not something the U.S. or the international community has chosen to make an issue. It’s an issue because there are settlements being built in the West Bank. That’s not going to go away — that’s going be an issue of international concern. There is no alternative that people can just forget this issue and say, ‘You know what, it is just going to work itself out.’ It is only going to get more difficult over time,” he claimed.

The Islamist Tantrum

Bret Stephens, then deputy editorial page editor for The Wall Street Journal, summed up Rhode’s misguided understanding of the conflict and his specious moral equivalence: “How sweet it would be if all Israel had to do to make peace was dismantle its settlements. How much sweeter if the American president would find less to fault with an Israeli government’s housing policies than a Palestinian [Arab] political culture still so intent on killing Jews. If Mr. Obama wants to know why he’s so disliked by Israelis, there’s the reason.”

The Myth of Linkage

Of all the policy myths that have kept us from making real progress in the Middle East, one stands out for its impact and longevity: the idea that if only the Palestinian cArab onflict were solved, all the other Middle East conflicts would melt away,” assert Dennis Ross and David Makovsky. In other words, “ending the Arab-Israeli conflict is prerequisite to addressing the maladies of the Middle East. Solve it, and in doing so conclude all other conflicts. Fail, and instability – even war – will engulf the entire region.”

As unfortunate as the dispute has become, Ross and Makovsky conclude, it has not “destabilize[d] the Middle East. There have been two Palestinian Intifadas, or uprisings, including one that lasted from 2000 to 2005 and claimed the lives of 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis – but not a single Arab leader had been toppled or a single regime destabilized as a result. It has remained a local conflict, contained in a small geographical area. Yet the argument of linkage endures to this day, and with powerful promoters.”

Obama Blamed Netanyahu

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama blamed Netanyahu for failing to implement a two-state solution because the prime minister, he said “is too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.” The New Times echoed this view in an editorial criticizing Netanyahu for not advancing the peace process. “Mr. Netanyahu has never shown a serious willingness on that front,” the paper claimed, “as is made clear by his expansion of Israeli settlements, which reduce the land available for a Palestinian state.”

Why blame Netanyahu? Jonathan Tobin notes that “during the Obama administration, in which most of the Biden-Harris foreign policy team also served, differences are often described as a form of impertinence on the part of Netanyahu and the Israelis. Their willingness to talk back to the Americans and even ignore their advice is viewed as a sign of disrespect.…President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the rest of the Obama alumni at the National Security Council and State Department seem to have an insatiable need for gestures of deference, if not acknowledgments of weakness, from the leader of the tiny Jewish state.”

“They also refuse to recognize that Israel’s leaders might have a better grasp of the situation than they do. They also think it wrong that they would prioritize their nation’s security over reinforcing the administration’s efforts to pretend that Biden is a strong leader.”

In light of Palestinian Arab intransigence and hostility, Tobin asks “Why won’t Obama and The New York Times accept these facts? Is it because doing so would require acknowledging they have misjudged Netanyahu and the Palestinian Arabs, and were wrong about the settlements as an impediment to peace. When given a choice between their fantasies and dealing with the reality of the conflict, the administration and its fans always choose the fantasy. Seen from that perspective, it’s clear it doesn’t really matter what Netanyahu does. Nothing he or the Palestinians can do is capable of forcing the president to give up his myths about the Middle East. So long as that is true, why should Israel’s enemies give up theirs?”

Iran: “The Number One Provocateur of Terror”

In an address at the American University in 2015, Obama said, “The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy….We have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon….it does not resolve all problems; it certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran…. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.”

Micael Doran, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute explained the cause for Obama’s optimism. “Obama based his policy… on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture… Iran would reciprocate….Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”

As we know this gesture of American friendship has not been reciprocated. Perhaps it is time for us to clench our fists in response.

Dr. Alex Grobman is the senior resident scholar at the John C. Danforth Society, a member of the Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and on the advisory board of The National Christian Leadership Conference of Israel (NCLCI). He lives in Jerusalem.

 

 

Israel Airstrikes DEVASTATE Iran Military Targets; Iran Counterstrike Soon?   [44:08]

October 31, 2024  TBN Israel – Join Mati Shoshani and Yair Pinto as they delve into Israel’s decisive response to Iran’s missile attack on October 1st takes center stage, with a powerful air strike targeting strategic military assets, including missile fuel facilities, drone production sites, and air defense systems close to Tehran. Mati and Yair analyze the operational details, the role of electronic warfare, and the broader geopolitical implications involving the U.S., Russia, and regional stability. This episode also delves into Iran’s internal dynamics and the global stakes as the situation in the Middle East evolves.

 

Here’s a Solution That Will Actually Bring Peace – Former Ambassador David Friedman  [42:49]   Caroline Glick

October 31, 2024  JNS TV – The concept of a “two-state solution” for Israel and the Palestinians clearly hasn’t worked to bring peace and prosperity to the region. So what’s next?

Join JNS senior contributing editor Caroline Glick and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman for a conversation that will change the way you look at possible solutions to the conflict.

Glick and Friedman also discuss the upcoming U.S. presidential election and how the outcome could possibly affect the prospects for lasting peace in the Middle East. Prepare to think outside the box!

 

Abortion law and rights explained   Dr. Shiela Nazarian

 

YWN EDITORIAL: Woke Chicago Mayor’s And PD’s Deafening Silence On Anti-Semitic Violence – And That Of Jewish Orgs

October 30, 2024  Jewish World News – Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s glaring double standard in addressing hate crimes has reached a disturbing new low. Last Shabbos (the morning after Shmini Atzeres), a Jewish man on his way to shul was shot from behind in West Rogers Park, an attack that authorities describe as unprovoked and marked by the shooter’s shouts of “Allahu Akbar.” Yet, in his public statement, Mayor Johnson avoided any mention of the anti-Semitic nature of the attack. His response was disappointingly vague, calling the shooting merely a “tragic event” and declaring that “all Chicagoans deserve to feel safe,” without a single word acknowledging the apparent targeting of the Jewish victim.

This isn’t just disappointing; it’s an insult. Compare Johnson’s muted response to his strong condemnation following the brutal murder of a Muslim child in nearby Plainfield last year. Then, Johnson swiftly and unequivocally decried the crime as a “despicable hate crime” and highlighted Islamophobia’s “destructive role” in our society. Yet, when a Jewish resident is shot on his way to shul—in a clear act of anti-Semitism—Johnson sidesteps, effectively dismissing the targeting of Chicago’s Jewish community.It’s not just Mayor Johnson’s failure. The Chicago Police Department has remained disturbingly silent as well. They have yet to publicly acknowledge that the victim was an Orthodox Jew, that the attacker yelled “Allahu Akbar,” or that the shooter deliberately traveled ten miles to a Jewish neighborhood to carry out this horrific act. Why are these critical facts being withheld from the public? This lack of transparency – which is clearly intentional – only adds to the impression of indifference and cowardice.

Rep. Ritchie Torres pointed out Johnson’s glaring oversight, questioning why the Mayor failed to even acknowledge the victim’s identity as a Jew or the hate-driven motivation behind the attack. “Any Mayor who cannot be bothered to acknowledge the antisemitism of a hate crime against a Jewish man heading to a synagogue is unworthy of the office he holds,” Torres rightly observed. [Emphasis added]

It’s equally disheartening to see Jewish organizations like Agudath Israel soft-pedal their responses. Why is it that Rep. Ritchie Torres—a non-Jewish Congressman—has taken the lead in calling out this crime’s anti-Semitic roots, while organizations that claim to represent us merely urge “action” without pressing Johnson or the police for accountability? Is Jewish blood somehow cheaper, unworthy of the same forceful advocacy we’ve seen when other communities face attacks?

Agudath Israel’s statement referred to the incident as “an act of violence” without even mentioning the shooter’s cry of “Allahu Akbar” or the suspect’s targeting of a Jewish neighborhood. Moreover, Agudah’s failure to call out Mayor Johnson’s evasiveness, or the Chicago Police’s reluctance to name the victim as an Orthodox Jew, is nothing less than stunning.

The suspect, Sidi Mohamed Abdallahi, an illegal immigrant from Mauritania, had been caught and released by Border Patrol in California before making his way to Chicago, shielded by Cook County’s sanctuary policies. He now faces multiple felony charges, including attempted murder. And yet, in the face of this violent anti-Semitic assault, Johnson, the police, and Jewish organizations tiptoe around or completely ignore the real problem at hand.

For Johnson, hate crimes should not be acknowledged selectively. His silence on this anti-Semitic crime is a betrayal to his Jewish constituents and speaks to a deeper disregard for unbiased justice. If the Mayor can’t find the courage to denounce anti-Semitism, then perhaps he doesn’t deserve the trust or the office he holds. And if police department officials don’t have the guts to call the shooting what it was – an antisemitic terrorist attack – then they should find another job.

[STUNNING: No Hate Crime Charges For Man Shouting “Allah Akbar” Who Shot Jewish Man In Chicago]

WATCH  

Local residents were stunned to learn that authorities have not considered hate crime charges in what appeared to be a targeted attack on a Jewish man simply walking to shul.

“Notably, and despite evidence that seems to suggest an antisemitic motive for the shooting, authorities did not file hate crime charges,” Alderman Debra Silverstein of the 50th Ward wrote in a statement.

“Law enforcement shares our disgust at a Jewish man being the victim of violence over the Jewish holidays,” Silverstein asserted, adding that police have asked the community to assist in providing any information or footage relevant to the investigation.

She noted that police have recovered a weapon and are continuing their investigation, and officials insist that further charges, including potential hate crime charges, could be filed as more evidence comes to light. However, this assurance has done little to soothe community anger. Many, including local leaders, have been quick to criticize the decision to initially overlook what they see as clear signs of bias-driven violence.

