COMMENTARY / OPINION
Hamas, the WFP, and the hunger crisis By MOSHE PHILLIPS
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) already said Gazans were running out of food in October 2023.
MAY 29, 2025
The claim that Israel is solely responsible for the suffering of civilians in Gaza ignores important context and has been clearly rebutted by Ambassador Mike Huckabee in his late-May interview with NPR.
Huckabee stated: “The prolonged suffering for everybody is on Hamas, and I’m outraged that the UK, Canada, France – they’re blaming the wrong perpetrator.” He also noted, “I’m not in the position to tell the Israelis how to conduct their war… My family members weren’t murdered and massacred, mutilated” by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023.
Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate violence but conducting a war against terrorism – a campaign with no more moral ambiguity than America’s response to Al-Qaeda after 9/11. Hamas made the deliberate choice to start this war, and Israel is acting not only in self-defense, but also to prevent future conflicts.
Let’s be clear: Hamas started this war. Refusing to hold them accountable only emboldens more violence.
Intensifying food crisis in Gaza
Let’s focus on another part of Huckabee’s comments. If what the ambassador meant by “prolonged suffering” are the claims of hunger and famine, how can we know what the real situation with food has been in Gaza?
The claims that Gazans were starving and that Israel was to blame started within days of the Hamas-led onslaught on October 7. The accusations against Israel were as wrong then as they are now.
The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) on October 8, 2023, already said Gazans were running out of food.
Here’s what the WFP said within 36 hours of the Hamas invasion: “As the conflict intensifies, civilians, including vulnerable children and families, face mounting challenges in accessing essential food supplies, with food distribution networks disrupted and food production severely hampered by hostilities.”
One of the contacts listed on the October 8 WFP press release was Alia Zaki. In an October 28 video on X.com, Zaki was featured saying “Nearly half of the population in Gaza was already struggling to find food even before this war started.”
WFP already stated in a September 19, 2023, press release that: “Increased poverty, stagnation, and limited access to employment and essential food supplies are key challenges in Gaza today.”
So the WFP claimed weeks before the Hamas attacks that Gazans were already having such difficulties that its “cash-based transfers play a fundamental role in establishing a robust social safety net.”
Hamas does not prioritize feeding the people
It is safe to bet that Hamas was taking the WFP’s money in order to buy their terrorists weapons and pay their salaries. Gaza’s Hamas government made its priority readying for war and not the feeding of the people.
WFP wants us to believe that even though there was not enough food over 600 days ago, that people are starving now: these accusations defy common sense. If Gazans were already nearly starving 600 days ago, how didn’t hundreds of thousands starve to death since October 7?
The truth is that the UN agency has always been wrong and we may never know if it has all been caused intentionally or through incompetence.
On May 25, Politico published an article quoting WFP’s top bureaucrat Cindy McCain as saying “Right now, we have 500,000 people inside of Gaza that are extremely food insecure, and could be on the verge of famine.”
This despite Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs explaining on X/Twitter the very same day that “since the beginning of the war, [the] IDF has facilitated the entry of over 1.7 million tons of humanitarian aid into Gaza [and] just this past week… 388 aid trucks delivered food [and other supplies].”
Why didn’t McCain and the WFP praise the IDF for this? The agency will never praise Israel and it refuses to place any blame on Hamas, or the Gazans that chose Hamas at the ballot box.
WFP’s director told NBC’s Meet the Press on May 3, 2024, that “there is full-blown famine in the north [of Gaza], and it’s moving its way south.”
Surely a “full-blown famine” a year ago would have meant a huge percentage of Gazans would have already starved to death – but that has not happened.
How can anyone take WFP at their word?
The facts do not add up. The WFP cannot be trusted. Gazans are not starving – and it is Israel that is preventing that from happening. The UN agency’s top leaders and its managers in the Middle East must be replaced if WFP is to be ever seen as a true source of information.
Moshe Phillips is national chairman of Americans For A Safe Israel (www.AFSI.org), a leading pro-Israel advocacy and education organization.
How $21 TRILLION Went Missing From U.S. Tax Payers! -Catherine Austin Fitts FULL INTERVIEW [2:06:15]
May 12, 2025 #TheJimmyDoreShow
In this wide-ranging but oftentimes shocking interview, Jimmy speaks with Catherine Austin Fitts, the former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing in the George H.W. Bush administration. In 2017 Fitts co-authored a report alleging $21 trillion in unauthorized spending by the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development over a 17-year period.
How the International Community Got Yemen Wrong Edmund Fitton-Brown
May 25, 2025 Middle East Forum Reports
As British Ambassador from 2015 to 2017 I saw up close and was involved in negotiating the international response to the Houthi takeover of large parts of Yemen that began in earnest in 2014. I then continued to observe Yemen from a counterterrorism perspective with the United Nations after 2017. The story that has not been adequately told is how the international community got its response right in 2014; but then progressively lost its way over the following four years, ending in the shameful Stockholm Agreement of December 2018.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2140 of November 2014 accurately apportioned blame for what was happening in Yemen (“threatening peace and stability”), imposing sanctions on former President Saleh and two commanders of the Houthi movement, which was then allied with Saleh. President Hadi had previously served as Saleh’s deputy but had taken over as a result of so-called “Arab Spring” unrest and was actively supporting the National Dialogue that aimed at political progress through consultation with Yemen’s diverse constituencies, including the Houthis. The international community, with a few rogue exceptions like Iran, understood that Hadi was both legitimate and benign and that Saleh had forged an alliance of convenience with the Houthis because both were greedy for absolute power and neither wished to see the National Dialogue process succeed.
In another four months, with the Houthis pursuing Hadi, who had fled from Sanaa to Aden, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia responded to a self-defense request from the Internationally Recognized Government (IRG), which invoked Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. With clear legal justification, they entered the Yemeni civil war on the side of the IRG. The Houthis and Saleh were both illegally seeking to take power in Yemen and were morally beyond the pale, in representing only a small proportion of the population (the Houthis are a cultish group within the Zaidi sect and they despise and brutalize the majority Sunni population). When I took over as Ambassador, there was no question who were the good guys and bad guys in this conflict. We were on the side of Hadi and the Saudis.
The Stockholm Agreement handed the Houthis the foothold they needed to launch their campaign of international blackmail.
So what went wrong? Essentially the international community was swayed by a number of prejudices and misconceptions, including about the moral sanctity of humanitarian activity. Unless you are a Saudi or an Omani, Yemen can seem a long way away, a marginal concern to the West compared with more politically and strategically pressing conflict zones like Iraq, Syria, even Libya. In those circumstances, and particularly before Donald Trump challenged the thinking, Western countries would default to seeing crises like that in Yemen through an almost exclusively humanitarian lens. For me, the Department for International Development had more resource and more influence to bring to bear on London’s Yemen policy than did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Anything that interfered with humanitarian delivery was by definition a bad thing and the Saudi and Emirati-backed efforts of the IRG to retake its territory from the Houthis fell into that category.
The international community of do-gooders is more cohesive and effective at lobbying than many people realize. I later watched them chip away at the Security Council until it introduced a humanitarian exemption to all of its sanctions regimes, including the one against ISIS. This community also has a number of overwhelming prejudices, which are broadly anti-Western and specifically hostile to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Pressure groups like Oxfam and Amnesty teamed up with the human rights community and reinforced the humanitarian lobby, which was led by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Every time the Houthis succeeded in drawing Saudi airstrikes onto a civilian target (much like Hamas in Gaza now), I and my government and other Western officials were subjected to ever shriller lobbying about the iniquities of the Saudis. None of these groups seemed to care about the Houthis arresting, torturing and murdering ordinary Yemenis (any more than they do about Hamas doing the same to ordinary Palestinians).
The Western Europeans became increasingly skeptical about Saudi involvement in Yemen. The U.K. and U.S. found it harder and harder to hold their original line on why we should back the Saudis and the IRG, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, influenced by the Omanis, took an increasingly anti-Saudi line, seeking peace at any price. By the time of the Kuwait peace talks in 2016, only just over a year after the Saudis entered the war, the international consensus was that the Houthis should be given whatever they demanded to stop the war. The Saudis, worried about their reputation and other international equities, were ready to sign up to almost any agreement, but the Houthis decided to hold out for total victory and they abandoned the Kuwait talks.
Saudi Arabia was given some respite by the change of U.S. Administration in January 2017 and, with its Arab allies, stepped up its support of IRG forces and pushed the Houthis back, especially on the Red Sea coast. The advance north from Mokha to Hodeida was painfully slow but Hodeida was about to fall in late 2018, when the Saudis made the catastrophic mis-step of killing Jamal Khashoggi. This caused international outrage, playing into existing Western hostility, and making it impossible for President Trump to shield the Saudis from international opposition to their campaign in Yemen. The U.N. led demands that nothing be done that might interrupt the passage of humanitarian supplies through Hodeida and the Stockholm Agreement was signed in December 2018. In theory, this was supposed to ensure that the Houthis did not control Hodeida but no attempt was made to monitor or enforce it and the Houthis ignored it from day one.
Houthi recklessness and aggression in the Red Sea throughout 2024 has shown how foolish it was to imagine that they could ever be trusted to settle into a responsible, governing role in Yemen.(Shutterstock)
This outrageous agreement to prevent the IRG from regaining control of its own territory ushered in five years of military stasis, during which the Saudis grew ever more anxious to disengage from Yemen at any cost. the Houthis played on this anxiety and persuaded the Saudis to move towards an understanding that the price of their being left in peace on their southern border and free from drone attacks on their infrastructure would be to support a dominant role for the Houthis in Yemen-Yemen peace talks; and the payment of a large amount of protection money that would be dressed up as reconstruction funds. Imagine if the international community had held its nerve and backed the IRG’s retaking of the whole Red Sea coast of Yemen. We would not be in the dilemma we face today.
Of course, Houthi recklessness and aggression in the Red Sea throughout 2024, and now directly against Israel right up to the present, has shown how foolish it was to imagine that they could ever be trusted to settle into a responsible, governing role in Yemen. And how the Stockholm Agreement handed them the foothold that they needed to launch their campaign of international blackmail. But the Middle East conflict since 10/7 has also re-opened an array of opportunities to correct misguided appeasement policies towards Iran, the Houthis and the rest of the “Axis of Resistance”.
Israel’s military successes against Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran, and the consequent collapse of Assad’s Syria, invites us to re-examine the opportunity to secure a more acceptable outcome in the region. Israeli and, even more, U.S. strikes on the Houthis have shown their vulnerability to superior military force, especially when we refuse to be dictated to by OCHA and others who regard the Red Sea ports and Sanaa airport as sacrosanct sites which cannot be targeted because of their importance to humanitarian delivery. Even the U.N. has lost its appetite for defending the Houthis, whose arrogance and brutality is such that they have been kidnapping and abusing humanitarians, including U.N. staff, as well as making the Red Sea unsafe for humanitarian delivery operations.
There appears to be uncertainty in the Trump Administration about how to harmonize the various strands of Middle East policy: is it possible to be pro-Israeli and pro-Qatari at the same time? Can you pursue a kinetic policy to re-establish deterrence with the Houthis whilst seeking a deal with Iran on its nuclear and missile programs and its pursuit of asymmetric warfare against Israel and Saudi Arabia? The seven-week bombing campaign that the U.S. waged against the Houthis certainly had an impact on the group, inflicting damage on its leadership, revenue, infrastructure, military installations and weaponry.
It is less clear that the ceasefire agreement that ended the campaign has resolved anything for the longer term. The Houthis claim to be triumphant, unrepentant and still committed to attacking Israeli interests. Even the Omani official announcement of the ceasefire contains a glaring contradiction, saying that all commercial shipping will now be safe but acknowledging that it is only the Americans and the Houthis who have agreed to stop attacking each other. Best case, the respite in the Red Sea will be extended by some months, but even then shipping and insurance companies will not believe operations can safely resume. Meawhile, the Houthis will continue to attack Israel with missiles and drones, and Israel will respond kinetically, including with attempts to kill the leader, Abd al-Malik al-Houthi.
It is essential for the U.S. to look at its policy options ahead of when a new round of escalation occurs, be it between Israel and the Houthis only, or directly involving Iran.
What appears to be missing from the plans of the Houthis’ various enemies is meaningful engagement with the IRG and the Southern Transitional Council in Aden and the determination and resource allocation required to reinvigorate their military campaign against the Houthis. The surest guarantee of an end to the Houthi threat to freedom of navigation of international waters is to drive them back from the Red Sea coast altogether. In other words, to tear up the Stockholm Agreement, which they violated from day one, and take Hodeida and the coast between there and the Saudi border as should have been done in 2019. What is unclear is whether the Saudis have the appetite for this, given their desire to extricate themselves from the Yemeni civil war. Only the U.S., and specifically President Trump, can reassure them of the need for this and the reliability of U.S. support for them against the Houthis. Only the U.S. can assemble the necessary international coalition to underpin this overhaul of international policy towards the Houthis.
It is therefore essential for the U.S. to look at its policy options ahead of when a new round of escalation occurs, be it between Israel and the Houthis only, or directly involving Iran. To reach conclusions, given that Iran is the senior partner in the Axis of Resistance and Iran poses the strategic threat to world peace through its nuclear program, the U.S. needs to decide exactly what are the objectives of its Iran policy and then harmonize its Yemen policy with those. The Iranians will happily spin out talks with the U.S. in order to buy time and to get past this moment of existential danger when the Trump Administration is not distracted with the U.S. electoral timetable. If the objective is to achieve some kind of JCPOA-plus, an international agreement that delays but does not terminate the evolution of the Iranian threat, then threats to hold Iran accountable for Houthi misbehaviour do not make sense.
In my view this is a unique opportunity to coerce a change in Iran. If not regime change (which is possible, given the current weakness of the Islamic Republic) then the abandoning or destruction of all of Iran’s aggressive programs: nuclear enrichment, ballistic missile development, asymmetric warfare via the Houthis, Hezbollah, the Iraqi proxy militias and the other components of the Axis. This will require determination and probably force. If that is where we are headed – and make no mistake, the Islamic Republic and the Houthis will not change their nature and will only change their behaviour if forced to do so – then we must be prepared to confront both Iran and the Houthis, with the Houthis only likely to give up their aggressive agenda if they face defeat in the Yemeni civil war.
Edmund Fitton-Brown Edmund Fitton-Brown is a senior fellow with New America’s Future Security program, and a former British diplomat. He graduated in History from Cambridge University and joined the Foreign Service in 1984. His career included postings in Finland, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Italy and the United Arab Emirates; and culminated as UK Ambassador for Yemen from 2015 to 2017. He speaks Arabic, Finnish and Italian; and is best known as a specialist in the Middle East and counter-terrorism.
Wannsee 2.0 BOB GOLDBERG
France, the UK, Canada and the Saudis Lead a UN Rebranding of the Final Solution as a Peaceful Settlement
MAY 22, 2025
In January 1942, fifteen Nazi bureaucrats met at a lakeside villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee. There were no slogans, no shouting—just clipped speech, memoranda, and a logistical blueprint for the Final Solution. The annihilation of the Jewish people wasn’t argued. It was scheduled.
Eighty-three years later, the same cold, clinical mindset has returned—not in Berlin, but in Paris and New York, under the banners of diplomacy and humanitarian concern. In June 2025, two back-to-back international conferences— one in Paris (June 11–13), chaired by France and Saudi Arabia at the United Nations in New York (June 16–18)—will set a new administrative order in motion. Their shared goal? To engineer the dismantling of the Jewish state through law, public relations, and process.
Just as Wannsee coordinated trains and deportation schedules, these modern-day gatherings are coordinating something no less methodical: the delegitimization of Israel, the demonization of its right to self-defense, and the application of double standards so suffocating they leave no space for Jewish sovereignty. It is, as Natan Sharansky defined it, the Three Ds of antisemitism—operationalized not by stormtroopers, but by ambassadors and NGOs.
Wannsee Then…
Behind the Paris initiative stands not only French President Emmanuel Macron but his Israeli advisor Ofer Bronchtein, one of the architects of the Oslo Accords—what Charles Krauthammer once called “perhaps the most catastrophic, self-inflicted wound by any state in modern history.” Bronchtein’s summit, the “Paris Call for Peace and Two States,” claims to gather civil society—Palestinians and Israelis, artists and academics, activists and businesspeople—in a grand gesture of “grassroots consensus.”
Wannsee now
But it is nothing of the sort. It is the prelude to coercion. It is tightly scripted performance staged by the organizers of the 2001 anti-Zionist orgy that took place under UN sponsorship with a similarly Orwellian title of “The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance”.
Like that event, the Paris conference that will be cited days later in New York at the France and Saudi co-chaired event, The High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. as evidence of global consensus for the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state without Israel’s agreement.
And if that weren’t enough, Macron and Bronchtein’s initiative also includes a diplomatic resurrection of Hamas. As Bloomberg reports, France and Saudi Arabia are working on a plan to disarm Hamas and integrate it into Palestinian governance, treating the genocidal perpetrators of the October 7 massacre as a political partner to be rehabilitated. The logic? If Hamas retains “a degree of political power,” it may be more likely to cooperate.
Let that sink in: The group that raped, beheaded, and kidnapped Jews in October is being welcomed back into the fold of legitimacy—while the only Jewish state on Earth is put on legal trial.
This is not diplomacy. This is inversion.
And we’ve seen it before.
In July 1938 as Jews fled Nazi Germany in growing numbers, 32 nations gathered in the French resort town of Évian-les-Bains at the invitation of President Franklin Roosevelt. The Évian Conference, like Bronchtein’s summit in Gay Paree, was sold as a humanitarian breakthrough. It was nothing of the kind. One by one, nations stood up to express “deep concern” for the Jewish refugees, only to explain why they couldn’t accept any. The United States cited unemployment. Britain cited Arab unrest in Palestine. Most countries offered sympathy without substance.
The Nazis took notice. Hitler sneered, “It is a shameful spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy… but remains hard-hearted and obdurate when it comes to helping them.” He mocked the West: “We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries—even on luxury ships.”
The Nazi press had a field day the Nazi Party newspaper, Völkischer Beobachter, ran the headline “Nobody Wants Them.” The Évian Conference, intended as a symbol of humanitarian conscience, became apropaganda gift to the Nazi regime. It confirmed their claim that the world viewed Jews as unwanted, and that their antisemitic policies had global legitimacy.
Just months later came Kristallnacht.
Évian gave the illusion of compassion while offering no action. It allowed democracies to project moral virtue while preserving political comfort. That’s precisely what the Bronchtein’s Paris conference will do. Paris manufactures the narrative. New York codifies it. Both erase Israel’s sovereignty under the guise of peacebuilding.
Let us be clear: this is not a peace process. This is a liquidation process, not of people, but of peoplehood. The weapon is no longer the rifle. It is the resolution. The uniform is no longer military. It is diplomatic. The target is not a village. It is the Jewish national self-determination.
And the mechanism is chillingly familiar. The Paris and UN conferences enact Sharansky’s Three Ds with disturbing precision:
Delegitimization
Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is declared illegal by ICJ fiat, regardless of defensive wars or Oslo agreements. Hamas is recast not as a terror regime but as a “political stakeholder.” Sovereignty is transformed into “occupation,” and Israel’s existence becomes an international violation to be corrected.
Demonization
Every real or imagined harm in Gaza is pinned exclusively on Israel—while the rape, incineration, and hostage-taking of its civilians is sanitized, ignored, or rationalized. Accusations of genocide and famine are inflated by UN agencies, and later walked back quietly but never retracted in the public conscience. Israel is not portrayed as a country in conflict—it is painted as a criminal enterprise.
Double Standards
Only Israel is expected to negotiate with terrorists. Only Israel is dragged before the ICJ. Only Israel is required to surrender territory without security guarantees, and to accept that Hamas may govern a neighbor. No other nation faces these conditions, not even dictatorships or belligerent occupiers elsewhere in the world.
And hovering over it all is a postmodern theology: to paraphrase Chesterton, having stopped believing in God, the West now believes in redemption through the dismantling of Israel.
Those people. That country. That obstacle to Utopia.
Before the Paris and New York conferences even convened, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement that would make the architects of Évian proud. While wrapped in the usual diplomatic language, its message was unmistakable: Israel, not Hamas, is the obstacle to peace.
“If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions.”
This statement accused Israel of violating international law, threatened sanctions, and demanded a unilateral halt to operations. It acknowledged the heinous massacre of October 7 as a kind of unpleasant historical footnote, and now effectively forgiven.
The result? Hamas applauded and withdrew from ceasefire talks. Why negotiate when Western democracies are now doing your negotiating for you?
And now the rhetoric has become blood.
Last night, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim —a young couple soon to be engaged—were gunned down by an attacker shouting “Free, Free Palestine” as he opened fire. They were shot not in Gaza, not in Tel Aviv, but in Washington, DC.
They are casualties of this new version of the same ancient war—a war that now dresses itself in progressive language, legal briefs, and diplomatic forums, but which remains, at its core, a war against the Jews.
In 1938, the world gathered to talk about saving Jews—and left them to die. In 2025, the world is gathering to talk about “saving peace” by depriving Jews of their only sovereign refuge. The difference is that there is now a Jewish state that can eliminate our enemies before they eliminate us.
This time, the Jews are not stateless, and Israel has many defenders, including millions of Christian Zionists such as Yaron Linschinsky. Together, we will not allow our destiny to be decided by sworn enemies and indifferent allies. Our secret weapon of survival used to be (as Golda Meir put it) that we have no other place to go. Now it’s that we are not going anywhere else.
Jonathan Pollard: Trump Feeds Israel to SHARKS: France Initiates Wannsee Conference, Part 2: [11:24]
May 28th Machon Shilo
[Ed.: This is the article he refers to above ]
What If Indiana Took Over A Quarter of Illinois’ Population? CAPT. SETH KESHEL
Things would be much better off for nearly 3 million people, and a big precedent for Republican dominance would take root.
MAY 28, 2025
Greater Idaho and the various California secession movements aren’t alone in trying to broker amicable divorces in their sections of the country. Indiana is starting to kick the tires on taking over large swaths of Illinois and would have had the foundation poured if a companion bill didn’t stall out over the line in Springfield earlier this spring.
Indiana Governor Mike Braun signed House Bill 1008 into law earlier this month, which calls for a commission to explore annexing Illinois counties that have conducted successful non-binding votes to secede from the struggling Land of Lincoln. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, one of the COVID-19 villains who flies under the radar, calls the push a “stunt,” and to his approval, the companion bill required to make both ends of the commission meet in the middle never made it out of committee in his state.
So, things will have to wait.
In order for states to redraw boundaries, both legislatures in the impacted states must agree with their own legislation, and the changes must be accepted by the U.S. Congress. This hasn’t happened since Texas and Oklahoma redrew some changes to the Red River in 1999, and hasn’t altered the boundaries of any populated areas of counties since Virginia and West Virginia redrew their boundary in 1925.
Here are the 33 Illinois counties (on left) that have formally begged to be let out of Chicago’s vice grips:
Democrats love control, so don’t expect Pritzker or anyone else running Illinois to suggest this as a way to improve political harmony; however, Indiana seems to think this is worth planning for in the event of a debt crisis in Illinois that would require the government to lighten its load and focus on the urban northeastern portion of the state, primarily within the Chicago metro. If it all hit the fan and Illinois allowed its captive deeply Republican counties throughout the vast geographic expanse of the state to join Indiana, I don’t think it would be in the scattered fashion shown above and related to its assorted secession votes. They’d need to set a boundary and let loose, even though they would take a major hit in agricultural production. I’m thinking the Illinois River is the primary boundary, keeping Peoria in existing Illinois, but pushing Springfield to Indiana, requiring Illinois to name a new capital closer to Chicago:
I’ve run the numbers, and the 27 remain counties (sorry, Pastor Steve), headlined by metro Chicago, contain roughly 9.9 million of Illinois’ 12.7 million residents, or 78% of the existing population. Only 2 of every 9 Illinois residents would become a Hoosier if sweeping changes went into effect. You should be able to clearly see why Illinois is dominated by the blue plague, with about two-thirds of the vote coming from six counties associated with metro Chicago.
If this were to pass, and Indiana went from a population of 6.9 million to 9.7 million, the two new states would be nearly identical in terms of population (Illinois would have 9.9 million). Within a few years, Indiana would surpass Illinois because the blue state misery would accelerate with nothing remotely Republican to put anything in check.
Currently, Illinois has 19 electoral votes, and Indiana 11, for a total of 30.
This change would likely force the Electoral College to split these 30 electoral votes equally, with 15 going to each state. For reference, Michigan has 15 electoral votes today with a population of 10.1 million.
If the 2024 election were held with Indiana and Illinois equal, Trump would have won by this score – by 94 electoral votes instead of 86:
Trump 316
Harris 222
This change swings eight net electoral votes, exactly the impact of Louisiana or Kentucky (both 8 electoral votes), or New Mexico plus Delaware (8 total). It would move the solid GOP electoral count from 235 (the Trump 2020 states) to 239, meaning Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada could win it for a GOP nominee instead of needing to pull any of the Rust Belt states. This would also be a huge swing in the U.S. House for the GOP, with Illinois Democrats less capable of rigging geography for Democrat wins in deep red turf.
Most importantly, it would make for a harmonious political future for almost 3 million people living under massive corruption. Remember, Bob Dole said it best about Chicago in his farewell letter to America:
I also confess that I am a bit curious to learn if I am correct in thinking that Heaven will look a lot like Kansas, and to see, like others who have gone before me, if I will be able to vote in Chicago.
Fight antisemitism with massive retaliation BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
The goal should not be to arrest or punish antisemitism, but to use all moral and ethical means to neutralize it completely.
MAY 28, 2025
Near the end of his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides enumerates the laws of kingship and war, which, given the Jews’ total lack of political and military power at the time, was a notably optimistic endeavor.
However, Maimonides’s optimism would prove justified many centuries later, making his insights quite valuable.
In particular, there is Maimonides’s understanding of what constitutes a milchemet mitzvah: a war that not only should be fought but that one is commanded to fight:
The king should fight no war at first except a milchemet mitzvah. And what is a milchemet mitzvah? The war of the seven nations, and the war against Amalek, and the war to save Israel from a stranger who comes to harm them.
As he so often was, Maimonides managed to be both prescient and timeless. Today, the Jews are fighting two of those wars:
The “war against Amalek” is the war against the Jews’ eternal metaphysical enemy, who rises again in every generation and must be beaten back until he is finally destroyed in the days of the messiah. At the moment, even for the secular among us—including, I must say, myself—it is hard not to think that there is at least something in this.
“The war to save Israel from a stranger who comes to harm them” is perhaps the most relevant and important of all. Around the world, strangers are coming to harm the Jews, and we are still struggling to find a way to beat them back and, hopefully, defeat them.
Two Jews, 300 opinions
The question is how to do this effectively. There is much dissension as to the answer. In the past, the joke was “two Jews, three opinions.” Today, it is “two Jews, three hundred opinions.” Almost everyone agrees on what must be done, but a consensus on methods eludes us.
For example, there are those among us who think that the Trump administration’s crackdown on systemically antisemitic universities and deportation of antisemitic criminals are not just good but essential things.
Others, no less concerned about antisemitism, are appalled by them and see them as fundamental violations of both American and Jewish values.
No one can agree on something that will both work and be socially acceptable: Education? Counter-protests? Government action? Non-violent resistance? Physical self-defense? Lawsuits? Political activism? Any and all of the above? Perhaps something else?
Personally, I am sympathetic to most of these possibilities. Anything with the potential to defeat the strangers who have come to harm us ought to be, at the very least, considered. Experiment is all-important in an unprecedented situation, and, at least in terms of the last several decades, the Jews are in an unprecedentedly bad situation.
One thing I do know, however, is that any plan of action must be based on a basic principle: no half-measures. Resistance to antisemitism must be absolute. The Jews must scorch the earth. Within ethical bounds, we must adopt a doctrine of massive retaliation.
Massive retaliation
That is to say, the reaction to antisemitism should not be protest, lamentation, or even anger. It should be swift, immediate, and overwhelming retaliation. Retaliation that does not seek to arrest or punish antisemitism, but to neutralize it completely.