 

Whistleblower Exposes Biden-China Connection   [52:36]  Caroline Glick

October 30, 2024  JNS TV | The Caroline Glick Show

In February 2023, Israeli-American journalist Gal Luft published an extraordinary post on X revealing the Biden family’s alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence. Since then, Luft has been arrested, released and rearrested. Meanwhile, the bombshell allegations were never investigated.

 

The tide has turned: Kamala sinking like a lead balloon; Trump taking off like a rocket!   CHERIE ZASLAWSKY

OCT 30, 2024 – You know things are looking bad for Kameleon Harris when even the progressive Los Angeles Times declines to endorse her!

In fact, just last week, both Wayne Allyn Root and Paul Manafort compared this election to that of 1980 when Ronald Reagan trounced Jimmy Carter with a landslide victory. They predict Trump is about to have a similar landslide. American voters didn’t like inflation under President Carter, and like it no better under Biden and Harris, among other things.

Manafort—who temporarily managed Trump’s 2016 campaign—made his prediction in an engaging interview with Tucker Carlson you can watch here.

And savvy political commentator and longtime radio show host Wayne Allyn Root recently wrote about the dramatic decline of Kamala’s polling numbers, along with her talent for alienating nearly everyone, and another article that brings the good news we’ve been waiting for: Trump’s a shoe-in for the presidency!

Of course there’s one caveat: remember Biden’s statement in 2020, in a rare lucid moment: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

Yessir! They did just that. Will they do that again? They’ll try, but according to savvy odds-makers and bettors as we’ll see below, they’ll likely fail because Trump’s lead and his popularity is just too great.

Besides, since Kalamity has done us the favor of alienating so many voters, where do you think they’re going to go? That’s right: to Donald Trump!

TRUMP’S BIGTOP MAGA TENT

Who would have predicted that RFK Jr., the Kennedy scion with a storied family legacy as a Democrat par excellence, would have cast his lot with Trump, let alone join him on the campaign trail?

Or how about Elon Musk, the darling of progressive Silicon Valley, jumping up and down as he climbs aboard the Trump Train? Not to mention erstwhile Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, or the latest crossover Progressive, Jimmy Dore.

MAJOR NEWSPAPERS, UNBURDENED BY THE PAST, TURN THE PAGE ON KAMALA

We recently learned that Jeff Bezos’ slimy WaPo took the same cowardly route as the L.A. Times, refusing to endorse either candidate—suddenly taking the moral high-ground, doncha know.  Even though the Washington Post and the L.A. Times both happily endorsed Biden, and therefore Harris as VP, in 2020.

This just in: USA Today, along with 200 other Gannett-owned newspapers, have joined the Abandon Kamala Brigade—euphemistically calling it a decision not to endorse any presidential candidate, but we know they weren’t about to endorse Trump.

Folks, the tide has turned!

A number of the biggest newspaper purveyors of slanderous lies about Trump see which way the winds are blowing and apparently don’t want to go to bat for the dead-on-arrival Harris campaign. They aren’t brave enough to endorse DJT, which would mean they’d have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do after all the years of demonizing him, but this is a still a gamechanger! They’ve just given Kameleon Harris a vote of no confidence!

It even shocked some of their top editors who resigned in protest. How dare their Progressive papers stop propagandizing for Obama’s second surrogate, the DEI Dunderhead, Ms. Harris?

Conversely, the true blue New York Times gave Harris a glowing endorsement—glowing with TDS, that is. Why does the “Gray Lady” think we should vote for Kalamity?  Because…um…Orange Man BAD!

But after said Orange Man packed Madison Square Garden on Sunday night—with 75,000 more standing outside the venue—it seems the “Trump is Hitler” meme is not playing too well, even in the Big Apple.

Yes there’s a candidate to fear—but it’s not Donald Trump. It’s the woman the Times calls “the only patriotic choice for president.”  In a classic instance of satanic inversion, the Times has brazenly turned reality upside down, hoping to hoodwink the gullible.

Longtime NeverTrumper Tucker Carlson, who’s now, astonishingly, also on the Trump Train, recently described the seismic shift we’re experiencing this way during his dynamic speech at…wait for it…a Trump rally: “Dad’s home! [dramatic pause] And he’s pissed!”

So are the American people, as we survey the damage the catastrophic Biden/Harris regime has inflicted on our nation.

MS. PAGE-TURNER IN ACTION

Here’s the inimitable Wayne Allyn Root opining on the DEI candidate’s recent faux pas:

“One Candidate Just Had the Worst Week in the History of Politics. Can You Guess Which One?”

He goes on to chronicle Kamala’s disasters, beginning with her interview on Fox News conducted by Bret Baier.  As usual, she wouldn’t answer a single question, though she managed to be insultingly condescending toward her interlocutor in the process, who tried, with no success, to pin her down on, well, anything. Her policy positions? Orange Man bad. Orange Man unhinged! Orange Man dangerous!

A highlight for me was Bret’s asking her this: “You’ve been Vice President for three and a half years, so what are you ‘turning the page’ from?”

Her reply?  She’s turning the page from…wait for it… Donald Trump’s “divisive rhetoric!” The blazing irony here is that as she casts aspersions on his so-called rhetoric, her own is far uglier, nastier, and utterly dishonest to boot! Who’s calling whom Hitler?

Observes Wayne:

Kamala was exposed as a fraud. Not just any fraud, but a lazy fraud. She is either A) Really dumb. Or B) She’s just too lazy to actually study any issues, or understand any policies. I vote for C) Both.

He goes on to point out the result of her snubbing the Al Smith Catholic Charity dinner in New York:

“There goes the Catholic vote.” 

And in case you missed it, take a look at the bizarre video she sent to represent her at the dinner— stunningly cringe-worthy—shown at the formal, highly esteemed Al Smith dinner—an annual benefit for New York’s Catholic charities. I’d call that an affront.

It gets worse.

And when a man at one of her rallies called out “Jesus is Lord!” the spontaneous Kamala that we rarely see, popped out. Her response? A smug, snarky:  “Oh you guys are at the wrong rally…. Try the smaller one down the street!” This was met with gales of laughter and cheering from her radical Leftist pro-abortion audience, accompanied by her familiar cackling.

Wayne’s take? “Kamala mocked God. She offended anyone who believes in Jesus.”

Says Wayne: “There goes the Christian vote.”

And after she agreed with a Hamas-supporting protester that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by saying: “Listen to what he’s talking about, it’s real,” Wayne observes:

“There goes the Jewish vote.”

And for the coup de grace? As Wayne reports:

Black rapper Lizzo got up on stage at a Kamala event in Motown and told the crowd, “Kamala will turn the whole country into Detroit.”

“There goes the entire suburban vote.”

Read the rest here. You’ll love it!

DEMS HOISTED ON THEIR OWN DEI PETARD— TRUMP’S MOMENTUM UNSTOPPABLE!

In his article on Trump, Wayne predicts a repeat of the Reagan-Carter election of 1980, exclaiming: Trump is the New Reagan!

Polls show Trump with the best polling numbers of his entire career, and most importantly, leading in all seven battleground states- which would give him an electoral landslide.

And that’s not all: Wayne took a look at the major betting pools where the smart money goes, and found this at Polymarket:

Michigan- Trump leads 55% to 46%

Pennsylvania- Trump leads 57% to 43%

North Carolina- Trump leads 67% to 34%  [Where Joe & Kamala were missing in action in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, while Trump—not yet even in office—showed up]

Georgia- Trump leads 71% to 30%

Nevada- Trump leads 65% to 36%

Wisconsin- Trump leads 56% to 45%

Arizona- Trump leads 72% to 29%

Overall at Polymarket, Trump’s odds of winning the entire election are 63% to 37% for Kamala. That’s a 26-point lead.

If these figures are even close to being accurate, it will be next to impossible for the Dems & pals to steal this election.

Let’s just say impossible!

And let’s hear it for poetic justice! The Dems overplayed their hand with their insufferable DEI candidate, whom Wayne Root calls DLI: Dumb, Lazy, and Incompetent.

And now there’s been a tectonic shift! At last, people get it!

The lightweight ”joy” candidate disses Catholics, Jews and Christians , demonizes her opponent, and desperately backpedals on her lifelong far Left positions.

Whereas the man she calls “unstable” “unfit” and “dangerous”—the one who, as President, made America energy independent and catalyzed a nearly miraculous economic boom during the first few years of his administration—the man who’s demonstrated he’s willing to lay his life on the line for his country—the man who filled Madison Square Garden with a joyous, high-energy rally featuring famous icons from RFK Jr. to Tucker Carlson to Elon Musk—that man, Donald J. Trump—is the man of the hour, who has long since proven himself worthy to lead our nation, and to make America great again!

Looks like it will soon be morning in America!

[Ed.:

 

Analyzing a year of war. How is Israel really doing? Caroline Glick and Alex Traiman Explain  [1:15:02]

October 29, 2024  JNS TV – JNS CEO and Jerusalem bureau chief Alex Traiman sits down with senior contributing editor Caroline Glick for a one-on-one conversation following the Oct. 26 retaliatory strikes in Iran. Join them for an inside look at what’s really happening in the ongoing war and a discussion on Israel’s road to total victory.

 

Jeff Bezos has a business problem   HAMISH MCKENZIE

Out with the olds, in with the news

OCT 29, 2024 – Jeff Bezos seems to relish taking on almost impossible projects. After magicking up “the everything store,” which can now get a toothbrush from the internet to my house in six hours, he founded a rocket ship company, Blue Origin, with the hope of making spaceflight so cheap that humans can live in Earth’s orbit. But his most difficult task might just be trying to revive the Washington Post and restore it to a semblance of its former glory while also making it solvent. It’s also far less fun.

Yesterday, Bezos published a defense of why the newspaper he bought 11 years ago is not endorsing a presidential candidate this year. His case, whether you like it or not, was coherent: Americans trust “the media” less than they trust even Congress, and any news organization in this day and age that presents itself as impartial undermines its own credibility by appearing to take sides.

“We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate,” he wrote. “It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased.”

As much merit as there might be to Bezos’s argument—and as understandable as it might be for his critics to decry a powerful and conflicted owner’s interference in an ostensibly independent editorial process—the root problem for the Post in its fight against irrelevance is less to do with a steely-eyed commitment to fairness and balance, and more to do with a business bind. It just doesn’t make much sense for a news organization in the year 2024 to look like the Post looks, with thousands of editorial and sales staff, a product that often comes across as New York Times Lite, an income stream that blends premium subscriptions with crappy digital ads, and a political positioning that adopts the “voice from nowhere” but whose staff is quite clearly (and vocally, on social media) aligned with a particular party. It’s an institution that is out of place and out of time—a railroad company in the age of the automobile; a paper company in the age of the touchscreen.

The media ecosystem is in crisis because social media has a mental illness and traditional media has a physical illness. Today’s dominant social media platforms might make us angry and dumb, but they have functioning business models and, with the exception of X, financial stability. Today’s largest traditional media companies have the opposite problem. They produce quality work, but, with the exception of the New York Times and a few others, their increasingly decrepit bodies can no longer support their own weight. Even with an owner whose pockets are as deep as the Mariana Trench, the Post cannot escape that illness. When new publisher Will Lewis met with staff in May, he said the company had lost $77 million over the previous year and seen a 50% reduction in audience over four years.

So what’s a news industry to do?

Well, one path is to hope that stupendously wealthy individuals who believe that newspapers and magazines are still essential to a functioning democracy choose to prop them up—a path that Bezos, Marc Benioff (Time magazine), Patrick Soon-Shiong (the L.A. Times), and Laurene Powell Jobs (The Atlantic) are currently on. That can work for a few, and for a time. But at some point, assuming you are willing to put up with the prickly conflicts of interest, you run out of people who fit into the tight part of that Venn diagram, and even then, their willingness to absorb financial bleeding isn’t infinite.

Another path is to stop looking to the past for hope. When the fire has ripped through the forest, new trees can grow.

With the emergence of powerful new publishing platforms, growth through social networks, and a widespread acceptance that quality journalism can command quality subscription prices, we are witnessing the rise of a new generation that can build for the media future without the legacy baggage of old institutions.

Startup news organizations such as Bari Weiss’s The Free Press, Mehdi Hasan’s Zeteo, The Bulwark, Defector, Puck, Punchbowl News, The Ankler., and The Dispatch are proving that, while existing news outlets continue to struggle, the conditions are more favorable than perhaps at any time in history to start a new media organization. The Free Press, which is now three years old, boasts 800,000 subscribers and is valued at $100 million. Hasan launched the video-focused Zeteo within weeks of leaving his role at MSNBC and passed 3,000 paid subscribers and $3 million in annual revenue in the first three months. Political news outlet Punchbowl News was on track to bring in $20 million by the end of its second year in business. All of these businesses are growing robustly. They’re car companies for the age of the automobile.

In his editorial, Bezos suggests that many people are abandoning traditional media in favor of “off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions.” The concern is valid, and it’s also fair to challenge the rise of “citizen journalism,” which a certain platform owner seems to equate with “Internet Man who spends all day online mashing keys and proclaiming himself The Real Media Now.” But the new-generation publications listed above are serious operations, with editors, well-compensated reporters, strong, focused editorial remits, and high-quality production. And yet their future is bright. They have leaner business teams, less tech and administrative overhead, and effective business models that, assisted by available-to-all technologies, just work. The most forward-thinking of that list even share ownership with the writers, offering some of the spoils and spotlight to the people who contribute the most value to their businesses.

In their search to restore trust in the media, one hopes that Bezos and co. stop defaulting to the old and start looking to the new. They should back the bold entrepreneurs who have a vision for the future of media that transcends a bygone era and lays infrastructure that makes sense for the AI age. Bezos has reportedly spent billions of dollars on Blue Origin’s efforts to change what’s possible in space. That money hasn’t gone to refitting old Soviet rockets. What if he took the same approach to the industry that is supposed to serve as the bedrock for democracy?

 

The absurd demonization of President Trump   Dr. Alex Grobman

Comparing Trump to Hitler? Can any rational person compare what Hitler did when he initiated the most disastrous war in history to what the former president accomplished during his four years in office?   Opinion.

Oct 28, 2024, 11:42 PM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – “Hitler’s ‘career’ was truly astonishing,” observed historian Ian Kershaw. He was “an absolute nobody” throughout the first half of his life. During the second half, he forced the world to wait in fear and trepidation for his every move. The devastation he caused in Europe was “unmatched even by Attila the Hun.”

Equating former President Donald J. Trump to Hitler is an outrageous distortion of history. In what way is the former president like Adolph Hitler? That we are not told. Only that he is an evil man, a fascist, and an existential threat to our democratic way of life. How we are not told.

Perhaps a brief examination the destruction Hitler wrought will demonstrate why the analogy is so absurd, and nothing more than a dangerous and pernicious canard.

Hitler ushered in “a significantly new era, one in which the extermination of human life in guiltless fashion became thinkable and technologically feasible,” declared Father John T. Pawlikowski, Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.

“It opened the door to an age in which dispassionate torture and the murder of millions became not just an action of a crazed despot, not merely an irrational expression of xenophobic fear, not just a drive for national security, but a calculated effort to reshape humanity supported by intellectual argumentation from the best and the brightest minds in a society.”

Industrial murder has added a new dimension to the age old massacres and wars that have been part of human civilization observed historian Omar Bartov. Until the Holocaust, one associated industrialization with progress and development, a new found sense of freedom, energy, and anticipation of how the latest innovative technologies would improve our lives. We had not foreseen the sinister side of industrialization that could be harnessed to murder more people, with greater efficiency and in less time than ever before.

“The light shed by the Holocaust on our knowledge of bureaucratic rationality is at its most dazzling once we realize the extent to which the very idea of the Endlösung der Judenfrage– the final solution to the Jewish Question] was an outcome of the bureaucratic culture,” asserted Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. The Holocaust is “so crucial to our understanding of the modern bureaucratic mode of rationalization,” Zygmunt believed, “not only, and not primarily, because it reminds us … just how formal and ethically blind is the bureaucratic pursuit of efficiency.”

For Jews, and especially Holocaust survivors, comparing President Trump to Adolph Hitler is an egregious affront, because it demeans and diminishes the horrific experiences the Jews of Europe endured, and the murder of the Six Million.

The notion that the Jewish people should be completely annihilated “was not a tactically motivated threat,” German historian Peter Longerich said, “but the logical consequence” of the belief which “dominated” the entire National Socialist agenda, “that the German people were locked in a life and death struggle with their mortal enemy–international Jewry–in which their very existence as a nation was in peril.”

When asked what would the world say and how would they react to the indiscriminate murder of the Jewish people, Hitler responded: “When [Operation] Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment,” noted Gideon Hausner, who as Attorney General of Israel, prosecuted Adolf Eichmann in 1961.

The Jews were not merely victims, as historian Yehuda Bauer points out. They are a people, a community and a nation, “which was in some significant ways, central to the self-understanding of European and not just German society.” This is why the Jews became the focus of an unprecedented assault that has transformed the western, and progressively also the non-western word’s “perception” of itself. The essence of National Socialism is not its bureaucratic culture or “modernistic structures”—which clearly contributed—but an ideological commitment to abolish not just a government or a political system, “but the basic order of the world.”

Can any rational person compare what Hitler did when he initiated the most disastrous war in history to what the former president accomplished during his four years in office?

A Final Note

If we are to learn from the past, we must be concerned about objective truth, with transmitting what actually ensued and not allowing those with their own particular agenda or ignorance to obscure our understanding of what occurred.”

Apparently Eberhard Jäckel’s prediction about Hitler was prescient. “It is important to note,” he said, “that even the dead Hitler will always remain with Germans, with the survivors, with their descendants, and even with the unborn. He will be with them, not as he was with his contemporaries, but as an eternal monument to what is humanly possible.”

Dr. Alex Grobmanis the senior resident scholar at the John C. Danforth Society and a member of the Council of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. He has an MA and PhD in contemporary Jewish history from The Hebrew university of Jerusalem. He lives in Jerusalem.

 

Mitch McConnell Exits Senate Leadership in November, John Thune Will Likely Replace    Sundance 

October 28, 2024  The Conservative Treehouse – There’s a myriad of outrage articles written about the Senate DeceptiCon Leader stepping down from his position and the likely heir apparent John Thune (R-SD) taking his place.

I doubt you will find a website that has been outlining the conniving duplicity of South Dakota Senator John Thune more than this one [SEE HERE].  That said, attempting to stop John Thune from becoming the next Senate Majority Leader is an exercise in futility, here’s why.

I cannot stand Thune and his Big Ag duplicity.  But I’m not going to waste time trying to change an outcome that is essentially done, negotiated (yes, discussions with Trump) and “in the books” so to speak.

We have written about this plan for several years.  Mitch McConnell isn’t leaving the Senate; he’s just stepping down from leadership.  McConnell personally groomed Thune for the position and has introduced him to all the key financial players that keep the DeceptiCons (Deceptive Conservatives) in office.   GO DEEP and GO DEEP

John Thune talks about assuming the role as the natural outcome of his time with McConnell, because the political silo that houses the Senate chamber is well fortified.  Unfortunately, almost all the GOPe Republicans (DeceptiCons) will support this passing of the baton, and the only thing that makes the Deep State professional Republicans nervous, is the potential for President Donald Trump to intercede in the anointing.  This is Trump’s leverage point.