The Jews, in other words, must start to “think big.” They must not simply respond to individual incidents. They must attack the larger forces at work with overwhelming force—shock and awe—intended not just to oppose but to defeat the enemy.
For example, regarding the universities, their systemic antisemitism must be fought not to reform them but to shut them down entirely. The university in question should not just be sued but sued for its entire endowment, as well as full repayment of all tuitions paid by Jewish students. Their accreditation should be revoked, their property sold off, and their staff and faculty sent to the unemployment line.
The goal should not be for Harvard to be nicer to the Jews, but for Harvard to cease to exist. Whether this actually happens or not, the threat will be sufficient to change things.
This does not only involve aggressive demands. Jews must also “flood the zone,” unleashing such a storm of punitive measures that the enemy finds himself paralyzed and helpless. For instance, when South Africa launched its campaign of blood libels against Israel in hopes of rescuing Hamas, Jewish groups could have filed numerous cases in international courts and forums accusing South Africa of collaborating with terrorism and complicity in Hamas’s attempted genocide. Jews could have campaigned for South Africa’s expulsion from international bodies, an end to US-South Africa diplomatic relations, and the enactment of economic and trade sanctions.
Whether any of this would have happened in the end is, again, irrelevant. South Africa would have been so occupied with dealing with the threat that it would have been unable to continue its antisemitic campaign and would have been deterred from future malfeasance.
In the same way, we now know that the United Nations not only lends moral and political support to terrorism, but also material support and even participation. The role of UNRWA and its employees in the Oct. 7 massacre is well-documented and, I think, still underestimated.
Given this, there is no reason for Jewish groups not to demand that the UN be defunded, expelled from its New York headquarters, and proscribed as a foreign terrorist organization. With the gravy train suddenly stopped, the UN would mend its ways very quickly or face extinction.
This strategy of massive retaliation could be applied to innumerable antisemitic forces: individual politicians, officials, and activists; collaborationist NGOs; religious and educational institutions that preach antisemitism; and so on. Not every massive retaliation will succeed in neutralizing the enemy, but it will debilitate and deter them.
The problem of Jewish trepidation
However, one can easily imagine the objections to this strategy.
For example, many Jews will say, won’t this just strengthen the antisemites’ belief in omnipotent and sinister Jewish power?
Probably it will. But antisemites believe this anyway, and anything and everything they see confirms it for them. It is a basic tenet of their understanding of the world, and there is no way to either strengthen or weaken it. The best way of countering it is for Jews to use their power to stop those who believe it from acting on it.
There is no shame in power, and if Jews have it, we should use it. After all, everyone else happily does so. We should not refrain from effective action out of the bizarre delusion that antisemitism is somehow evidence-based.
Connected to this will be the charge that massive retaliation will just “make things worse” by exacerbating antisemitism in general.
In this case, the argument is simply nonsense. Massive retaliation won’t make things worse. We are already at peak antisemitism. Our enemies are already outright genocidal, and we know this because they say so.
Moreover, the only thing that will get a lot “worse” if something isn’t done is peak antisemitism’s ever-escalating atrocities. Massive retaliation is far more likely to make things better rather than worse.
However, the naysayers will ask, aren’t such measures simply unrealistic and ineffective?
The answer is: Only if you demand absolute victory every time. Massive retaliation is not just a strategy but also a tactic. It is based on the irrefutable fact that when you go for everything, you usually end up with something.
As already noted, even if the antisemite is not completely neutralized, he will be far more damaged and deterred than he would be if opposed less aggressively.
The strongest objection will be the moral one: Isn’t a policy of massive retaliation wildly disproportionate? Can’t we use more moderate tactics?
Sadly, we cannot. We do not have the numbers for mass street protests. Our enemies are indifferent to, if not outright contemptuous of half-measures. Non-Jews can get away with things Jews cannot, and thus enjoy impunity that protects them from any but the most aggressive counter-measures.
Jews must use their power in other ways, and the most effective is to employ wildly disproportionate means to achieve deterrence.
Certainly, we should also be smart. We must use our power with discernment and intelligence. We should not give our enemies a sword they can use against us, and we should remember that every sword is double-edged. This, however, is not and must not be any excuse for complacency, inaction, or convenient delusions.
The commandment
Effective measures, moreover, are not just advisable but commanded. They are a milchemet mitzvah, an act of tikkun olam. The great Torah commentator Rashi said as much when he wrote of Amalek:
The Holy One, blessed be He, swears that His Name will not be perfect nor His throne perfect until the name of Amalek be entirely blotted out. But when [Amalek’s] name is blotted out, then will His [God’s] Name be perfect and His throne perfect. As it is said (Psalms 9:7): “The enemy is come to an end, he whose swords were forever”—and this refers to Amalek, of whom it is written, “He kept his wrath forever.”
In other words: Amalek has no mercy, and we should show him none.
A strategy of massive retaliation will be difficult to implement, however. Most Jewish organizations will reject it, as they are dedicated to self-immolating moderation if not outright quiescence.
The best method, therefore, might be the founding of a new organization whose sole purpose is to act upon the principle of massive retaliation. It could operate independently of the Jewish establishment, which is largely catamitic, and would likely be far more effective as a result.
This, in and of itself, would attract wide Jewish support, which might even allow the group to supersede the establishment organizations and become one of the leaders of the Jewish world.
This may be an unrealistic ambition, but ambition has always been essential to great achievements. And this achievement is not just an endeavor but a commandment.
It is not for us, in our days, to destroy Amalek. Our tradition teaches that this lies in the hands of God and his annointed. But it is incumbent upon us to defeat Amalek in this generation. As the sage said, is not for us to complete the work, but nor are we free to desist from it.
If the throne is to be perfected, Amalek must be overcome by whatever moral and ethical means necessary to do so. If he is not, he will keep his wrath forever.
Israel’s own media is a weapon for its enemies. John Matthews
The only country in the Middle East with free press gets vilified for using it.
MAY 28, 2025 The Future of Jewish
Al Jazeera, founded in 1996, could decidedly be considered the “new kid on the block” in media circles.
And its initial announced aim of bringing news more from an Arab and Middle East perspective than the current “Western-dominated” news channels of CNN and the BBC at least gave an honest appraisal of what to expect: that it was going to be seen from or biased towards that perspective, or perhaps they were suggesting that news generally was biased towards a Western perspective, so they were “evening the playing field.”
This might in part explain why with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian supporters often claim that the media is biased towards Israel, whereas to the rest of the world, or indeed anyone with 20/20 vision, the media, including 80 percent of Western media, is decidedly angled against Israel and leans towards being supportive of (or at least having stronger sympathies for) the Palestinians. Perhaps in part due to a natural leaning to having sympathy for “underdogs” — but that bias is plainly there.
So, the addition of Al Jazeera angled that already-evident Western media bias against Israel even sharper against them. Subsequently, the addition of online news journals such as Electronic Intifada, Mondoweiss, Middle East Eye, and numerous independent “hate-hack journalists” made that angle against Israel an impossible slippery slope.
Indeed, while strongly Left-leaning in its editorial policies, Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently had an article about the bias against Israel found in organizations such as the BBC, which found that the BBC repeatedly downplayed Hamas terrorism, while presenting Israel as a militaristic and aggressive nation.
According to the data, Israel was mentioned as committing war crimes four times more than Hamas (127 versus 30), 14 times more as committing genocide (283 versus 19), and six times more times as violating international law (167 versus 27).
But articles like that which take a supportive view of Israel are often overshadowed in Haaretz by those which are angled against. Many times I’ve been in an online debate and a “pro-Palestinian” advocate will cite an article to support their point-of-view, and all too often the source is Haaretz. As if knowing that a quote from Al Jazeera or Middle East Eye will count for little, because extreme bias or inaccuracy is expected, but in the case of Haaretz, “It’s an internal Israeli newspaper, so it must be true.”
How could that perceived bias against their own people and nation have come about?
Originating in 1918, almost 80 years before Al Jazeera, its first owners were socialist-leaning Zionist owners from Russia, and that “Left-leaning” has persevered throughout, perhaps even accentuated by the fact that Israel’s other main newspapers, notably Israel Today (Yisrael Hayom), The Times of Israel, and The Jerusalem Post are either mainstream or lean more to the Right.
So, with a current Right-wing government under a Likud1 coalition and Benjamin Netanyahu, Haaretz is the main newspaper critical of their policies, which then might include war actions, such as the current Gaza war.
As a result, internal criticisms from the Israeli public that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is putting the war and eradication of Hamas before welfare of the hostages will appear more in Haaretz than other Israeli papers. One Haaretz report I read recently disputed the number of Hamas terrorists the IDF had declared, claiming that a number were civilians. Other newspapers in Israel generally veered towards the IDF figures being accurate.
Of course, in any debate, Palestinian supporters will dive on that Haaretz claim and declare it as the “accurate one.” But to do so ignores a few crucial factors. While most of the Haaretz editorial staff are Jewish, albeit Left-leaning, a number of staff are Israeli-Arabs, with the Arabic edition chief editor, Hanin Majadli, a Palestinian Arab.
In addition, Haaretz doesn’t have any reporters within Gaza, so they are reliant on “stringers” who are all Palestinian Arabs and invariably fed by data direct from Hamas. So, any data coming from those sources would be prone to heavy bias and quite circumspect.
Though, to be fair to Haaretz’s editorial staff, the incidences where they appear harsh and critical of their own nation and its policies are at most 35 percent of their editorial, even though that negative margin is latched onto so strongly by anti-Zionist-pro-Palestinian supporters that it appears the predominant factor.
It’s a bit like in the UK reading The Guardian and expecting them to be praiseworthy of the Conservative Party’s policies. It’s not going to happen even though they will overall appear supportive of the British nation and its people.
The crucial factor is that there is no equivalent to Haaretz in the Arab world. No free press internally criticizing their own nations and their policies.
Indeed, while Al Jazeera was set up as a free press on international news, there would never be criticism of Qatar’s internal policies and all its external news reporting would follow a strict Qatari editorial line: die-hard support of the Palestinians, including Hamas, and denigration of Israel. Of course, this is hardly surprising for a nation that has given Hamas almost $2 billion over the years and also provided a sanctuary to its leaders.
In fact, Al Jazeera is the only main news station reporting from inside Gaza. The others, including majors like CNN and the BBC, sit in hotel rooms in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and, like Haaretz, rely on Palestinian Arab “stringers” and information feeders from within Gaza.
Little surprise, therefore, that the general bent of all the news coming out of the area is anti-Israel. Seasoned journalist, Nachum Kaplan, himself a long-standing past Reuters correspondent, reported on the irony of Western journalists, sitting safely in luxury hotel rooms in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, fully protected by an Israeli army and the Iron Dome, while reporting how terrible Israel is.
That one-way slant of the Western media against Israel isn’t just due to their reliance on Hamas-fed Palestinian “stringers” and journalists inside Gaza, because even if they were to actually go into Gaza (which was the case prior to the end of 2023), they knew that they would be unable to report negatively on Hamas. Hamas imposes strict rules that any journalists reporting negatively on them are barred from future entry or reporting from there again; indeed, the whole news network is often barred from entering and reporting again.
And this situation also exists in the Palestinian Authority-controlled parts of the West Bank, as can be seen from the Italian News station RAI, which filmed the Ramallah lynching of two off-duty Israeli soldiers in 2000. The entire network was banned from future reporting in the territory, until they sent a grovelling letter of apology to the Palestinian Authority.
But the whole episode sent a warning shot towards all other media organizations: Report negatively against any Palestinian interests and you’ve seen what happens; you’re either barred from future reporting or have to send a letter of apology which destroys your future credibility as an impartial news organization.
But no such fears of Al Jazeera ever reporting negatively about Palestinians. Indeed, the extent of Al Jazeera’s bias was displayed six months into the Gaza war, at a time when the subject of Hamas militants operating from within Gaza hospitals was a hot topic.
Al Jazeera mistakenly put out a clip of Hamas terrorists within a Gaza hospital waving their rifles and AK-47’s wildly in the air. They quickly realized their mistake, pulling the clip within minutes, but it had already been picked up on online and soon went viral. From that point it was official: Nothing Al Jazeera reported could be trusted.
An example of Al Jazeera’s bias (and indeed their propensity towards supporting terrorist groups) was displayed at the outset of the Northern Alliance’s assault on Afghanistan in response to 9/11. After Al Jazeera broadcast supportive interviews with Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders, the U.S. lost their patience and bombed their Kabul offices (overnight while empty, so no loss of life).
But with the current Gaza war, just imagine if Qatar had an internal newspaper equivalent to Haaretz in Israel, then some hard and fast questions could have been asked as to why they’d sent almost $2 billion to Hamas ,or let their leaders luxuriate in Qatar hotel rooms while their people were bombed, with little or no effort to stop the war.
Equally pertinent questions, which have indeed been posed recently by Western media, are why has Qatar invested multi-billions into U.S. businesses, universities, teaching, and research institutions?
An eagle-eye has always been kept on the amount of Israeli lobbying money poured into the United States. Why haven’t those same detractors raised alarm bells when Qatar has invested three times as much into U.S. institutions. Especially when you consider what a strong and supportive friend Israel has been to the U.S. and vice-versa, contrasted against Qatar’s support of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda (responsible for 9/11) and now Hamas.
That massive Qatari investment in the U.S. has in particularly focused on universities. Could this be why anti-Israel activism has markedly increased at leading U.S. universities this past few years? Certainly, this spike corresponding with this heavy Qatari investment is ominous.
Given that worrying background, perhaps U.S. President Donald Trump should reject the presidential jumbo-jet offered to him by the Qataris, since it could well be a Trojan horse.
1 An Israeli Right-wing political party, currently chaired by Benjamin Netanyahu
Critics of Israel agree: Settlers make the best villains Moshe P{fillips
The British government believes that it has the moral authority to dictate where in their ancestral homeland Jewish families can and cannot live.
May 28, 2025 JNS – Along with the Israeli Defense Forces, perhaps no group of Israelis draws the attention of Israel’s critics as frequently as the so-called Jewish settlers.
In the same week that Tzeela Gez, a 30-year-old pregnant Israeli “settler” who was on her way to the hospital to deliver her fourth son, was murdered by a Palestinian Arab terrorist, the British government targeted a 79-year-old great-grandmother named Daniella Weiss.