With the upper chamber in Republican control Thune has the support of the democrat uniparty apparatus and the Decepticon wing of the republicans (McConnell’s team).  The nonaligned Republican coalition is approximately 20 to 25 members, who might -key word, ‘might’- vote against Thune.  This makes Thune’s installment a generally accepted foregone conclusion.

Continue reading

 

Today there are 2 other blogs discussing globalism’s planned Great Reset, which is advancing much more rapidly in Europe than the US    MERYL NASS

Covering some of the same ground I did on Saturday, though I had not read either author before. Our conclusions are similar.

OCT 28, 2024

These are the 2 posts you may want to look at regarding globalism’s rapid advance:

1. https://expose-news.com/2024/10/28/15-minute-cages-being-built-in-holland/
   

The author talks about what is happening in Holland. She also refers readers to the following 2022 book by Van der Pijls, but she did not know the book’s title in English, so here it is: (photo)

1. I have not read the other parts of the blog post below, but this long Part 7 has many nuggets, like the fact the World Wildlife Fund was formed by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard (a card-carrying Nazi), husband of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.
   And the author, Will Zoll, mentions the Terra Carta. Which I think is the Earth Charter, written by Nelson Rockefeller’s son Stephen in 2000, placed in a special “ark of the covenant” type crate and walked (carried by foot) to the UN— which Maurice Strong hoped would achieve the status of the Ten Commandments. Hmmm. (I learned this from one of Patrick Wood’s books.). I also recently learned from Mr. Wood that Maurice Strong, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Gorbachev (who I once thought was a good guy for suiciding the USSR, until I saw what happened in the world without a counterbalance to US hegemony) were all involved in the Club of Rome, and Gorby and Strong were on its Board. This then led me to talk about the 2 Club of Rome books (Limits to Growth, 1972 and The First Global Revolution, 1992) in my lecture Saturday.
   

Today, Mr. Zoll’s blog post revealed Ursula Van Der Leyen at a 2023 BEYOND GROWTH event, mentioning 1972’s Limits to Growth in remarks she gave last year. She said the quiet part out loud: stop economic and population growth—or as we see now, the globalists are actually going further than simply stopping growth. They appear to be seeking to shrink both.

Here is the second piece that you may wish to peruse. I do not necessarily agree with everything being said, but Zoll’s ideas about what may come in the future do fit with the WEF’s Ida Auken’s “own nothing and be happy” discussion of people living outside cities in a wilderness.  https://prussiagate.substack.com/p/when-decades-happen-part-vii

 

Israel’s attack on Iran – force and dollar multiplier for the USA   Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
October 28, 2024 – *The October 26, 2024 Israeli Air Force 1,000-mile-offensive against Iran – which was one of the more complex air force offensives since WW2 – highlighted Israel as a unique triple A store and battle-tested innovation center for the US defense and aerospace industries, underscoring the superiority of the US-made F-35, F-16 and F-15 in the global market.

*The capabilities of the US combat aircrafts have been demonstrated by the Israeli Air Force, which – more than any other air force – operates in a high intensity manner (over Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran) and acts daily in a do-or-die and can-do state of mind, which mandates more innovation and risk-taking, stretching the capabilities of the US-made combat aircraft to new heights. The keen interest by the US Air Force to hold a multitude of joint maneuvers with Israel’s Air Force attests to the added-value derived by the interaction with – and feedback from – the uniquely experienced Israeli combat pilots.

*The game-changing battle tactics employed on October 26, 2024 by Israel’s Air Force have already been shared with the US Air Force, as were the lessons of the ground-breaking June 1982 Israeli Air Force destruction of 20 Soviet-made Syrian surface to air missile batteries, while downing 82 Soviet Migs, which still inspires the US Air Force. The Israeli battle experience has enriched the US battle tactics and training program of US combat pilots, who rarely experience do-or-die type of sorties, improving US military skills and saving American lives. A similar contribution has been made by Israel’s counter-terrorism, special operations and urban warfare battle-experienced units, which systematically interact with their US colleagues.

*Moreover, the US military has been privy to a most advanced level of Command, Control and Communications system (C3), which was developed by Israel’s military, playing a key role in the execution of the October 26, 2024 offensive.

*The more than 100-combat-aircraft-offensive also included US-made aerial refueling tankers and spy planes, as well as radar suppression technologies and drones.  It demolished and jammed air defense systems in Syria and Iraq, on the way to striking 20 military targets in Iran, including in Tehran.  Thus, disabling Iran’s Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries (which is also used by China!), and destroying missile and drone production facilities. All Israeli Air Force US-made planes returned home safely.

*Furthermore, the Israeli Air Force has been a flagship of the US aerospace industries, sharing with the US manufacturers vital operational, maintenance and repair lessons concluded by the Israeli battle-tested laboratory. These lessons – also produced by other branches of the IDF, employing hundreds of US military systems – have been integrated as upgrades into the next generation of the US products, saving the US many years of research and development (which amounts to mega-billions of dollars), enhancing the competitiveness of US products in the global market, generating more exports (additional billions of dollars), and expanding employment (3.5 million people working in the defense and aerospace industries, in addition to the multitude of subcontractors).In fact,Israel’s uniquely intense use of US combat aircraft has helped in solving pivotal glitches (especially in the F-35).

*Israel has evolved into a unique research and development center for the US defense industries, as it has been for some 250 US high tech giants of the commercial industries in the areas of agriculture, medicine, pharmaceuticals, automotive, computer software, electronics, telecommunications, fin tech, Internet, etc. (e.g., John Deere, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Texas Instruments, Intel, Nvidia, General Motors, Microsoft, AT&T, IBM, Dell, Google, Facebook, Intuit, etc.).

*The US defense and commercial industries have leveraged Israel’s brain power and innovative and defiance-of-odds spirit, in order to sustain their global lead, yielding a substantial increase in global sales.

*The October 26, 2024 offensive has enhanced Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of anti-US Shiite terrorism (e.g., Iran’s Ayatollahs and Hezbollah which operate in the Middle East and Latin America) and anti-US Sunni terrorism (e.g., the Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas and the PLO), which are committed to bringing “The Great American Satan” to submission. Israel’s offensive has advanced the stability of all pro-US Arab oil-producing regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, as well as the pro-US Jordan, Egypt and Morocco, all of which have the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats.

*As stated by General Alexander Haig, who was a Supreme Commander of NATO and a US Secretary of State, and Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, who was Chief of US Naval Operations: Israel is the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US military personnel on board, cannot be sunk, deployed in a most critical area of the world, and sparing the US the need to manufacture, deploy and maintain a few more real aircraft carriers along with a few ground divisions, which would have cost the US $15bn-$20bn annually.

*The October 26, 2024 Israeli Air Force offensive against Iran’s Ayatollahs highlights the reality of the annual $3.8bn extended to Israel (to purchase US military systems), which does not constitute “foreign aid.” Rather, this is an annual US investment in an immensely grateful Israel, yielding to the US a few hundred percent annual Return-on-Investment (R-o-I). It is the most productive and secure US investment in its unique force and dollar multiplier, underlying the mutually beneficial US-Israel two-way-street.

Support Appreciated

[Ed.:  VERY interesting!]

 

Jonathan Pollard: Unpacking Israel’s Strike on Iran   [1:07:06]

Oct 27, 2024  Machon Shilo – Discussion between the head of Machon Shilo Rabbi David Bar-Hayim & Jewish hero Jonathan Pollard

Watch Jonathan Pollard & Machon Shilo’s Rabbi David Bar-Hayim discuss how Israel can defeat the Hezbollah:

 

“Six Days from Sunday” and the Continuity of Government    Sundance

October 27, 2024  The Conservative Treehouse – Incredible as it seems, at least to me, it is the four-year anniversary of this outline [GO DEEP].

During the rushed debate over the Patriot Act, was when I first heard political officials talking about the importance of “continuity of government.”

I immediately recognized what all these DC voices were describing was a construct of a post-911 government that would exist and maintain itself without the elected representatives of WeThe People.

The intelligence gathering and homeland security system put into place after the Patriot Act was passed, is a bureaucratic administrative state without the presence of elected officials controlling the apparatus. That leads to the following question:

How can a constitutional republic function without elected officials in control of it?

That question is at the heart of our current situation.

That question is at the epicenter of this “new American democracy” that no one seems to understand.

The simple answer is it cannot.

We have been fighting this three-headed IC monster (DHS, DNI, DOJ-NSD) ever since.

This reality the underlying predicate behind why Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Special Counsel charges against Trump. This reality is also the underlying framework behind why the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the plenary power of the President with control over the executive.

In the post-9/11 system that was created by the Patriot Act, our Constitutional Republic was inextricably fractured, placing systems and silos in charge of government under the auspices of “continuity of government.”

From that moment forth, elected representatives no longer held authority or oversight *over* the national security apparatus. Instead, the Patriot Act flipped the actual system of democratically elected representative government.

The RESULT: Our elected officials became subservient to the institutional interests of unelected agency officials. As Senator Schumer calls them “the six ways from Sunday” coalition.

Continue reading

 

Israel FIRES back at Iran! Was that it?   Caroline Glick [LIVE]

October 27,2024  JNS TV – The IDF carried out precise and targeted strikes against military targets in Iran over the weekend. In today’s episode, we’ll explain what exactly was targeted and why the IDF chose these targets. We’ll also try to understand factors affecting Israel’s strategy and what to look for in the coming days and weeks, especially as America heads to elections.

 

Communist Cuba Runs Out of Power   by Daniel Greenfield

The regime is out of Castros and cash.

October 27, 2024  Front-page Magazine – Communist Cuba, the darling of progressive champions like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Mayor Karen Bass, and CPUSA leader Gus Hall, is not doing so well. After Venezuela ran out of money and Russia spent all its money buying Iranian drones, the Communist regime ran out of Castros and cash.