On its official website, the United Kingdom announced: “Today’s measures include financial restrictions and travel bans, including on high-profile extremist settler leader Daniella Weiss.”
David Lammy, the British Foreign Secretary, stated: “The sanctioning of Daniella Weiss and others today demonstrates our determination to hold extremist settlers to account as Palestinian communities suffer violence and intimidation at the hands of extremist settlers.”
Oren Marmorstein, spokesperson for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called the sanctions “unjustified and regrettable.”
But that’s not the point here.
Ever since 1968, when a group of young Jewish families moved into a hotel in Hebron, there has been consistent opposition to Jews making homes in areas that Israel took control of after its victory in the Six-Day War in June 1967. From the very beginning, settlers have been a target for demonization.
Weiss is not the monster the British are depicting. A strictly Orthodox woman, she is the former mayor of the community of Kedumim.
No one can deny that Weiss has been a force in building, sustaining and protecting Jewish communities in the so-called West Bank. But if she were guilty of violent acts herself, why didn’t Lammy say so?
The answer is simple. This has nothing to do with Daniella Weiss—or the settlements. This is about Lammy and the Labour Party finding a way to express their opposition to Israel’s actions against Hamas.
How do we know this?
Because in the same press release, Hamish Falconer, Parliamentary under-secretary of state for the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, said as much. He said: “Today, I will set out to Ambassador Hotovely the government’s opposition to the wholly disproportionate escalation of military activity in Gaza and emphasize that the 11-week block on aid to Gaza has been cruel and indefensible. I will urge Israel to halt settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank.”
Let’s pause and consider the British hypocrisy here.
The United Kingdom’s opposition to the settlement movement can be summarized as this: The British government believes that it has the moral authority to dictate where in their ancestral homeland Jewish families can and cannot live.
Can one imagine the outrage if Lammy, whose parents are from Guyana, decided to relocate there, only for the Australian government not only to criticize where a black man may live in Guyana but to launch a boycott in response?
This move by London—with its list of sanctioned Jews—echoes some of the darkest periods in recent Jewish history. It must be called out as both hateful and dangerous.
At a moment when Israel is fighting to rescue hostages who have been held for nearly 600 days, it is a moral disgrace for such an ally to attack Israel for how it is conducting itself.
American Jews should respond by canceling all planned summer trips to Britain until it reconsiders its position.
MOSHE PHILLIPS Moshe Phillips, a veteran pro-Israel activist and author, is the national chairman of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI). A former board member of the American Zionist Movement, he previously served as national director of the U.S. division of Herut and worked with CAMERA in Philadelphia. He was also a delegate to the 2020 World Zionist Congress and served as editor of The Challenger, the publication of the Tagar Zionist Youth Movement. His op-eds and letters have been widely published in the United States and Israel.
Dr. Lee Merritt & Dr. Bryan Ardis’ Shocking $500 Trillion Intel for 2025 [1:49:12] Dr. Bryan Ardis | The Dr. Ardis Show | Dr. Peter McCullough
May 27, 2025
The Israeli Assassination & War & the Plan [59:13] Tom Renz
MAY 27, 2025
There is so much happening today. We have the VRBPAC meeting, an mRNA in the military story, the Israeli couple that was killed, and much more. Amongst these, I think we really need to look at the impact this assassination will have on the tenuous international relationships we are dealing with now. Will this lead to war? I doubt it. While I tend to resist discussion of a plan there are things to consider and I think it deserves some conversation. Today we will talk about “the plan” and why I approach things the way I do. Lots to talk about make sure you tune in.
The FDA’s VRBPAC meeting is happening, and they’re pushing a new mRNA COVID vaccine formula. Can you believe it? Despite all the evidence showing these jabs cause heart issues, turbo cancers, and blood clots, they’re still at it. My buddy Mark Sherwood joins me today to unpack this disaster. We lay out how mRNA vaccines train your body to produce spike proteins, which then attach to ACE2 receptors all over, causing your immune system to attack itself. It’s creating autoimmune chaos, and the FDA’s own 2006 guidance warned about this. Yet, here we are, with Big Pharma’s money still calling the shots. Mark and I agree, we need to cut their influence by banning their ads and stopping their political donations. It’s the only way to break their grip.
We also get into the dangerous idea of corporate personhood, which is now creeping toward giving AI and robots rights. This stems from the awful Citizens United decision, and it’s a slippery slope to nonsense like AI voting or running for office. It’s absurd, and we’ve got to stop it before it spirals further.
Then, there’s this obsession with a so-called “plan” where white hats are supposedly saving the world. I talked with Charlie Ward, a good guy with global connections, but I’m a doubting Thomas. I need evidence. Even if there’s a plan, sitting on our hands is lazy. The Bible says don’t be the idle servant waiting for Christ’s return. We’ve got to fight, whether it’s against mRNA poisons or global pedophile networks. Mark nailed it, if we’re not part of the solution, we’re part of the problem. And let’s be real, with Trump’s administration facing RINO sellouts passing a bill that adds $20 trillion to the debt, keeps Green New Deal scraps, and delays Medicaid reforms to 2029, we’re not winning. We’re losing ground, and trusting a plan without action is a cop-out.
A heartbreaking story came up about a Navy family facing separation because their kids aren’t COVID vaccinated. The military can’t mandate these shots anymore, but the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule still lists them, so the Navy’s blocking the kids from traveling overseas with their dad. This is outrageous. Kids don’t need these jabs; no healthy child died from COVID. We need a PR storm to protect this family and get mRNA shots off the schedule.
We also touch on the tragic murder of an Israeli couple, embassy staffers, by a pro-Palestinian lunatic tied to Chicago communist groups. My friend Mike Adams raised concerns it might be a false flag to drag us into a Middle East war with Iran. I’m against more wars, period. The Middle East has been a mess forever, and we don’t need to send our kids to die there. Israel’s an ally, but their government’s as corrupt as any other. We support the Jewish people, not genocide or endless conflict.
Finally, we hit on South Africa’s white genocide crisis, where white farmers are being killed and their land stolen. Trump called it out, and I applaud him for shining a light on this horror. I don’t support genocide anywhere, and it’s time the world pays attention.
FDA Warnings and Vaccine Controversy
Well, I hope so. I hope so. Cause I love it. And speaking of fighting for freedom, we got some fighting to do today. Um, so, you know, it’s interesting cause we have, we’ve got, you know, if you look, they just, you know, FDA is now going to require a warning label on COVID injections for the heart issues, right? Because we know it’s so well established that these things destroy your heart, even though they don’t provide any real benefits at all. They provide just endless heart damage, all sorts of problems in there. So I see that they’re going to now start doing that. And it’s out there. And in fact, I searched it. Let me show you this because I got to boot on this. I searched it and said, FDA warning on mRNA, and it starts out, and they got the new stuff that’s coming out about Moderna, and everybody knew, and of course they knew. I mean, we’ve been talking about it forever. It’s not like any of this is new news, but I scroll down. Of course, second post references someone I know. You know, and it’s talking about these gene therapy products causing cancer, which we know now that they do cause cancer, that they’re contributing to the turbo cancer explosion we’re seeing nationally.Oh, and one last thing and the most important topic of the day: pennies are being phased out. I had to share this breaking and impactful news, because as my fans know, that’s what this show is all about. Enjoy the show folks!
President Trump Notes the Biden Autopen Scandal Extends Beyond the Pardon Controversies By Sundance
MAY 27, 2025
When you think about the office of the president and all of the functions that are required therein, against the backdrop of Joe Biden being mentally incapable of understanding complex decisions, it does make you wonder what else this “autopen” scandal could encompass.
My biggest question pertains to the Ukraine-Russia conflict that broke out in Biden’s second year, February 24, 2022. There were a lot of presidential powers flexed in the aftermath of Russia entering Ukraine including all of the sequential sanctions applied by the U.S. that required Biden’s authorization and signature.
Amid all of those presidential directives, we must also consider the CIA and Pentagon were immediately authorized to stand up operations in support of Ukraine.
When the President issues a directive authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct an operation, the president signs a “finding memo.” Was that finding memo process also one of the uses for the non-Biden-dependent autopen?
I’m not sure how any review of the Biden “autopen” use could be successfully investigated or reviewed other than through the use of a special counsel from outside the DOJ.
Certainly, Ed Martin is beginning to look into the issue, and he does have presidential authority within his appointment as lead of the ‘weaponization working group.’
However, it would seem that Martin would need specific charging instructions to take the investigation into what would likely be a very complicated dynamic.
Inside South Africa: Firsthand Account of White Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing w/ Brendi Wells [1:04:13] SARAH WESTALL
MAY 27, 2025
I recorded this powerful episode with Brendi Wells—who shares her firsthand experience as a citizen living in South Africa—a few days before President Trump hosted the South African President in the Oval Office.
In this interview, Brendi opens up about the horrifying reality on the ground, describing how hundreds of her friends and acquaintances have been murdered by what she calls a righteous mob—violence that she says is not only ignored but effectively endorsed by the South African government. She details the discriminatory laws targeting white farmers, the systematic seizure of land, and the growing hostility rooted in state-sanctioned policies.
You can watch or listen to this episode here: Inside South Africa: Firsthand Account of White Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing w/ Brendi Wells
A few days after this interview was recorded, President Trump, in the Oval Office, showed the South African President—and the world—video evidence of this reality.
If you have not seen some of the recent clips of this event, here are some highlights:
Below is a short video of President Trump showing the South African President footage of politicians leading crowds in chants of “Kill the White Man” to thousands of cheering supporters. He also presents images of thousands of white crosses—each one representing a murdered white farmer.
Jews aren’t allowed to be angry, but we are. BENJAMIN KERSTEIN
The Holocaust made Jews sad. October 7th and its aftermath made us angry. Two-thousand years of suppressed Jewish rage ends now.
MAY 27, 2025 The Future of Jewish
In 1903, the great Zionist poet Chaim Nahman Bialik wrote his poem “On the Slaughter” in the wake of a hideous pogrom.
In it, he created perhaps the most incandescent expression of Jewish rage in history:
If there is justice, let it appear now!
But if justice appears
After I have been annihilated from beneath the heavens
Let its throne be hurled down forever!
This was Jewish anger taken to its utmost. Rather than embrace the passive stoicism that Jews had adopted for so long out of terrible necessity, Bialik called the entire world to account. He declared that if this is a world without justice, if it cannot or will not do justice, if its professions of justice are the merest hypocrisy, then it must be hurled down forever.
Bialik’s rage was metaphysical in scope. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that he used the term “throne.” Since Ezekiel’s1 vision, God’s throne has been an archetypal image in Judaism, symbolizing divine majesty and power. Now, Bialik was saying that God must live up to himself, and if he does not…
Such words cannot be other than incandescent in light of the horrific events we have witnessed over the past week and, in many ways, the past year and a half. We have been compelled to recognize that a significant number of individuals, groups, and governments have joined with a genocidal terrorist organization in celebrating the slaughter of babies and children.
Worse still, they do this in the name of “justice” itself, believing themselves to be a caste of saints, the finest and most moral people in the entire history of the known universe.
So, we are faced with the question of how we ought to respond to this demented and satanic spectacle.
The only rational response is Bialik’s rage — rage taken to its utmost. At the moment, we are fully entitled to despise the world. To despise its hypocrisy, its horrific violence, its complete lack of the slightest moral consistency or integrity, and its disgusting inability to recognize the humanity of one of its oldest civilizations. We are more than entitled to say: “Let their throne be hurled down forever!”
Remarkably, however, the Jews don’t despise the world, not now and not ever. We take pride in the fact that, unlike our adversaries, we do not love death more than we love life. Our God told us thousands of years ago that there are two paths: life and death, darkness and light. “Therefore,” God said, “choose life.” Generally speaking, we do.
This might be one of our greatest strengths. Nevertheless, it has a tendency toward overcorrection, for which we have paid a very heavy price.
Jews are not good at expressing rage. This is, in fact, something of an understatement. Indeed, one of the reasons Bialik’s poem is so powerful is that it is so unusual. He remains, in many ways, an outlier and an exception.
One can see this, for example, in our general approach to the legacy of the Holocaust. There is no doubt that a great many Jews remain very angry about the Holocaust — and rightly so.
By and large, however, our public and often private reactions are sadness and stoicism. As for our leaders, many of them say “never again,” but usually they are talking about working toward understanding, tolerance, diversity, and so forth. They have no intention of laying the antisemites low, let alone hurling down the throne forever. Anger is not on their agenda because, one suspects, they are terrified of it.
I believe such reactions are sincere, in their way. But I do not believe for a single moment that there is even one Jew in the world who is not blazingly angry at the perpetrators of the Holocaust and their debased heirs today. I am quite certain that all of us not only loathe antisemites, but also those who sit upon their makeshift thrones and weep crocodile tears over dead Jews as they display utter indifference at best towards living ones. We are angry because, as yet, little in the way of justice has appeared.
We observe, for example, that Germany has done rather well out of its penitence. Rebuilt by generous allies, it is now a peaceful and prosperous nation, safeguarded by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and preoccupied with relatively minor domestic matters — the most serious of which it has willfully brought upon itself.
On the other hand, Jews today (whether in Israel or the Diaspora) still struggle to assert our right to exist. We do so at the cost of a great many lives. And we are constantly subjected to the galling spectacle of a world that condemns us for succeeding. A world that was supposed to have learned its lesson eight decades ago.
In other words, Germans today live in something like a paradise disturbed only by their own stupidity. The Jews must continue to face down the armies of hell.
This is an absurd situation, of course, but it is also enraging. I do not think there is a single one of us who does not feel this rage, though many loathe to admit it.
This, perhaps, is the secret of Bialik’s power: He gives voice to our secret rage. That is, at least Bialik talks about it. He does what so many of us, especially in the Diaspora, refuse to do: He embraces the transcendent catharsis that comes from proclaiming, at long last, that this perfidious world has no right to exist. Certainly, it has no right to exist as currently constituted. By concealing this even from ourselves, we deny ourselves the power that comes from condemning the world.
Perhaps this does raise us to a slightly higher moral plane (though I doubt it), but it comes at a formidable price. I have often envied Black Americans for their ability and willingness to express their anger. They sometimes do so in destructive and self-destructive ways, but if they did not do so at all, they would likely be in a far worse situation than they are now.
In other words, it is not true that anger consumes the vessel. It is anger unexpressed that consumes the vessel. The anger is there whether you like it or not. You cannot suppress it forever if you want to remain even vaguely psychologically healthy.
This is the lesson that many, perhaps most, Jews have never learned. In the long term, such suppression can only lead to disaster. If we cannot unleash the corrosive bile that 2,000 years have built up inside us, it will erode us from within. We will destroy ourselves because we refuse to be angry. We forget that, whether we like it or not, it is human to be angry. And no matter what the world says, we are human too.
It is possible that suppressing our anger was an effective survival strategy at certain points in history. Certainly, eruptions of Jewish rage that were uncontrolled and unrestrained resulted in historical disasters, such as the revolts against Rome. But this does not mean that disaster will come every time, nor that it is guaranteed to do so today.
In fact, it is not impossible that finally expressing our anger will give us new life. As French orientalist Ernst Renan pointed out: “All the great things of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absolute principles.” And what did Bialik do if not transform Jewish rage into an absolute principle? There can be no doubt that, in doing so, Bialik enabled himself to accomplish and inspire great things.
Those “great things” may be simply what Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, called a “rebellion against history” — that is, a rebellion against the place to which the Jews had been forcibly relegated by a history shaped by non-Jews. If we cannot unleash our justified rage, we risk being relegated once again to that dreadful place.
In a strange way, then, expressing our anger is essential to our survival. It is time for us to admit as much: I rage, therefore I am.
1 The Book of Ezekiel is the third of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible. Ezekiel is known for his prophetic visions and oracles, delivered primarily to the exiled Jewish People in Babylon, during the Babylonian captivity.
Hamas Operating in Plain Site Brigitte Gabriel
The Brotherhood Network from Hell
MAY 27, 2025 ACT FOR AMERICA
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Infiltration of the West Began with Campus Movements
The Muslim Brotherhood (MB), founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, has grown into a global Islamist movement with a calculated presence in Europe and America. Its history of expansion, particularly since the mid-20th century, reveals a deliberate strategy to establish influence in Western societies, especially American university campuses, often with support from the political Left, as revealed from insights from Saudi journalist Abdallah bin Bjad Al-Otaibi.
The MB’s westward expansion began in the 1940s and 1950s, led by figures like Sa’id Ramadan, who traveled to Europe to establish MB branches, especially in Germany.
By the 1960s, MB members increasingly migrated to the United States, with their numbers and organizational presence growing significantly in the 1970s. Leaders such as Muhammad Fathi Osman and Hassan Hathout capitalized on America’s constitutional freedoms to found communities, organizations, and movements living out the last two decades in America, after establishing the MB in Britain.
The MB established key institutions like the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) in 1973 and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1981, both of which aimed to advance Islam as a “complete way of life” and “alternative civilization” in North America. According to their blueprint and founding document, revealed during the HLF trial (pg16), these organizations have since served as hubs for Islamist influence and expansion.
In Europe, the MB adapted its agenda to local contexts, creating permanent organizations by the 1980s. Groups like the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France and the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe became major affiliates, shaping Muslim communities and advocating for Sharia-based governance. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent MB scholar based in Qatar, outlined a “wassatiyya” approach—using dialogue and peaceful means to achieve Islamist goals—while envisioning Muslim enclaves governed by Islamic law in Western nations. This strategy masked the MB’s long-term aim of cultural and political dominance. He was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial affiliated with the MB and Hamas, based on his ideological influence and connections to MB networks.
On American campuses, the MB has been the driving force behind pro-Palestinian movements and protests, according to Al-Otaibi. He argues that these movements are not spontaneous expressions of solidarity but orchestrated efforts by the MB, leveraging its decades-long foothold in the U.S. Since the 1960s, the MB has founded student organizations like the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which later evolved into broader networks like ISNA. These groups have mobilized students, often under the guise of human rights activism, to advance MB agendas. The waving of Hamas and Hezbollah flags at campus protests signals this influence, reflecting the MB’s ties to these groups, particularly Hamas, which explicitly identifies as an MB of “Palestine.”
Polling of College Students on October 7th Sabbath Massacre:
- In 2023, 12% saw the Hamas Attack as “justified”
- In 2024, 20% saw the Hamas Attack as “justified”
- In 2024, 45% support pro-Palestinian protests while only 24% oppose them, and only 11% identified as “pro-Israel”
- In 2023, 73% of Republicans blamed Hamas, while only 50% of Democrats blamed them.
The MB’s success in the West has been bolstered by an alliance with the American liberal Left, particularly within the Democratic Party and academic circles. Al-Otaibi notes that the Left’s dominance in universities and cultural spheres, such as Hollywood, has provided fertile ground for MB influence, creating a symbiotic relationship that amplifies Islamist rhetoric under the banner of social justice.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s network includes NAIT, established in 1973 by the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the predecessor of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which later became CAIR, were all named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation (originally named ‘Occupied Land Fund’) trial. Prosecutors presented evidence of checks deposited into an account for HLF, allegedly payable to Hamas’s military wing, “the Palestinian Mujahadeen.”
Court documents from the HLF case, including a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum, identified NAIT, ISNA, IAP, CAIR, and the Muslim Student Association as a few of the 29 organizations aimed at advancing a “grand Jihad” to establish an Islamic foothold in America, with HLF explicitly created by the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee to support Hamas.
In the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, a federal jury convicted the HLF and five of its leaders on 108 charges, including conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), providing over $12 million in support. The investigation exposed a network of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups in North America, including the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), tied to a “Grand Jihad” strategy to advance Hamas’s agenda through political and financial means. Despite the convictions, Hamas’s influence persists, with individuals and organizations named unindicted co-conspirators remaining active in the U.S. today.
The U.S. government included the IAP on a list of approximately 300 unindicted co-conspirators and joint venturers filed in 2007 during the first trial, alleging that the IAP was part of a network of organizations tied to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in the U.S., which was accused of supporting Hamas’s political and financial agendas. Even the dissolved IAP was re-established as American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) in 2005.
Key figures of the IAP who co-founded CAIR include Nihad Awad who was IAP Director of Public Relations, Rafeeq Jaber, who was an IAP President while also acting as CAIR Treasurer and Board Member, and Omar Ahmad who was the founding IAP President and Chairman of CAIR’s Board. IAP and CAIR were both named unindicted co-conspirators. Despite the convictions, CAIR remains active, led by Awad, raising alarms about the ongoing influence of Hamas-linked networks in America.
On 10/7, Nihad Awad stated, “The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege — the walls of the concentration camp — on October 7. And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk free into their land that they were not allowed to walk in…And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves, and yes, Israel, as an occupying power, does not have that right to self-defense.”
Senior Hamas Official and Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri recently stated, “This is a dream come true. Today, the number of Muslims is multiplying because of what is happening in Gaza.”
Hamas’s claim to Israel as an Islamic Waqf—a sacred endowment consecrated for Muslims until Judgment Day—stems from its 1988 charter, which asserts that Palestine, encompassing all of modern Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, is inalienable Muslim land due to its historical control by Islamic rulers, including the Ottoman Empire (1517–1917). This claim, rooted in Islamic legal tradition, holds that such lands cannot be ceded to non-Muslims. Hamas’s leadership, including figures like Khaled Mashaal, has historically rejected any compromise, insisting on liberating “every inch” of Palestine.
Hamas will never agree to a two-state solution in Israel, and the Brotherhood of North America will never cede Islamic-owned properties and cities to non-Muslims—they’re playing for keeps, and we better ACT NOW to stop this Brotherhood network now!
Body Language Analysis of Brigitte SHOVING Macron’s Face [12:40]
May 26, 2025 The Body Language Guy
[Ed.:
‘Free Palestine’ is a call for terrorism, not a cry for justice. SAMUEL J. HYDE
The “Free Palestine” chant doesn’t have to make sense. It only needs to unite all against the symbol of “evil” — the one they declared the barrier to a more “just” world: the Jew.
MAY 26, 2025 The Future of Jewish
It is short, rhythmic, and adorned with the sheen of justice.
It dances well on protest placards and hashtags, effortlessly slipping from the mouths of diplomats and demonstrators alike.
And more often than not, it appears alongside the refrain: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!” There is something enticing about the chant “Free Palestine.”
But this past week, the chant did not come from a megaphone or a protest sign. It came with a gunshot — fired at close range, aimed at two young people: Yaron Lischinsky and his soon-to-be fiancée, Sarah Lynn Milgrim. Their future was shattered in an instant.
It later emerged that both worked at the Israeli embassy. But according to police reports, one fact remains clear: The shooter, Elias Rodriguez, did not follow them. He did not know who they were. He did not know where they worked. He walked up to a Jewish museum and opened fire. He did not see embassy employees. He saw Jews (even though one of the victims was not Jewish).
This should have served as a declaration that revealed the true nature of the chant: that Jewish life, wherever it appears, is fair game. That in the poisoned moral economy of “Free Palestine” — Jewish blood is a form of currency to be spilled, from the blown-up buses of the Second Intifada in Jerusalem to the rockets fired at Tel Aviv; from the massacred communities of southern Israel on October 7th to the Jewish museums of America.
But murder, it seems, is not enough, neither for the ideologues nor for their apologists. And so we are left with the inevitable question: What does it mean? What does this chant, this creed, this performance of outrage actually signify?
The question is almost never answered (not in earnest) and this is no accident. The brilliance of the slogan lies precisely in its refusal to define itself. It is a blank check of virtue, cashed in different currencies by liberals, Islamists, socialists, and tyrants. It does not commit its speaker to clarity. It does not oblige them to history. It certainly does not demand moral consistency. It is, in truth, a slogan designed to mask, not to reveal.
In our age, where slogans are treated as arguments, “Free Palestine” functions less as a political demand than as a tool of ideological laundering. It washes the sins of autocrats and extremists in the waters of anti-imperialism. It allows theocrats to pose as “progressives,” and it empowers those who jail dissidents and ban women’s rights to parade as human rights champions, so long as they all oppose the Zionist.
The chant first emerged from the megaphones of Arab dictators. It was a metaphor for Arab humiliation at the hands of the supposed puppet of Western powers, the Jewish state. It allowed Arab autocrats to mobilize their populations against an external enemy, while silencing dissent at home.
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s charismatic strongman from 1954 to 1970, turned freeing “Palestine” into the centerpiece of pan-Arab redemption. For him, “Palestine” was not a homeland in distress; it was a wound inflicted, a rallying cry against humiliation, and, above all, a justification for rule. It allowed him to consolidate power, crush internal opposition, and divert attention from his own domestic failures — all in the name of liberating a land he had no intention of freeing.
Let us not forget: When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt ruled Gaza, there were no calls — none — to “free Palestine.” There were no protests against Arab rule. No chants in Cairo. No demonstrations in Amman. Why? Because “Palestine” was never defined as the West Bank and Gaza. It was, and is, defined as all of Israel.
When the Arab states suffered a staggering defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967, the mythology had to evolve. No longer could Arab nationalism claim to be the liberator of “Palestine.” That torch passed to a new kind of actor: the revolutionary. The Palestine Liberation Organization, founded in 1964 — before Israel “occupied” a single inch of the West Bank or Gaza — made its mission plain: to annihilate the State of Israel and replace it with an Arab one. Their slogans were clear. Their maps were absolute. Their bullets, pointed at school buses and synagogues, did not discriminate.
As prominent Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi perceptively noted in 1998:
“The Palestine Liberation Organization’s goal was always the liberation of all of Palestine. Even under the Jordanian and Egyptian administrations, our vision did not shift from the liberation of Palestine as a whole.”
Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat, the master of this “revolutionary” spectacle, repackaged the war against Israel into a global cause. He made terrorism fashionable. He held a rifle in one hand and a “peace” proposal in the other, smiling as the world pretended not to notice which one he actually used. He globalized the chant. He made “Free Palestine” an exportable brand, one that found eager consumers in Western universities and radical movements hungry for a struggle, any struggle, to validate their own moral vanity.
By the 1970s and 1980s, “Free Palestine” had migrated far from its birthplace. It became a rallying cry for foreign revolutionaries. It didn’t matter that most had never met a Palestinian. It didn’t matter that they couldn’t point to Ramallah on a map. What mattered was the image of revolution. The chant was no longer even about land; it was about the revolution, about being on the “right” side of history, even if it meant supporting the wrong people.
It now echoes in the streets of Paris, the lecture halls of Cambridge, and the protests of New York. But its essence remains unchanged. The visuals at every one of these protests confirm this. The placards don’t show two flags. They show one map. The chants are not about democracy in Ramallah. They are about vengeance in Jaffa and burning Tel Aviv. The key hoisted in the air is not symbolic of aspiration. It is a demand for reversal, a fantasy of “return” that would mean the demographic destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
I remember hearing the chant in English for the first time in South Africa, back in 2011. University students screamed the slogan (and others) like “From Ferguson to Palestine.” It made no sense. What did Ferguson, Missouri have to do with Israel or “Palestine”? Let alone a university campus at the southern tip of Africa.
And that is the point. It doesn’t have to make sense. It only needs to unite all against the symbol of “evil” — the one they declared the barrier to a more “just” world: the Jew.
We should know this. Very few of its chanters, if any, are willing to address what the chant means in the language in which it was born. In Arabic, there is no vagueness. The original chant is: Min al-ma’ ila al-ma’, Falasteen Arabiya. (“From the water to the water, Palestine is Arab.”) Not Palestinian, but Arab. Not sovereign, nor half-Jewish, but conquered.
For many Westerners, chanting “Free Palestine” is a declaration of moral clarity. But in practice, it is a confession. They are not asked to explain how peace would be built. They are not asked to acknowledge the consequences of Hamas’ rule, the corruption of the Palestinian Authority, or the jihadist incitement taught to Palestinian children. They are not asked to think. They are only asked to shout in rage.
If one truly cares about the Palestinian people (even if that’s all one cares about), a few questions must be asked: Free from what? From jihadist militias? From foreign manipulation? From a failed education system that grooms children for martyrdom? From the parasitic Palestinian leadership that siphons billions in aid and stifles dissent? Free from Westerners shooting Jews in the streets of Washington, D.C. while evoking its name?