The power is down and has been going down on and off for days. And unlike California, there’s not much of an industry or a taxpayer base that the ruling Communist elite can loot for repair money.

The Cuban Communist regime is reliably blaming the American embargo, but when you’re a Communist regime, blaming all your problems on the refusal of the capitalists to sell you stuff ought to be embarrassing.

Taking a lesson from California, the Cuban regime has however demanded more money from the ‘private sector’ and announced plans to build more solar power. The problem with solar power (apart from the fact that it’s an expensive and highly inefficient gimmick mainly good for putting money in the pockets of green investors and Communist China) is that Cuba can’t make its own and is deeply hostile of foreign businesses which means that its solar pipe dreams are as real as Das Kapital’s economics.

Good news though.

As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Cuban government committed to 37% of its power coming from renewable energy by 2030, an ambitious increase from an initial 24% targe

The actual number is 5%. And a bunch of that apparently involves burning cane sugar.

The share of Cuba’s electricity that comes from renewable sources like solar and burning sugar cane waste has increased only slightly, from 3.8% in 2012 to 5% as of 2022, according to research from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and EDF

Perhaps some greenie can educate me about the environmental impact of burning cane sugar on the planet.

Meanwhile, there’s no power, there are shortages of running water, and pretty much everything else.

There’s only one answer: California Gov. Newsom must immediately take over Cuba.

Daniel Greenfield   Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

[Ed.:

 

Federal Appeals Court Rules for ‘Election Day’, Not ‘Election Week’   by Daniel Greenfield 

“Congress statutorily designated a singular ‘day for the election’”

October 27, 2024 – Once upon a time, America used to have Election Day. Now we’re being threatened with Election Week.

There’s no reason for it. The year is 2024. We can order a toaster and have it delivered overnight from another state. We hear about an event seconds after it happens. Yet somehow despite insane budgets, we’re told that it’s impossible to do in 2024 what we were able to do in 1944. During wartime.

Election Week may have hit a bit of a snag after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting mail ballots arriving after Election Day is wrong because it’s… Election Day, not Week, Month or Year.

“Congress statutorily designated a singular ‘day for the election’ of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this ‘day for the election’ is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

The ruling spends time restating the obvious along with simple definitions of words.

Election Day is when all the ballots have to be in. If the ballots aren’t in, there’s an endless election that only ends when all the ballots have been received.

“Even if the ballots have not been counted, the result is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed. The selections are done and final. By contrast, while election officials are still receiving ballots, the election is ongoing: The result is not yet fixed, because live ballots are still being received.”

It’s not Election Day if you can keep dumping in ballots and counting them until you win.

But like many common sense court rulings, this one may not even be enforceable. It may possibly be cited in election challenges to limited effect, and yet what it states is the simple truth.

Daniel Greenfield   Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

[Ed.:

 

Voter Fraud––The issue that matters most in 2024   Joan Swirsky

Clearly, the only thing Democrats have cared about for the past hundred years is winning elections at any cost. Beware.  Opinion.

Oct 26, 2024, 7:00 PM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – No, it’s not “the economy, stupid,” in spite of the schizophrenic stock market since our remarkably resilient capitalistic economy ran head into the socialist-cum-communist Biden-Harris regime, with its $1.8-trillion deficit.

And no, it’s not domestic policy, where we have had the luxury of being on the receiving end of:

• High taxes.
• High food prices.
• High gas prices.
• Sky-high regulations.
• Alarmingly high crime rates throughout the country, particularly in states run by Democrats, where arrests are few, bail is nonexistent, and raging criminals enjoy no consequences for their assaults, rapes, murders, racist attacks, et al.
• Eleven million illegal and unvetted aliens who are further draining our economy thanks to the largesse of this regime, which is housing them in fancy hotels, providing food, healthcare, iPhones, education for their children, even monthly stipends that are higher than what American families and veterans receive.

And no, it’s not foreign policy in which:

• We’ve spent trillions of dollars supporting Zelenskyy in Ukraine but couldn’t find the funds, as ace investigative journalist Kelleigh Nelson spells out, to help the ravaged victims of the government-manipulated hurricanes Helene and Milton in several southern “red” states. Talk about a pre-election October Surprise!
• There are now five wars that didn’t exist four years ago—in Yemen, Darfur, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Israel… costing more trillions of dollars and precious lives.
• The Biden-Harris regime is indefensibly antagonistic to our trusted and invaluable ally, Israel, as they have waffled on their support and threatened an arms embargo for that tiny Jewish state, surrounded and at war with seven menacing enemies whose charters call for its complete annihilation and death to every Jew on earth. And yet a US president threatens Israel not to destroy the Iranian nukes.

CRUNCH TIME

Clearly, the only thing Democrats have cared about for the past hundred years is winning elections at any cost.

And in the past four years in particular, they’ve been maniacally obsessed with lodging phony lawsuits against President Trump in order to ensure that he is not reelected, even if the perpetual sore losers of the left have to buy the guns they say they hate in order to assassinate him.

Why? Because the business mogul and non-politician Citizen Trump won the 2016 election by exposing:

• “The Swamp’s” systemic lawlessness, corruption, and treason.
• The Democrats’ America-Last policies.
• The leftist bias of the bought-and-paid-for Media Whores.
• The Democrat racism that has kept blacks uneducated, impoverished, and imprisoned for decades on end because of the welfare system they created that promises food, housing, education, medical care, et al, to women and says they can have as many children as they desire, with only one iron-clad rule: if you get married, you lose all benefits! Hence, tragically, the decades of broken families.
• The horrific trade deals that benefited foreign nations, but not America .
• The fallacy that no Mideast peace is possible without striking a deal with the hostile-to-Israel Arabs who insist on calling themselves “Palestinians.” Really? See President Trump’s colossally successful Abraham Accords.
• The craven deals that made our country dependent on foreign oil by––POOF! ––making America completely energy independent.

As I often and regretfully state, because of space limitations, the above is the short list.

METHOD TO THEIR MADNESS

Dozens of books have spelled out in detail how Democrats have stolen elections over the past many decades by enlisting the votes of illegal aliens, absentee voters who simply don’t exist, and of course dead voters.

Among the most riveting are:

• John Fund’s Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
• Eric Eggers’ Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election

Then there is Ballot Harvesting, a scheme exclusively used by Democrats to win elections. How does it work? According to CA political commentator Stephen Frank, someone––campaign worker, minor, illegal, etc.––goes door to door to “help” people fill out ballots that strangely favor Democrats, and refuses to collect ballots from anyone they suspect of voting the “wrong” way.

Intimidation is common and nothing stops them from allegedly altering ballots or throwing out ballots for the undesired candidate or paying to vote for the right one.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2020, 26 states allowed this fraudulence, a practice that was aggressively and successfully challenged by Tom Fitton of electionintegrity@judicialwatch.org.

Not to omit the now-defunct ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now)—a massive group of over 500,000 members which operated nationwide since 1970, registering voters and helping people sign up for government-financed programs.

ACORN was exposed for its criminal activities in 2009 by James O’Keefe, founder of The Veritas Project, resulting in multiple convictions for massive voter fraud in several states, and it closed its doors in 2010, although it is believed that splinter groups formed and are active to this day.

Writer Barbara Kralis maintains that “America’s election mail-in ballot scam has been a huge problem the last four national elections. Democrats and organized union officials keep ‘miraculously’ finding lost mail-in ballot boxes (fake ballots) on the days following each of the last four elections,” leading to highly suspect Democrat victories. And Dinesh D’Souza’s film, “2000 Mules,” shows in real time how the massive fraud of the 2020 election was executed.

LET ME COUNT THE WAYS

Just the other day, Kamala Harris’s Department of Justice––in a can’t-make-it-up act––sued the state of Virginia for removing illegals from its voter rolls!

The last time I kept track of such measures was just a few years ago, and here is just a tiny sampling of the vote-rigging methods used exclusively by Democrats that I discovered at that time:

• In a FL primary, more than 35,000 mail-in ballots were rejected, and over 100,000 ballots were rejected in CA.
• GA authorities reveal 1,000 people double-voted in primary using absentee ballots.
• More than 534,000 mail ballots were rejected during primaries across 23 states— nearly a quarter in key battlegrounds for the fall (Townhall).
• In NC, voters reported receiving two ballots in the mail.
• A top PA lawmaker called on the state to immediately expunge the names of 11,198 non-citizens whom the state confirmed are registered to vote despite not being eligible.
• FBI Found Discarded Military Mail-in Ballots Cast for Trump (see below picture).
• Election Watchdog Finds 350,000 Dead Registrants on Voter Rolls in 42 States.
• GA Investigating 1,000 Cases of Voter Fraud.
• The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) of IN found the following: there may be as many as 350,000 dead people still registered to vote in U.S. elections; NY, TX, MI, FL, and CA accounted for 51 percent of the dead registrants; 40,000 likely duplicate voters may have voted twice; many state registrars have been forbidden to cull their voter rolls by the courts because hysterical Democrats claim some voters might be disenfranchised; NV’s largest county sent out more than 200,000 mail-in primary ballots to the wrong addresses, while 84,000 mail-in presidential primary ballots cast in NY City were disqualified.
• Again, CA political commentator Stephen Frank reports: Trump IS Right: Post Office Is Discarding, Hiding Absentee Ballots! (Well, whaddaya know––Joe Biden just received the endorsement of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union!).

You get the picture.

PARTNERS IN CRIME

Linda Goudsmit, author of The Book of Humanitarian Hoaxes: Killing America with ‘Kindness‘ and the just-released Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier-Reality Is, sees the upcoming election as another “sinister leftist, Islamist, globalist attack on America.”