We know the answer. So do its chanters.
It means none of that.
How $21 TRILLION Went Missing From U.S. Tax Payers! -Catherine Austin Fitts FULL INTERVIEW [2:06:15]
May 12, 2025 #TheJimmyDoreShow
In this wide-ranging but oftentimes shocking interview, Jimmy speaks with Catherine Austin Fitts, the former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing in the George H.W. Bush administration. In 2017 Fitts co-authored a report alleging $21 trillion in unauthorized spending by the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development over a 17-year period.
The ‘Two-State Solution’ to Kill Jews, Destroy Israel by Bassam Tawil
May 26, 2025 at 5:00 am
- After the 2007 Hamas takeover, the Gaza Strip became an independent Palestinian state controlled by Hamas, with its own government, parliament, police force, and multiple armed groups. The Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip, in addition, had exclusive control over the border with Egypt, which was also abandoned by Israel.
- In the absence of any Israeli military or civilian presence inside Gaza, Hamas had a chance to turn the coastal strip into a prosperous area, a “Singapore” or “Dubai” on the Mediterranean. Instead, the terror group chose to manufacture and smuggle weapons, including rockets and missiles, and invest tens of millions of dollars in building a vast network of tunnels for stockpiling its weapons, facilitating the concealed movement of terrorists, and providing shelter for its leaders and members.
- [T]he war is continuing because of Hamas’s refusal to release the remaining Israeli hostages, relinquish control over the Gaza Strip and lay down its weapons. Hamas, backed and armed by Iran, is determined to fight to the last Palestinian because its primary goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state.
- For more than a decade, these payments [to the Palestinian “pay-for-slay” program] have amounted to more than $300 million annually. Last year, the PA’s payments increased by $1.3 million per month. The murder of Jews is what the European Union and many European countries have been funding.
- By advocating a “two-state solution,” France, Canada and Britain are essentially authorizing a genocide.
- Before reviving their idea, the French, Canadians and British need to look at the results of all of the polls. They consistently show that most Palestinians support Hamas and the armed struggle against Israel. The last thing Palestinians and Israelis need now is to transplant the failed Gaza model onto the West Bank.
After the 2007 Hamas takeover, the Gaza Strip became an independent Palestinian state controlled by Hamas, with its own government, parliament, police force, and multiple armed groups. The Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip, in addition, had exclusive control over the border with Egypt, which was also abandoned by Israel. Pictured: Khaled Mashaal (2nd L), head of Hamas’ “political bureau” holds hands with Gaza’s Greek Orthodox Archbishop Alexios (L) and Hassan al-Jojo (2nd R), president of the Islamic Sharia Appeals Court, along with Hamas’ then leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh (R), at a government rally in the Gaza Strip on December 9, 2012. (Photo by Mohammed Abed/AFP via Getty Images)
As the Hamas-Israel war in the Gaza Strip enters its 20th month, France, Britain and Canada have revived the talk about the need to establish a Palestinian state. In a joint statement in mid-May, the leaders of the three countries proclaimed:
“We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to achieving a two-state solution and are prepared to work with others to this end.”
Next month, the United Nations is scheduled to host an international conference, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, to advance the idea of a “two-state solution” between Israel and the Palestinians.
According to the UN:
“As outlined in General Assembly resolution 79/81, the Conference will produce an action-oriented outcome document entitled ‘Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and implementation of the two-State solution.'”
“Indeed, only the implementation of a two-state solution will restore peace, prosperity and security for Israelis, Palestinians, and the entire region,” Anne-Claire Legendre, advisor to the French president for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement on May 23.
“The June [UN] Conference must mark a transformative milestone for the effective implementation of the two-state solution. Within the framework of this conference, we will work with everybody who wishes to be involved to craft a roadmap for peace and security for all, based on two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within secure and recognized borders.”
Any talk about a “two-state solution” in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is a sick joke. The “two-state solution” died on that day, when thousands of Hamas terrorists and “ordinary” Palestinians from the Gaza Strip invaded Israel, murdered 1,200 people and wounded thousands. Another 251 Israelis were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip, where 58 – dead and alive – are still held as hostages.
In many respects, before October 7, the Gaza Strip was an independent and sovereign Palestinian state controlled by the Iran-backed terrorist group, Hamas.
In 2005, Israel withdrew from the entire Gaza Strip and handed it over, unconditionally, to the Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas. Less than two years later, Hamas staged a violent coup, toppling the PA and seizing full control over Gaza and its two million Palestinian residents.
After the 2007 Hamas takeover, the Gaza Strip became an independent Palestinian state controlled by Hamas, with its own government, parliament, police force, and multiple armed groups. The Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip, in addition, had exclusive control over the border with Egypt, which was also abandoned by Israel.
In the absence of any Israeli military or civilian presence inside Gaza, Hamas had a chance to turn the coastal strip into a prosperous area, a “Singapore” or “Dubai” on the Mediterranean. Instead, the terror group chose to manufacture and smuggle weapons, including rockets and missiles, and invest tens of millions of dollars in building a vast network of tunnels for stockpiling its weapons, facilitating the concealed movement of terrorists, and providing shelter for its leaders and members.
On October 7, during a de facto ceasefire, Hamas terrorists and thousands of “ordinary” Palestinians breached the border with Israel with the purpose of slaughtering and abducting as many Jews as possible.
The Israeli towns and villages near the border with the Gaza Strip that were invaded by the Palestinians were not “illegal settlements.” Rather, they were in Israel proper, within its internationally recognized borders. The Israelis murdered and wounded on that day were not “illegal settlers.” Rather, they were Israeli citizens residing within Israel’s borders.
To many Palestinians, any Israeli is considered a “settler” and an appropriate target for murder, especially under the Palestinian Authority’s lucrative “pay-for-slay” jobs-program set up under Mahmoud Abbas. The more Jews you murder, the larger the payments. For more than a decade, these payments have amounted to more than $300 million annually. Last year, the PA’s payments increased by $1.3 million per month. The murder of Jews is what the European Union and many European countries have been funding (see, for instance, here and here).
Ironically and tragically, many of the Israelis who were butchered and kidnapped on October 7 were peace activists. They believed in the “two-state solution.” Some had even volunteered driving sick Palestinians from the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals.
Yocheved Lifschitz, an 85-year-old Israeli peace activist who was kidnapped and later freed by Hamas, confronted Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar during a visit to hostages in a tunnel. She asked him: “Aren’t you ashamed of having done this to people who have always worked for peace with the Palestinians?”
Vivian Silver, a Canadian-Israeli peace activist, was murdered in the Hamas-led attack on October 7. For many years, she worked within her kibbutz, Be’eri, to organize programs to help Gazans, such as job training, and ensuring that Gazan construction workers at the kibbutz were paid fairly. Silver was also the co-founder of Women Wage Peace, a grassroots interfaith organization. She also volunteered with Road to Recovery and Project Roxana to transport Gazan patients to Israeli hospitals.
The Palestinians who invaded Israel on October 7 did not distinguish between one Israeli and another. They did not care whether the Israelis they murdered supported a “two-state solution” or not. They did not even distinguish between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Notably, 20 Israeli Arabs were murdered during the attacks or by Hamas rocket launches in the ensuing days. There were also 71 foreign victims on October 7, mostly Thai workers.
The October 7 invasion should be seen as a declaration of war on Israel by the Hamas-controlled Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip. Hamas planned and initiated this war since before 2020. It has brought death and destruction not only on Israelis, but also on the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip.
Twenty months later, the war is continuing because of Hamas’s refusal to release the remaining Israeli hostages, relinquish control over the Gaza Strip and lay down its weapons. Hamas, backed and armed by Iran, is determined to fight to the last Palestinian because its primary goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamist state.
Under the current circumstances, those who talk about a “two-state solution” to achieve peace and prosperity between Israelis and Palestinians are actually seeking to reward Hamas for perpetrating the worst crime against Jews since the Holocaust.
By pushing for a “two-state solution,” France, Canada and Britain are sending a message to Hamas and other Palestinians that October 7 was worthwhile because it will bring them an independent and sovereign state.
By advocating a “two-state solution,” France, Canada and Britain are essentially authorizing a genocide.
There is another problem: Can these countries or the UN guarantee that a Palestinian state in the West Bank would not be used in the future as a launching pad to attack Israel? Of course not.
Whether Hamas will officially admit it or not, that is the main reason it, and its backers in Iran and Qatar, want a “state.” Do you think they want it to grow avocadoes?
There is no doubt that a Palestinian state would be controlled by Hamas or other extremist Palestinians who do not believe in Israel’s right to exist. A poll published earlier this month showed that if presidential elections in the Palestinian Authority were held today, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal would win 68% of the votes, compared to 25% for the incumbent Mahmoud Abbas. When asked which political party or movement they supported, the largest percentage (32%) said they preferred Hamas, followed by Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction (21%). Twelve percent selected third parties, and 34% said they do not support any of them or do not know.
If new PA parliamentary elections were held today, the poll showed, Hamas would win 43% of the votes as opposed to 28% for Fatah. The poll also found that 40% of the Palestinians believe that Hamas is the most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people, while only 19% believe that Fatah is the most deserving.
The so-called two-state solution, sadly, is only a recipe for more violence, terrorism and bloodshed — not security, stability and peace.
Before reviving their idea, the French, Canadians and British need to look at the results of all of the polls. They consistently show that most Palestinians support Hamas and the armed struggle against Israel. The last thing Palestinians and Israelis need now is to transplant the failed Gaza model onto the West Bank.
Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. His work is made possible through the generous donation of a couple of donors who wished to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.
Kash Patel & Dan Bongino Claim Epstein DID Kill Himself [39:45] Glenn Beck
May 19, 2025 The Glenn Beck Program – Former President Biden has been diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer, which has already metastasized into his bones. But is this a brand new diagnosis, or another Biden health cover-up? Glenn and Stu discuss the convenient timing of the announcement as the book on Biden’s mental health cover-up is being released. Glenn discusses FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announcing their belief that Epstein committed suicide. Glenn weighs the issue of not believing the people he thinks are trustworthy and honorable. Glenn gives the 7 phases of the rise and fall of an empire, and Glenn reveals the final two things that need to happen before America’s empire falls. Glenn explains what he wants Kash Patel and Dan Bongino to do to help explain why they changed their minds about Epstein.
This Just Took A Very Weird Turn… [13:54] Russell Brand
May 25, 2025 – Russell discusses Bongino and Patel
When ‘Never Again’ becomes a slogan, Jews forget what it really means. by David Mandel
“Never again!” should stand as a warning to all Jews, not as a source of comfort.
MAY 25, 2025 Future of Jewish
Future of Jewish has an interesting name.
Recently, it got me thinking, both about the name as a construct and about the actual future of Jewish.
Let’s start with the name. It’s not called “Future of Judaism” or “Future of the Jews.” It’s Future of Jewish.
But what exactly is Jewish?
It’s inexact and changing. If it wasn’t adapting over time, we wouldn’t need to focus on its future. Like the trail of spent empires, it would merely persist until it persisted no more. We can write endlessly about the future of Jewish precisely because it isn’t static and is far from spent.
“Jewish” is in flux. This is partly because Jews themselves are disproportionately dynamic transformers of the world. Rewind history and you’ll find them as the constructors of the first Abrahamic religion.
Fast forward to the modern era, and you will find that Jews, who comprise a mere 0.2 percent of the world’s population, earned 22 percent of the Nobel prizes. That’s 110 times or roughly two orders of magnitude greater than their proportion in the world population. It’s no fluky streak either, since it is recorded over roughly a century and a quarter.
Nor are their contributions restricted to a particular area. Jews earned 19 percent of chemistry prizes, 25 percent of physics prizes, 26 percent of medicine or physiology prizes, 41 percent of economics prizes, 13 percent of literature prizes, and 8 percent of peace prizes. Not bad.
Jewish is also in flux because of perennial Jew-hatred, the oldest of hatreds. The Jews’ adaptations to persecution led to their dispersal from our ancestral homeland, Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel).
In foreign lands, they learned new languages and adapted to new trades and professions, all while remembering their rich heritage. Those who are under adaptive pressure must be smarter than those not under such pressure to survive, let alone thrive.
Yet, Jews responded to such pressures and prejudicial handicaps time and again by excelling within the societies they entered, while maintaining a focus on the zachor (remembrance) of where their people came from and what they had collectively endured.
The dynamism, productivity, and explosive creativity of Jewish life are driven by Jewish adaptability to the contemporary conditions of Jew-hatred, which ebb and flow through history. I’m not saying that what makes “Jewish” special is only an adaptive response to hatred, but I do believe that both Jews and Jew-haters alike underestimate how much their interactions over time shape Jewish exceptionalism. It may be impossible to tease the contributions apart.
Some might say: Okay, for the Jew-hater, I get it. They don’t see that their hatred drives our adaptive reflexes and, ultimately, makes us stronger, even though it’s been this way now for thousands of years. The haters don’t see that their hatred breeds more hatred precisely because it fails to resolve their quest to destroy what they envy. They wish to smash Jewishness into dust but consume themselves in the process.
But, surely, some might say, Jews get all this. They know that the long history of Jewish persecution made their parents and grandparents physically and mentally nibble (provided they weren’t wiped out). But if this were true, why was the Jewish community so surprised by the explosion of antisemitism, notably in the West, on and after October 8th?
And why, in the 1930s and 1940s, were German Jews who felt like true Germans or Hungarian Jews who felt like true Hungarians (to give two examples of many) surprised when their status as equals was removed and, again, when their status as humans worthy of life was finally revoked?
The colorful evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers, once described walking down a Manhattan street by the side of a beautiful young woman who he is enjoying the pleasure of talking to, only to be interrupted when he noticed a decrepit old man on her other side reflected in the storefronts’ window panes keeping pace with him. Moments later, he realizes the man is him ruining his experience.
To some extent, we all wear rose-colored glasses and deceive ourselves. Jews are no exception. We prefer the story in which Jewish exceptionalism is a mix of genetic and cultural good fortune, sprinkled with a healthy dose of self-focused, agentic attributions for success. This is just human nature, and what social psychologists call the self-serving bias.
German Jews in the 1930s knew about earlier pogroms, and Jews in 2023 knew about the Holocaust and the attendant Jewish disbelief. It’s why we sloganized “Never again!” Self-deception rather than ignorance is the cause of our surprise.
The inherent danger of sloganizing “Never again!” is it can reassure us that the worst for Jews is behind us. And perhaps worse, it can reassure us that it will never be relatively much worse than it currently is.
“Never again!” should stand as a warning to all, not as a source of comfort. Because, if we take it as a mere slogan, thinking that we’re over the past and that we can safely declare “Never again!” as if declaring a victory over a long oppressive past, we will only be setting ourselves up for surprise attacks such as those we witnessed on October 7th and thereafter.
Wouldn’t it be nice if “Never again!” meant we won and that the fight (at least the serious fight) was over?
But, in reality, and for the sake of collective self-preservation, it must be an injunction to be constantly vigilant. Of course, that’s easier said than done. Just as the adversities caused by Jew-hatred spur Jewish adaptation, the periodic abatement of such hatred triggers a mental adaptation. We relax and believe we are relatively safe. That won’t happen here. That won’t happen now. This adaption is normal and the failure to adapt in this way would be the hallmark of a trauma victim.
We don’t want the future of Jewish to be the experience of a trauma victim either, so we must face the fact that there are irreconcilable tradeoffs in Jewish experience. We must be vigilant and adaptive to ensure a positive future of Jewish, but we do not want to mis-calibrate such responses to the point where the future of Jewish is neurotic and paranoid. We want the future of Jewish to be thriving, not merely existing.
Jews in the West born after the Holocaust (like me) have learned to relax. If October 7th hadn’t been followed by the international resurgence of Jew-hatred of October 8th and thereafter, we would have been angered and saddened, but we would have continued to relax because it would have been about Israeli Jews, not about us in the Diaspora.
It is for the same reason that children of Holocaust survivors could relax knowing much about what their parents had endured, and yet feel as if they were fortunate to live in the post-madness world of “Never again!”
October 8 thchanged that. We saw something happening around us that reminded us of what we knew from the stories our parents or grandparents told us, as well as documentaries and history books. The sense of surprise was due to an expectancy violation: This wasn’t supposed to be happening now. This wasn’t consistent with “Never again!” As the days and weeks wore on, we were not sure what to expect. Would the response, which seemed like insanity, be tamped down — or would it escalate?
The hatred didn’t simmer down; it boiled over. As it did, Jews in the Diaspora reconnected in a direct way with the long history of Jewish suffering and insecurity. All of a sudden the fact that our numbers are small — and therefore our political power is small — mattered.
When police in Western country after Western country stood by while angry mobs chanted “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!” (namely, Jew-free) and “Globalize the intifada!” (namely, kill Jews in the Diaspora), Jews in the West knew that their conception of permanent safety was an illusion.
If there were any lingering illusions that this boil-over could turn violent, last week’s cold-blooded murder of Sarah Milgram and Yaron Lischinsky (two employees of the Israeli embassy who were attending an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.) should have shattered these illusions once and for all. The suspect, Elias Rodriguez, chanted the familiar zombie drone, “Free, free Palestine!” as he was taken away.
This is the cyclical rude awakening of the Jews that permeates history. We know our history, but still, we are caught feeling disbelief that this is happening now.
It’s unwelcome news, that’s for sure. We don’t know how ugly things will get, but we do know there are ominous signs all around us. We worry more now about the future of Jewish than we did two years ago — and not only as it affects our personal lives, but as it affects our people as a whole.
However, the affronts Jews experienced on October 7th, October 8th, and every day since must rekindle the adaptive spark that has helped guide our people through the darkest of times. Our challenge now is to recalibrate our perceptions and beliefs so that they align with the current reality. The long “end of history” for Jews in the West is over.
Hence, the future of Jewish is a return to creative adaptation, to showing the contemporary Jew-haters of the world the unintended second- and third-order effects that Jew-hatred causes: an explosion of Jewish flourishing.
|
David Mandel Since the late 90s, David Mandel has worked as a cognitive psychologist in academia, government and through his consultancy. He worries about the subversion of Western civilization and has decided to rant before it’s too late. |
“Allahu Akbar” and “Free Palestine”: It’s the Clash of Civilizations, idiots Giulio Meotti
Threatened churches, Islamized schools, converted temples, massacres in Jewish museums: Islamic culture does not think the way we do. Opinion.
May 23, 2025 Israel National News – A group of young people storm a church in Avignon, France, shouting “Allahu Akbar” and threatening to set it on fire. The police are forced to put the church under protection. Don Milan says that the young people hurled insults against Christianity. “They shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and repeated to us several times: ‘We will return and burn your church'”.
In Rouen, Normandy, other “young people” entered during Mass and slaughtered the priest, Jacques Hamel.
There are countless churches under police protection in France, from Indre to Yvelines.
A few hours later, another man enters the Jewish Museum in Washington to kill two Israeli officials, an engaged young couple, murdered while he is shouting “Free Palestine.” This time, the terrorist is the classic representative of the left that has devastated Western streets in recent months: Black Lives Matter, woke, radical socialist, against Amazon, “Free Gaza” (not from Hamas, obviously) and pro-Islamist.
A communist who kills on behalf of Islamic terrorists. Nothing new.
Who instilled in him the idea that “Liberating Palestine” means shooting Jewish diplomats? We know very well who.
“Allahu Akbar” and “Free Palestine” repeat the murderers and their useful idiots in the same demonstrations: the clash of civilizations is here and now, in the West. They tell us, they repeat it, they announce it. And they move on to the facts.
“Allahu Akbar” was also shouted by the “Free Palestine” terrorist who just killed a pregnant Israeli woman in Samaria. Sure, she was a “settler”, right? But the woke terrorist of Washington also killed an Israeli woman committed to dialogue and peace with the Arabs. His other victim is an Israeli Christian born in Nuremberg, Germany.
When they make the gesture of cutting the throat they mean it literally. To Jews, Christians, to all Westerners.
And after the massacre in Washington, France immediately rushed to raise the level of protection for synagogues.
Avignon is the ancient city on the Rhone enclosed by medieval walls, where the centuries hover in the air. In the 14th century, seven popes lived in this nest of intrigue and political crisis.
But today parts of Avignon, in the chilling investigation of Paris Match, are known as “the city of Salafists”.
“Most passers-by look alike, black veils for women, baggy Afghan trousers for men,” says Paris Match. “Most wear the believer’s beard, long and sometimes dyed with henna, like in the time of the Prophet. It feels like going back fourteen centuries. The segregation of the sexes is respected: hairdressers for women, inaccessible to men; bars full of men, inaccessible to women. They serve coffee, tea, lemonade… Everything, except alcohol. It’s a mini-Islamic republic”.
In Paderno Dugnano, a town of 50,000 inhabitants in the province of Milan, the temple of the Witnesses has just been bought to make it a mosque.
Threatened churches, Islamized schools, converted temples, massacres in Jewish museums: Islamic culture does not think the way we do. In their lands of origin, some lose and some win. They intend to win and have enlisted parts of the West to ensure it.
Like those of “Make Europe Anti-Fascist Again”, as those of the radical chic Milanese Italian left were saying a few days ago. And those who threaten churches, Islamize schools, convert temples and kill Jews and Christians in a Jewish museum, respond: “Make Europe Islamic Again”.
The Biden coverup scandal, and my book of revelations Jack Engelhard
Sign here, those people said, and he signed.
May 23, 2025, 1:22 Israel National News
My friend Harlan wants to know why my book, “Writings,” isn’t a bestseller. “After all, Jack, you wrote it first, and you wrote it best.”
He goes on, “Why let Jake Tapper and the rest of them reap all the glory? From one op-ed to another, you nailed it on Biden and his four years of corruption.”
“Writings” simply didn’t get lucky…at least not yet, and besides, writing is not supposed to be a competitive sport.
But now it is, on the hottest topic in the land, The Great Cover-Up that let Biden and the Democrats get away with four years of mendacity.
This caper was an Inside Job, fostered by radicals, to take over the government and the country…over and above a mentally unfit Joe Biden…or was it Hunter and Jill?
Or was it these three stooges who ran it together as one? This was the time to pull the plug on us from Russia or China or Iran. But God blessed America.
Live or die…it’s a toss of the dice. Read this to see how moment by moment our survival depends upon the mercy of the angels…thumbs up or thumbs down.
We’ve been lucky so far in this casino of our lives.
Anyway, the heist was the work of the Deep State…the extreme far left…that face-less, nameless, bureaucracy that does its damage under the hood.
So no wonder millions of illegals were being welcomed to overrun the country.
No wonder Antony Blinken kept visiting Israel to warn Netanyahu against winning the war. His first duty was to protect those “innocent Gazans.”
Was that really the policy of Joe Biden? Or was it the policy of Ilhan Omar?
Sign here, those people said, and he signed.
I accuse the media of collaboration with the worst president ever. The media knew that Biden was dead man walking, but kept it to themselves.
How could so many people be so crooked…and now the truth comes out starting with that book by Jake Tapper, soon to be followed by an avalanche of inside scoops.
Too late. As King Solomon has it, “A crooked thing can’t be made straight.”
The White House Press Corps was complicit when it counted. The wrong man was in the White House for four years, so plain to see. I wrote it as an outsider, one op-ed after another, until, at the urging of the late, great Bonny Kaye, I gathered a selection into a book, now published as “Writings.”
In the column, “Regrets, Anyone?”, published, June, 27, 2021, I wrote, “In the Times, for example, you will find not a single editorial or op-ed critical of him. Of course, none dare.”
“Nearly every headline is worshipful. Don’t blame Joe. It is the media that can’t be trusted to provide us with a square accounting of Biden’s performance, warts and all.”
“Such an analysis would be helpful for we the people, and for Biden himself. Otherwise, how do we know what needs to be fixed?”
“Even in North Korea the leader gets approval only at 99.9 percent. Just to make it appear legit. Can Biden be so absolutely perfect? He’d be the first.”
Then, in March 21, 2022, I wrote, “Living with the crime of the century,” and in it, these passages:
“The biggest losers are the American people.”
“What matters is that the 2020 Election was cooked by the media to deny voters the right to the truth.”
“So they voted eyes wide shut, and that’s as close as it gets to the crime of the century.”
“You should care if you care about the sanctity of the vote…which was dashed by a code of silence among the Times, the colossus of social media and the networks.”
Of the 112 op-eds contained in the book, my favorite? “Me, and Esther Williams.”
Jack Engelhard writes a regular column for Arutz Sheva. Engelhard wrote the int’l bestseller Indecent Proposal that was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore. New from the novelist, the anti-BDS thriller Compulsive. Website: www.jackengelhard.com
Who deserves what? Howard Rotberg
Why do Palestinian Arabs deserve a state? And what do Jews deserve? Dead babies? Dead young couples? Opinion.
May 24, 2025 Israel National News – With every act of terror by the terrorist Palestinian Arabs, Americans, including Jewish Americans, parrot the idea that this proves that Palestinian Arabs deserve a state. As we have seen in the case of October 7th, the more barbaric and obscene the terrorist attack, the more frantic these morally confused Americans, Canadians and Europeans become to reward these barbarians with a state, money, humanitarian aid and the welcome to immigrate to our cities and countries.
Once again, we see this sort of thing in the murder of a young couple who worked in the Washington D.C. Israeli embassy and were attending an event at the Jewish museum where they were shot.
JoJo Kalin, a board member of the American Jewish Committee who helped organize the event, said she did not witness the shooting but felt a “sense of guilt” about what happened.
Said Ms. Kalin: “I’m not going to lose my humanity over this or be deterred. And that Israelis and Palestinians both still deserve self-determination and [it is] just deeply ironic that that’s what we were discussing,” she said.
It may well be that Americans and Jewish Americans who think that giving up land to a genocide-supporting death cult is a virtuous course of action should indeed have a sense of guilt for their submission to Islamism.
The event was billed as a networking opportunity to bring Jewish young professionals and the diplomatic community together. Its description said humanitarian aid organizers responding to humanitarian crises in the Middle East, including Gaza, were invited.
Those who want Israel to give more humanitarian aid to those civilians of whom at least 70% support Hamas and the goal of removing the Jewish presence in historical Israel seldom understand that Israel, almost alone in the moral issues surrounding war, is willing and does provide such aid – and the criticism of Israel relates to how much should be the aid and how fast it should be given and how much is controlled by Hamas which steals much of it and sells it back at exorbitant prices to those who were intended to receive it.
But never mind – leftist, liberal, non-Orthodox Jews need to continue their virtue signaling and moral relativism – where the irony is not that peace through more aid to Hamas was discussed but that Jews are now so confused that they think that Jewish values are enhanced by support for Hamas and other violent Muslims.
Of course, American left-liberal Jews who supported Obama and then Kamala Harris did not notice that Obama’s confusion was a turning point in the history of American culture and values. Obama’s “Muslim apology tour” of the Middle East upon his taking office was the beginning of legitimizing American self-hatred.
Obama said: “I have come here (Egypt) to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings (my emphasis – and my incredulity).”
To any student of the Middle East, where most Islamic countries do not allow the residence or citizenship of Jews, and do not extend to Christians or Jews full rights, this talk of “mutual respect” made no sense at all. Then, Obama’s equivalency between American notions of justice, tolerance and human dignity to that found in Muslim countries was quite simply shocking. So was his invitation to several members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist-supporting Islamist organization, to attend his speech.
The proposed solution of Vice-President Harris to the Israel/Arab issue was: a two- state solution with a rebuilding of Gaza where the Palestinian Arabs have security, self-determination and the dignity they so rightly deserve.”
But are Kamala Harris and some leftist Jews correct that the Palestinian Arabs deserve dignity and self-determination?
First, it must be stressed that the Palestinian Arabs already have a sovereign state due to the pullout of Israel from Gaza in 2005. Israel reserved the right to control certain security matters, which was certainly wise, in the light of October 7th. Then on the ‘West Bank’, the Oslo Accords gave partial sovereignty to the Palestinian Arabs which was hopefully to lead in the future to more sovereignty. Did they conduct themselves so as to show that they deserved dignity and self-determination?