“We are only weeks away from the 2024 election,” she said, and “the enemies of America are desperate and behaving like cornered animals poised for attack. Their survival is at stake because if POTUS 45 is reelected, he will take down the Deep State and expose them all. They know it and Trump knows it.”

Goudsmit’s point is really the crux of the Democrats’ desperation these past four years. With a Trump victory, you can be sure that over the next few months, the powers-that-be will be handing out indictments to alleged criminals in government offices, appointed during the terms of Barack Obama and Biden, including whoever leaked Israel’s plans on atacking iran.

With now three assassination attempts, I only hope that President Trump has a dozen private armed guards and a food taster!

Joan Swirsky is a New York based journalist and author. Her website is www.joanswirsky.com, and she can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com.

 

Survival limits of military nuclear power   Prof. Louis René Beres

Israel and the “sting of the bee.” Recall that one type of honey bee dies after it has stung. Op-ed.

Oct 27, 2024, 6:02 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – In a now classic 1965 article on nuclear weapons, physicist Leo Szilard offered a clarifying metaphor on different types of national nuclear capability. For some situations, the Manhattan Project physicist explained, belligerent use of nuclear ordnance could become self-annihilating. Recalling that one type of honey bee dies after it has stung, Szilard proceeded to identify certain “weaker” nuclear states as those with “sting of the bee” survival limits.

Such imaginative characterizations remain relevant to world politics. Were he writing today about possible Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran, Szilard would likely caution Israel that even its most powerful nuclear weapons could be immobilized by such surrogate foes. In essence, Szilard would warn Israel against ever being reduced to “bee sting” nuclear status.

Following Israel’s October 26 self-defense retaliations against Iran aggression – lawful counter-attacks against an enemy displaying continuously criminal intent – this would be an appropriate warning.

For Israel’s senior military planners, issues of Iranian nuclearization are already dense and soon-to-be opaque. Even while Israel remains the only regional atomic power, a nuclear war with the Islamic Republic remains possible. More precisely, even a pre-nuclear Iran could bring Israel to the point where Jerusalem’s only strategic options would be intolerable capitulations or nuclear escalations. In effect, the second option would represent an “asymmetrical nuclear war.”

Would Israel allow itself to reach such an “all-or-nothing” decisional precipice? Though there are several persuasive answers, all that really matters is that Jerusalem consider this chilling prospect with attention to force-multiplying intersections and “synergies.” Accordingly, a one-sided nuclear war scenario should come to mind in which Iran would target Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor and/or employ radiation dispersal weapons against the Jewish State.

Unique escalations could also follow in the wake of an Iranian resort to biological or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) ordnance.

In a next-to-worst-case scenario, Israel would be prevented from striking preemptively against designated Iranian targets by Russian and/or North Korean nuclear threats. The worst-case scenario would be a “bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack launched by Russia or North Korea (or both together).

Where does Jerusalem actually stand on such existential challenges? Looking toward its steadily-expanding conflict with Iran, any preemption against Iranian weapons and infrastructures would be problematic. At this late stage, any such defensive action would need to be undertaken in increments and during an ongoing war. In 2003, when this writer’s Project Daniel Group presented its early report on Iranian nuclearization to then-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, Iranian targets had already become more daunting than had been Iraq’s Osiraq reactor on June 7, 1981 (“Operation Opera”).

What next? There is a revealing strategic dialectic. During any expanding war against Iran, Israel could calculate that it has no choice but to launch multiple and mutually-reinforcing preemptive strikes against specific enemy targets.

At the same time, Russian and/or North Korean threats of support for Iran could lay the groundwork for a multi-state nuclear war, one that could come to involve the United States and/or China. While it might be tempting to claim such jaw-dropping interventions as “speculative” or “unlikely,” there is no science-based way to estimate the probabilities of any unique event.

There would be variously important qualifications. To the extent that they might still be usefully estimated, the risks of an Israel-Iran nuclear war will depend on whether such a conflict would be intentional, unintentional, or accidental. Apart from applying this critical three-part distinction, there could be no adequate reason to expect operationally-gainful strategic assessments of any such war. Ensuring existential protections from openly declared Iranian aggressions, Jerusalem should always bear in mind that even the Jewish State’s physical survival can never be “guaranteed.” At some point, even a nuclear weapons state could be left with only “the sting of the bee.”

There are further nuances. An unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war between Jerusalem and Teheran could take place not only as the result of misunderstandings or miscalculations between rational leaders, but also as the unintended consequence of mechanical, electrical, or computer malfunction. This should bring to analyzing Israeli minds a further distinction between an unintentional/inadvertent nuclear war and an accidental nuclear war. Though all accidental nuclear wars must be unintentional, not every unintentional nuclear war would need to occur by accident. On one occasion or another, an unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war could be the result of fundamental human misjudgments about enemy intentions. This catastrophic result could be both irremediable and irreversible.

History matters. An authentic nuclear war has never been fought. There are no genuine experts on “conducting” or “winning” a nuclear war. Reciprocally, Jerusalem ought always to disavow strategic counsel drawn from “common sense.” For Israel, nothing could prove more important than to understand this imperative and to reserve complex nuclear calculations to small cadres of “high thinkers.” We are speaking here of the caliber of Szilard, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr and assorted others, not to make another “gadget,” but to plan for nuclear deterrent success via calculated non-use. All such urgent planning should be initiated on a theoretical levelץ

There is more. Providing for Israeli national security amid a still-nuclearizing Iran ought never to become an ad-hoc “game” of chance. Without a suitably long-term, systematic and theory-based plan in place, Israel would render itself unprepared for an Iranian nuclear conflict that is deliberate, unintentional or accidental. At every stage of its lethal competition with Tehran, Jerusalem should never lose sight of the only sensible rationale for maintaining its national nuclear weapons and doctrine. That justification is (1) stable war management at all identifiable levels; and (2) reliable nuclear deterrence.

More than anything else, Israel’s strategic plans should include a prompt policy shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” The core logic of this shift would not be to simply reframe the obvious (i.e., that Israel is already a nuclear power), but to remind would-be aggressors that Jerusalem’s nuclear weapons are operationally usable at all imaginable levels of warfare.

Nonetheless, even with optimal prudential planning, Russian and/or North Korean threats to Israel could sometime become overwhelming. Jerusalem will need to remain prepared for all plausibly related scenarios.

Reduced to its essentials, an authentically worst case scenario for Israel would commence with progressively explicit threats from Moscow about Israeli preemption costs. Israel, aware that it could not reasonably expect to coexist indefinitely with a nuclear Iran, would proceed with its planned preemptions in spite of the dire Russian warnings. In subsequent response, Russian military forces would begin to act directly against Israel, thereby seeking to persuade Jerusalem that Moscow is in a patently superior position to dominate all conceivable escalations. Alternatively, Putin could delegate such military responsibilities to North Korea, an Iranian ally that is presently preparing (within Russia) to augment Russian military forces against Ukraine.

Unless the United States were willing to enter the already-chaotic situation with unambiguously support for Israel, Moscow should have no foreseeable difficulties in establishing “escalation dominance.” In this connection, well-intentioned supporters of Israel could over-estimate the Jewish State’s relative nuclear capabilities and options. Significantly, there is no clear way in which the capabilities and options of a state smaller than America’s Lake Michigan could actually “win” at competitive risk-taking vis-à-vis Russia or North Korea. For Israel, in such unprecedented matters, self-deflating candor would be much safer than self-deluding bravado. As a strategic objective, Israel’s avoidance of “bee sting” nuclear capacity would be indispensable.

What about the United States? Would an American president accept an alliance commitment that could place millions of Americans in positons of grievous vulnerability? For those most part, the answer would lie with the character and inclinations of the American leader. It this president would visibly assume the long-term benefits of honoring US security guarantees, the world could be looking at another Cuban Missile Crisis or some similar confrontation.

There are additionally important issuers of nuclear doctrine. In his continuing war of aggression and genocide against Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has been recycling provocative elements of Soviet-era strategic thinking. One critical element concerns the absence of any apparent “firebreak” between conventional and tactical nuclear force engagements. Now, much as it was during the “classical” era of US-Soviet nuclear deterrence, Moscow identifies the determinative escalatory threshold with a first-use of high-yield, long-range strategic nuclear weapons, not a first use of tactical (theater) nuclear weapons.

But this perilous nuclear escalation doctrine is not shared by Israel’s United States ally, and could erode any once-stabilizing barriers of intra-war deterrence between the original superpowers. Whether sudden or incremental, any such erosion could impact the plausibility of both a deliberate and inadvertent nuclear war. As Israel could need to depend on firm US support in countering Russian nuclear threats, Vladimir Putin should be granted a prominent place in Israel’s threat assessments of Iranian nuclear progress. In principle, at least, this place ought even to be preeminent.

For Israel, the bottom-line of such dialectical analysis is an invariant obligation to analyze still-pertinent preemption–options as an intellectual task. Among other things, reaching rational judgments on defensive first strikes against a still pre-nuclear Iran will require fact-based anticipations of (1) Russian and/or North Korean intentions; and (2) United States willingness to stand by Israel in extremis.

Israel’s growing nuclear war hazards include variously tangible scenarios of Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran. Remembering Leo Szilard’s elucidating metaphor, Jerusalem should consider in its strategic calculations that even with conspicuously refined nuclear weapons and doctrine, Israel could end up with “the sting of a bee.”

For the imperiled Jewish State, no such end could be survivable.

Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) In 2003-2004, Professor Beres was Chair of Israel’s Project Daniel (Iran’s nuclear weapons) for PM Ariel Sharon). His scholarly publications include annual contributions to the Oxford University Press Yearbook on International Law and Jurisprudence and articles in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. One of his early Bulletin pieces was granted the publication’s Rabinowitch Prize, an award created by former members of the Manhattan Project. Dr. Louis René Beres was born in Zürich at the end of World War II.

 

How many chances does a country get to finish the job?   Gerald A. Honigman

Israel’s response to Iran’s missile attack was the way to damage their ability to repeat it, but there are other problems, like Iran’s nuclear plans, that must be tackled. Will Israel do it? Op-ed.

Oct 27, 2024, 8:42 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – Now that an Israeli response to overt Iranian attempts to inflict massive casualties on its citizens and infrastructure has come and gone, some questions remain.

I won’t take it upon myself to question Israel’s top military and political brass making the decisions, but, nevertheless, my concerns are valid.

The major ongoing issue, that of nuclear power, remains. But , once again, Israel had to abide by Obama-Biden dictates, which Kamala Obamala will also undoubtedly adopt as well. Who is going to take responsibility when Iran, allegedly within days of achieving the ability to produce nuclear warheads, places a few on randomly selected ballistic missiles, and doesn’t think twice about firing them against Israel?

The mad mullahs have long referred to the Zionist Entity as a one-bomb nation. No explanation necessary, correct ?

Regardless of how much damage Israel caused this time, it’s not enough.

It risks the lives of its precious pilots and is forced to abide by others’ commands on matters that affect it more than anyone else.

Israel special ops forces went in on the ground several times before this in Iran, including when they entered and walked out with huge amounts of key intelligence equipment and information.

A combination of similar ground actions , with enough fire power applied from its aircraft, drones, and ballistic missile capabilities, might have done unto Iran what Israel previously did to Iraq and Syria…de-nukefy it.

It probably already had assets in place. It was worth a try.

But Israel also had years to plan a major ground operation at night, like it did before for its intelligence heist, that would assist in planting major explosives in the deep caves or wherever the nuke sites are located, in coordination with IAF strikes from above.

I’m sure Israel doesn’t need me to tell it this, but as someone who has done extensive grad studies involving Kurdish and other non-Iranian group aspirations (including in Iran itself), there are friendly folks within Iran who probably have already assisted it in earlier operations, who could have assisted in providing an exit strategy if required for the Israeli special ops forces.

Each time Israel settles for less than what’s really required because others bully it, it becomes that much harder the next time to achieve the main goal. Its enemies learn from their mistakes, and incremental pinprick retaliations aren’t the answer when the enemy who seeks your absolute eradication is on the verge of becoming nuclear.

The Shi‘a mullahs running the Islamic Republic show don’t care how many Iranians die, let alone others.

The chaos they seek only hastens the return of their mystical 12th major religious leader, the Mahdi (a messiah-like figure), who will bring Islamic order out of the turmoil they deliberately cause.

You don’t defeat such people at the negotiating table, with pinprick responses, nor with other partial responses.

If Kamala Harris gets elected it will be Obama/Biden all over again.

And Israel’s very sovereignty and existence will be in such peoples’ hands. The same folks who gifted the mullahs with over 100 billion dollars in oil revenues to give to Hamas, Hezbollah, et al – revenues that President Trump had denied them.

 

We simply can’t afford to give the Biden team another heads-up   Dr. Aaron Lerner

An American official with knowledge of Israel’s plans told The Washington Post – while much of the operation was still underway – that missile manufacturing facilities were the targets.

Oct 27, 2024, 8:59 AM (GMT+2)  Israel National News – First, they leaked top-secret intelligence to interfere with the Jewish State’s execution of an attack on Iran.

Bad enough.

Saturday morning, the Biden team risked the lives of our pilots by revealing our targets mid-operation!

It was reported that we gave the Biden team a heads-up six hours before the attack on Iran.

As soon as we started, Biden’s people began calling reporters.

An American official with knowledge of Israel’s plans told The Washington Post – while much of the operation was still underway – that missile manufacturing facilities were the targets.

Biden’s team couldn’t wait for our pilots to return safely?

If our leaders have eyes in their heads, today’s attack wasn’t just about leveling scores.

Starting November 7 (when it is dawn in Tehran it is 6:20 PM the previous day in Alaska), we’ll have an opportunity to secure our future as the Iranians scramble to restore their air defenses and get solid-fuel mixers from China.

And before Hezbollah rearms with precision missiles.

If Blinken pursues a post-election Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolution mandating a ceasefire, with harsh penalties for non-compliance, we must preempt it.

We simply can’t afford to give the Biden team another heads-up.

At best, to avoid mishaps with American jets in the region, we can provide the wrong target details.

Yes, it’s depressing that this is our relationship with the Biden team.

But we have to play the cards we have.

Dr. Aaron Lerner heads IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis, Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

[Ed.: With ‘friends’ like that, who needs enemies?]

 

Two Lawsuits Challenge Swampbuster and the Regulatory Labyrinth of the Administrative State   By Janet Levy

October 25, 2024

Dwight Waldo, whose 1948 book The Administrative State gave the eponymous term widespread usage, believed that public administration is rational action designed to maximize public goals.

Unfortunately, the administrative state and its bureaucrats no longer have the public on their minds.
Without any constitutional authority, the administrative state frames, enforces, and adjudicates the regulations of a plethora of alphabet agencies. Unelected bureaucrats, politicized by monied NGOs and lobbyists, exercise powers of all three branches of government, disregarding the separation of powers and the checks-and-balances provisions of the Constitution.

Such is the viselike hold of the administrative state that Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting in a 2013 judgment on a regulatory scheme of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), wrote: “The administrative state ‘wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life….’ The Framers could hardly have envisioned today’s ‘vast and varied federal bureaucracy’ and the authority administrative agencies now hold over our economic, social, and political activities.”
An example of the arbitrary power the administrative state wields are some of the rules agencies have framed for the Swampbuster provisions, passed by Congress in 1985, under which the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can deny benefits to farmers who do not voluntarily give up farming on wetlands. And who designates wetlands? It is the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency of the USDA. Using Swampbuster, the USDA has come to regulate property it would otherwise not have been able to.
However, four recent Supreme Court decisions have reined in the administrative state. The court swept aside decades-old precedents to shift the balance of power from the agencies to the courts. The Swampbuster provisions and NRCS-framed rules, too – seen by many legal experts as violative of property rights and overly broad in implementation – have been challenged in two recent lawsuits. Though the courts have yet to decide on the Swampbuster lawsuits, the four Supreme Court decisions will likely have a strong bearing on the cases.
Here, in brief, are the salient points of the four rulings:
1) In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the principle of Chevron deference – which requires that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a disputed or ambiguous
statute – was challenged. This year, the court overruled the principle as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act, and charged courts to “use every tool at their disposal to determine the best reading of the statute and resolve the ambiguity.” In effect, the Supreme Court said that courts, not agencies, have the competence to resolve
ambiguities.

2) In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the constitutionality of administrative law judges trying a defendant accused of fraud instead of trial by jury in a federal court was called into question. The court restricted the use of administrative law judges and asserted that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial in a federal court.

3) In Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court overturned the six-year limit on judicial review of a rule made by a federal agency. The court said that “regulated parties may always assail a regulation as exceeding an agency’s statutory authority in enforcement of proceedings against them.” A victory for civil liberties, this decision opens the door to challenging long-standing regulations.

4) In Sackett v. Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the court limited the authority of federal agencies over private property. It also limited the types of waterways that the EPA can regulate. The Sacketts had waged a 16-year battle to build a home on property they had purchased. The EPA had erroneously declared the area a protected wetland, threatening them with fines if they built on it. The court said landowners have the right to seek judicial review of agency determinations before facing action such as fines.
These are major victories for our constitutional republic. These rulings, in which the courts have forced the administrative state to back off, will be cited whenever agencies that have arrogated to themselves the power to make, enforce, and decide on rules and regulations are challenged. And indeed, they will now be challenged more frequently, as in the two Swampbuster lawsuits were taken up pro bono by attorneys at the Pacific Law Foundation (PLF).

The first is CTM Holdings LLC v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which challenges the very constitutionality of Congress’s Swampbuster provisions. The lawsuit has been filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
CTM Holdings is a family-owned business managed by Jim Conlan, an Iowa attorney. Conlan started buying farmland in his state as an investment, as a means of reconnecting to his family’s farming roots, and to give those who cannot afford to buy farmland an opportunity to take part in farming.
Among the properties he bought was a farm once owned by his grandparents. Soon he ran into trouble: the NRCS, using a Certified Wetland Delineation from 2010, declared nine scattered acres on his property as protected wetlands. He was therefore prohibited from farming on or around them; should he do so, he would be ineligible for government assistance.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a federal law that takes property without compensation and seeks to set aside the regulations with which the NRCS designated the nine-acre wetland on Conlan’s farmland. The lawsuit makes five claims:
a) The alleged wetland is within the boundaries of one state and has no connection to interstate waters, so federal intervention through Swampbuster violates the Commerce
Clause of the Constitution, which permits federal regulation only of interstate commerce.

b) This claim expands on the first. Since a federal agency cannot regulate activity on Conlan’s farm under the Commerce Clause, the owner’s not farming on the designated
wetland amounts to the waiver of a constitutional right. Therefore, this is an instance in which, under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the government is prohibited
from conditioning a benefit (loans, disaster relief, etc.) on the waiver of the right to use one’s property as one chooses.

c) The wetlands designation constitutes a “taking” of private property without just compensation, and this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
d) The agency-framed rule adds the words “the removal of woody vegetation” to 16 U.S.C. 3801 (a) (7) (A), the original definition of a “converted wetland.” Since the words are not in the statute, the additional language is not in accordance with the law and thus exceeds statutory jurisdiction and authority.

e) In 1990, the Grassley amendment to the Swampbuster provisions allowed for a review of designations made by the agency. In response, the USDA delineated procedures that allowed requests for a review only when a natural event changes the land or the NRCS itself believes there has been an error. Again, this action exceeds statutory authority.
The second lawsuit – Foster v. Vilsack – is in the U.S. Supreme Court. The NRCS designated a wetland on Arlen Foster’s holding in Miner County, South Dakota because a small depression on less than an acre fills with snowmelt in spring. Three requests to review the certification, including one that appended an engineering report confirming it was snowmelt, were declined.

Foster filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected his case. The case has been appealed in the Supreme Court, arguing that denial of requests for recertification of wetlands violates the right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
It remains to be seen if the courts find the NRCS guilty of administrative overreach and breach of constitutional rights. Its arbitrary decisions not only affect farmers’ land use but also force them to endure lengthy, expensive legal procedures to seek resolution.

[Ed.:

 

Are Intelligence Agencies Planning to Make Voters Obsolete?   By Jerome R. Corsi

October 26, 2024

Here’s something for you to contemplate as you consider concerns about election integrity: Do the algorithms that Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., has found surreptitiously embedded in current state board of election voter rolls suggest intelligence agents have decided to bypass voters to vote election simulations?

As documented on GodsFiveStones.com, Paquette has found secret algorithms in the board of election voter registration databases in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Texas, with ongoing examinations underway in Arizona and Georgia.

The algorithms appear designed to hide critical voter attribute information, allowing the people who developed the scheme to create and hide “non-existent voters” capable of being assigned legitimate state voter IDs. Once created, the algorithms can vote certifiable mail-in ballots for enough “non-existent voters” to steal an election from an opponent who won through legitimate votes.

In his analysis of the algorithm found in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database, Paquette detailed how the algorithm could be used in a mail-in ballot scheme to steal an election.

The data uncovered by NYCA’s (New York Citizens Audit) research suggests systemic election fraud is built into New York’s electoral process. The current working hypothesis is that:

1.    False voters were introduced into the voter rolls.

2.    The algorithm covertly tagged these records for easy retrieval when needed.

3.    False registrants requested absentee ballots.

4.    Ballots and ballot envelopes were gathered at central collection points.

5.    Fraudulently generated ballots were cast in fraudulently obtained ballot envelopes.

6.    False voter records were updated to reflect false votes.

7.    After certification, false voter records were manipulated to disguise their purpose and history.

In that paper, Paquette estimated there were approximately 338,000 illegally generated registrations in the New York State Board of Election voter registration database active for the 2020 General Election.

With tens of thousands of nonexistent voter registrations thanks to the algorithm, the criminals accessing the Board of Election computers could easily ask how to structure an election. “Should our Candidate X (the algorithm-chosen winner) win by 1 percent, 3 percent, or more? Should our Candidate X lead throughout election day, surge late in the voting, or require a stoppage of vote counting to produce enough ‘non-existent voters’ to cast mail-in ballots to steal the election?”

The point is that these hidden “non-existent voters” could be activated to cast a certifiable mail-in vote as needed, provided the algorithm assigned legitimate state voter ID numbers to the “non-existent voters.”

The problem with the algorithmic mail-in ballot election fraud scheme is that if you know about the algorithm, the patterns become apparent. In mail-in ballot fraud, we see candidates who are losing the in-person vote surge at the end of the election, when the mail-in ballots are counted. For example, if a candidate through legitimate, in-person voting has a larger lead than anticipated, vote counting stops overnight, followed by a surge of newly discovered mail-in ballots that heavily vote for Candidate X.

To succeed, the scheme requires that the certification process does not involve any forensic attempt to go into the community to investigate whether the mail-in ballots cast belong to legitimate voters. The scheme also depends on lax checking of the signatures on the outside cover of mail-in ballots to ensure they are matched for accuracy with the voter’s signature placed on file at the time of registration.

How close are we to intelligence agencies deciding that with advances in AI and the statistical analytic skills of modern political science, voters are obsolete? This is not a far-fetched question.

In an exchange preserved on video from a 2017 World Economic Forum meeting, Klaus Schwab suggested that voters have become obsolete given advances in computer technology. Schwab said, “But since the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict what, predict, and afterwards you can say, ‘Why do we need the elections?’ Because we know what the result will be. Can you imagine such a world?”

The World Economic Forum quickly attempted to control the damage, issuing a corrective statement insisting that Schwab’s comments were not “a call for action” but a hypothetical musing based on the anticipated predictive capabilities of computer technology in the future.

The academic modeling of presidential elections has advanced to the point where a group of scientists in Peru and Brazil have developed a predictive mathematical model that utilizes machine learning (ML) and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to predict presidential election results (PER) with 100 percent agreement with actual elections in Brazil, Uruguay, and Peru. Conceivably, a computer model could run a simulation of a presidential election that would model a victory for the preferred candidate X. But for the computer simulation to be substituted for the actual vote credibly requires that the simulation matched reasonable anticipations of voter preferences.

That conclusion that intelligence agencies are involved in placing algorithms in the state boards of election databases is supported by the complexity of the cryptographic mathematics and cipher intricacy that Dr. Paquette has demonstrated to be characteristic of the voter registration databases that he has discovered. Developing and placing the algorithms into the computer systems of the state boards of elections would require either confederate actors within the state board elections or a covert intelligence operation to penetrate the various state boards.

However, stealing elections to be credible also involves successfully implementing a psychological operation involving control over mainstream media narratives. For example, consider that Joe Biden, after a disastrous debate with Donald Trump, demonstrated diminished mental functioning that disqualified him from being a credible contender. Vice President Kamala Harris was a more credible challenger, provided intelligence agencies could get the mainstream media to report questionable “surveys” that showed her challenging President Trump neck-to-neck despite her history of unpopularity and failure to advance in previous presidential attempts.

That Schwab was engaged in paving the way for a planned elite dystopian future is a reasonable conclusion given the arguments Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò advanced in an essay entitled “The Technocratic Dystopia: Are novels of Huxley and Orwell an unheeded warning or an example of predictive programming?”* Archbishop Viganò explained: “What Brave New World and 1984 describe corresponds to the same processes of predictive programming that we find in numerous movies having as their theme pandemics, dictatorial regimes after climate crises, and plots by pharmaceutical companies, high finance, and secret societies—that is, to the use of the fictional literary genre as a tool for mass mental processing in order to make the population more willing to accept planned future events.”

Archbishop Viganò defined “predictive programming,” i.e., the use of a hypothetical comment “as a tool for mass mental programming in order to make the population more willing to accept future planned events.” If the algorithms Paquette has discovered are the handiwork of U.S. intelligence agencies, the New World Order to make voters obsolete has already begun.

GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible 501(c)3 foundation created by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., and Karladine Graves, M.D., managed by Capstone Legacy Foundation.

_____________________

*Reprinted in my most recent book: Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., The Antiglobalist Manifesto: Ending the War on Humanity (Nashville, TN: Post Hill Press, 2024), Appendix C, “Message of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, ‘The Technocratic Dystopia,’ (April 30, 2023),” pp. 226-234, at p. 232.

[Ed.:

 

Illegals, Voting Issues, War & the Weaponized Justice System: Fixing America in 3 Sentences or Less   Tom Renz

OCT 26, 2024

Last weekend I spoke at the Reawaken America Tour stop in North Carolina. As an attorney I spend an immense amount of time reading and attempting to understand the laws we have. In fact a major part of my practice is outside the court – working to ensure the laws we have are good. To that extent, the topic I discussed in North Carolina was critical and something very few people realize; fixing America is not complicated – there’s just no political will to do it.

A few years back I worked with Missouri State Representative Holly Jones to promote a bill that would have blocked the use of mRNA poisons in the food supply. While that bill was ultimately defeated because big pharma lobbyists bought off too many Missouri GOP officials, the bill itself was incredibly viral, facilitated a global discussion, and did it all in under 2 pages. This same strategy can and should be used across the country to fix a number of issues.

For example, here’s a slide referencing the wars we are dealing with and some very easy legislative solutions I think would receive support from around the country:

As you can see, by adding a sentence or two to a funding bill Congress could shut down a number of wars. American foreign aid funds wars around the world – and then we rebuild after the war. Maybe we just stop doing that? It would only take a few sentences. And taking care of Americans before taking care of people around the world should be wildly politically popular so the 2 suggestions above seem both effective and politically feasible so why not use them?

Illegal immigration is a major issue this election season. We were told we needed some big complicated multi-billion dollar border bill but what if instead of spending more we cut spending to fix things:

The language above could be fine-tuned but it would actually save Americans money and, without that money, there would not be any incentive to be an illegal alien. I’m just guessing this language would do more to stop illegal immigration than any border bill in history. It even takes care of kids and I can’t imagine this not being politically well received.

Another hot topic this election season is states allowing non-citizens to vote. Politically, even Democrat voters don’t want illegals voting so this should be a no-brainer. Here’s my suggestion:

Most states take in massive amounts of federal funding. Cutting funding for states allowing illegals to vote would end that problem very quickly and would save us money in the process. A win/win!

As a Trump supporter I think the weaponization of the justice system is appalling. Republicans control the House and ending that weaponization would have been very easy had they included this in the last spending bill:

This language was a bit rough and certainly could be fine tuned but imagine how helpful that could have been for Trump. Further, the obviously corrupted justice system would have been prevented from continuing their quest to interfere with the election.

When I present solutions like this to elected officials they usually scoff, send them to their lobbyist buddies to try and figure out a way to oppose them, and then tell me these things cannot work for various nonsensical reasons. So I am presenting this to you. Read these and tell me why they would not work. It’s not magic, the law is whatever it says it is and these laws would save money, be politically popular, and fix real issues in real ways. The question I have is why can’t we make use of these easy solutions, or more appropriately, who’s paying our elected officials off to pretend they are solving problems when they are simply trying to perpetuate them.