Second, we must ask what does dignity really mean?
The Cambridge Dictionary leads off with two definitions:
calm, serious, and controlledbehaviour that makes peoplerespect you.
the quality of a person that makes him or her deserving of respect, sometimes shown in behavior or appearance
We have a problem here: This dictionary suggests that dignity comes from the kind of behavior that makes people respect you but Hillary Clinton in a noteworthy speech said we should respect our enemies – so that means everyone is deserving of respect and then everyone would deserve dignity.
Does that include terrorists who butcher babies, torture and sexually abuse women of every age, take hostages and starve them and establish legal charters that call for the murder of their neighbors the Jews?
And now we are told by folks like Ms. Kalin that the Palestinian Arabs deserve a state. And what do Jews deserve ? Dead babies? Dead young couples?
Howard Rotberg – is the author of books such as The Second Catastrophe: A Novel About a Book and its Author; Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed; The Ideological Path to Submission; and Second Generation Radical: The World Through One Man’s Second Generation Lens. All book available through Amazon.
Genocide in South Africa Going Global – Alex Newman By Greg Hunter
May 24, 2025 USAWatchdog.com
Journalist Alex Newman, author of the popular book “Deep State” and the recent best-selling book called “Indoctrinating Our Children to Death,” is warning people to pay attention to the genocide of white farmers in South Africa. What is happening there is something the Deep State wants to take global in their tyrannical takeover of all life and property on Earth. Newman, who once lived in South Africa, warns, “What’s happening down there to them is a microcosm, and that’s what they have planned for you, your country, your family and what’s left of the Christian West. . . . What I have documented (in 2012) very clearly and very unambiguously is this racist, murderous, communist program taking place in South Africa was backed by the highest levels of Deep State power. This includes the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the US State Department, including their allies and partners in Great Britian, and they all knew the Soviet Union was behind this and other communist governments were behind this. This is a monstrosity piled on a monstrosity and, again, what they are doing to the Afrikaners now (white farmers) they plan to do to you as soon as they get the opportunity. Instead of amalgamating all these nations under a South African government, they want to amalgamate all these nations under a one world system. Barack Obama has said over and over again that he was inspired to get into politics because of what they were doing in South Africa. This all comes together here– and you are next. That’s why it’s important to watch what is happening in South Africa.”
What are the tools the Deep State uses to gain total control? Look no further than the new global UN pandemic treaty and the huge push for climate change laws to give control to a few people at the top. Let’s start with the recently passed UN pandemic treaty which President Trump cancelled for America. Newman says, “They have a clause about ‘misinformation,’ which means you can’t speak out or ask questions about what injections they demand you and your children take. It’s got digital infrastructure . . . . So, they will track everything, which will pave the way for international vaccine passports. . . . It gives exemptions (to drug makers) and fast tracks the same outrageous process that we have seen before in emergency use authorization (EUA). That is whatever crazy concoction they come up with and then tell us all what we need. It is everything that was wrong with Covid on steroids enshrined into international law.”
The Climate Change hoax is equally disturbing. Newman says, “It’s not just our wealth that they are taking. They are taking from us our ability to produce wealth. This dawned on me in Paris. I was at the climate summit there around 2015. You had Barack Obama pledging to slash American CO2 emissions by a third over the next decade. This is essentially chopping American economic activity down. Meanwhile, the Communist Chinese were pledging they were going to keep increasing their CO2 emissions. To their credit, they absolutely lived up to that. . . .So, what happened was as we were shutting down our power plants and stopping energy production in this country . . . this was making manufacturing and business uncompetitive if you were operating in a global market. You could not continue doing business in the United States with energy prices skyrocketing while energy prices in China were stable or going down. They hollowed out our productive capacity and moved it over to Communist China under the scam of ‘Saving the Climate’. . . . That’s what is going on here, and Trump got us out of this whole thing. You cannot overstate the significance of this.”
Newman fears America is much closer to a violent takeover attempt by the Deep State. Newman says, “The Leftists, the totalitarians, the people that want to do to us what they are doing to the South Africans right now want a civil war in this country. A lot of people on our side don’t see this. . . . The don’t realize very dangerous forces are being unleashed across our country. They are preparing for an uprising, a violent revolution and violence in the streets. They are deliberately trying to do this. . . . We just saw this guy shooting a couple of embassy workers, and I think this is just the beginning for what they are preparing. They brought in special operators from Communist China. They brought in intelligence assets and gangsters from Venezuela and Cuba. They are preparing to stir up domestic conflict that we have never seen before. . . . I think we are in very grave danger as a nation, and I don’t say this to scare anybody. The Lord does not give us the spirit of fear. I say this so we can understand it and prepare better for it, and hopefully prevent it. . . . Sun Tzu, the Chinese military expert, said, ‘If you know yourself and you know your enemy, you are going to win every battle.’ We have to have a good understanding of the enemy or we are not going to win.”
There is much more in the 50-minute interview.
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with hard-hitting journalist Alex Newman, founder of LibertySentinel.org and author of the runaway best-selling book called “Indoctrinating Our Children to Death,” for 5.24.25.
WATCH [51:00]
Days, Not Weeks: Israel’s Imminent Attack on Iranian Nuclear Sites Gregg Roman
With a Fundamental Impasse on Nuclear Talks, Israeli Officials Have Shifted from Quiet Preparation to Barely Concealed Readiness
May 24, 2025 Middle East Forum
Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities within days.
This sobering conclusion emerges from the convergence of alarming intelligence assessments, failed diplomatic efforts, and lessons from this week’s Middle East Forum (MEF) war game simulation. The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency now warns that Tehran can produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device in “probably less than one week.” From Jerusalem’s perspective, this shrinking timeline leaves virtually no margin for error.
The fifth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome has crystallized the impossibility of a negotiated solution. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s departure mid-meeting on Friday—officially due to his “flight schedule,” while technical teams remained—signals more than scheduling conflicts. The core dispute remains irreconcilable: Tehran insists on its “right” to enrich uranium domestically, while Washington demands zero enrichment capability.
This fundamental impasse validates what we observed during the Middle East Forum’s annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., from May 19-22. Our war game simulation on Thursday, which brought together seasoned policy experts and MEF supporters to examine a Strait of Hormuz crisis, demonstrated how diplomatic failures can cascade into military action within hours. The Iranian team exploited every hesitation, using negotiations to advance their program while mining the Strait and revealing a clandestine nuclear arsenal. Friday’s diplomatic failure in Rome suggests this pattern continues in reality.
The fifth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome has crystallized the impossibility of a negotiated solution.
On the eve of these talks, Iran took an extraordinary step that should alarm any serious observer. In a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatened to hide enriched uranium at secret locations if “threats made by the Zionist fanatics persist.” Tehran would implement “special measures for the protection of its nuclear facilities and materials”—a thinly veiled threat to move its most sensitive materials beyond international monitoring.
Israeli officials have shifted from quiet preparation to barely concealed readiness. Mossad chief David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer flew to Rome alongside Witkoff’s talks, tuned to receive immediate briefings on any progress. Their presence accentuated Jerusalem’s determination to understand every diplomatic nuance while military options remained active.
U.S. intelligence has intercepted Israeli communications signaling potential attack plans and observed tangible military movements: forward deployment of specialized munitions, completion of major Air Force exercises, and strike-readiness indicators. As Defense Minister Israel Katz declared, “Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities. We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat.”
The operational reality is daunting. Any Israeli strike would require a week-long campaign targeting multiple sites: the Natanz enrichment complex, the deeply buried Fordow facility, Isfahan’s uranium conversion plant, and suspected weaponization sites. Israel has methodically degraded Iran’s deterrent capabilities—Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal reportedly reduced by 80 percent, Syrian proxy networks shattered, Hamas isolated after the Gaza war. As one Israeli security official assessed, “Iran’s regional allies lie in tatters.”
Our war game simulation at the MEF conference revealed truths now playing out in real-time. When evidence of weaponized enrichment triggered action in our exercise, events spiraled from GPS disruptions and cyber-attacks to nuclear detonation within three compressed rounds.
“We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat.” – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz
China’s simulation role proved particularly instructive. Beijing positioned itself as both Iran’s protector and the Gulf states’ alternative security guarantor, ultimately downing an Israeli aircraft when conflict erupted. This reflects current reality: China continues supplying Iran through sanctions, purchasing discounted oil, and positioning itself to benefit regardless of outcome. Recent U.S. Treasury sanctions revealed Chinese sodium perchlorate shipments to Iran’s missile program through Bandar Abbas—the same port that suffered a mysterious explosion in April.
Russia similarly exploits the crisis for strategic gain. While avoiding direct military involvement, Moscow upgrades Iran’s capabilities and threatens advanced S-400 air defense sales that would substantially complicate Israeli operations. Our simulation’s Russian team seized Arctic territories while others focused on the Gulf—classic strategic opportunism that mirrors Russian President Vladimir Putin’s real-world approach.
President Donald Trump’s position cuts through diplomatic obfuscation: zero enrichment or face consequences. This clarity, combined with implicit Israeli action if negotiations fail, represents sophisticated strategy disguised as simplicity. Yet Tehran’s response has been escalation, not compromise. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared Israel would receive a “devastating and decisive response” to any attack, while Araghchi warned that Washington would be held legally responsible as a “participant” in any Israeli aggression.
The fundamental problem remains structural. Iran views domestic enrichment as non-negotiable sovereignty; Israel and, increasingly, the United States view any Iranian enrichment as an existential threat. Past attempts to paper over this gap—notably, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—merely delayed the reckoning while Iran advanced its program and regional aggression.
Our war game demonstrated that non-kinetic tools—sanctions, cyber operations, intelligence activities—work only when applied early with international support. Once Iran crosses nuclear thresholds, these measures alone prove insufficient. A paradox emerged: When Israel contemplated strikes seriously, Iran shifted from defiance to urgent negotiation. Demonstrating willingness to use force sometimes provides the only impetus for genuine compromise.
Any Israeli prime minister must weigh [the] terrible but temporary cost against the permanent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Israeli leaders understand the price their nation will pay. Iranian missiles will target Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv. Houthis will escalate from Yemen. Revolutionary Guard assets worldwide will activate against Israeli embassies and Jewish communities from Buenos Aires to Bangkok. The domestic front will endure casualties and psychological warfare unseen since 1973. Yet any Israeli prime minister must weigh this terrible but temporary cost against the permanent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Success requires more than strikes alone. Our simulation demonstrated that facilities rebuild, knowledge survives, and determination strengthens under attack without sustained pressure. Israel must drive the nail through nuclear facilities while America must turn the screws on everything else: complete financial isolation, continuous cyber degradation, comprehensive intelligence penetration, and diplomatic quarantine until Iran abandons enrichment entirely.
Washington’s strategic ambiguity—extending diplomatic hands while deploying B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia and transferring bunker-buster bombs to Israel—serves multiple purposes. It reassures Jerusalem, pressures Tehran, and maintains flexibility. Yet this ambiguity has limits. Israeli officials privately warn that absent breakthrough, they will strike unilaterally.
The multilateral context that enabled past agreements has shattered. Russia partners with Iran against Ukraine. China prioritizes displacing American influence over non-proliferation. Europe lacks leverage. Regional players hedge their bets. This leaves the heavy lifting to Washington and Jerusalem, with Oman’s mediation valuable but ultimately unable to bridge fundamental differences.
As Iranian-American journalist and author Masih Alinejad reminded our conference attendees, Iranians deserve better than a regime building centrifuges while citizens cry for bread. This moral dimension clarifies the stakes. The regime will not voluntarily abandon nuclear ambitions—our war game proved it, history confirms it, and Israeli intelligence validates it.
Every indicator points toward military action within days.
Every indicator points toward military action within days. Witkoff’s Rome departure, intelligence reports of uranium relocation threats, degraded Iranian proxy networks, and Israeli military readiness converge toward one conclusion. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel, “is waiting for the nuclear talks to collapse and for the moment Trump will be disappointed … and open to giving him the go-ahead.”
That moment has effectively arrived. Iran’s breakout timeline severely strains the utility of continued negotiation. Each round buys Tehran time while Jerusalem’s patience evaporates. The phrase circulating in Israeli military circles is chillingly simple: It’s now a matter of days, not weeks.
I wish otherwise. I wish diplomacy alone could secure our interests and Israel’s survival. But wishing accomplishes nothing against a regime that threatens annihilation while pursuing the means to achieve it.
The world very soon may awaken to explosions over Iranian nuclear sites—a pivotal moment that will test Western resolve to prevent nuclear proliferation through sustained pressure combining Israeli military action with comprehensive American-led isolation. The alternative includes Iranian nuclear weapons, regional conflagration, and Chinese and Russian strategic gains at American expense.
Sometimes inaction disguised as prudence proves most dangerous. This week tests that truth. May our leaders internalize these lessons before time expires, and may we possess the resolve to see through what must be done.
Gregg Roman Gregg Roman is the executive director of the Middle East Forum, previously directing the Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh. In 2014, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency named him one of the “ten most inspiring global Jewish leaders,” and he previously served as the political advisor to the deputy foreign minister of Israel and worked for the Israeli Ministry of Defense. A frequent speaker on Middle East affairs, Mr. Roman appears on international news channels such as Fox News, i24NEWS, Al-Jazeera, BBC World News, and Israel’s Channels 12 and 13. He studied national security and political communications at American University and the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, and has contributed to The Hill, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald, and the Jerusalem Post.
The JFK Assassination, the Russian Collusion Hoax and the Deep State’s Manipulative Agenda [44:00] JEROME R. CORSI, PH.D.
Dr. Corsi performs a precision deep dive into the deep state then and now
MAY 24, 2025
The assassination of John F. Kennedy is a turning point in American history, not only because many Americans were shocked the popular president was murdered, but the government’s coverup and narrative surrounding it was when the Deep State officially took over the country. The powerful elite within the government at the time were able to go to great lengths to manipulate evidence, set a narrative, get the media to comply, fix the autopsy and silence anyone questioning the official story. From then on, the Deep State found it could forge a direction toward its overall agenda by continuing this tack.
A recent example, as described in his book Coup d’Etat, was the Russian Collusion Hoax and the phony Steel Dossier. While the government tried to force Dr. Corsi, among others, to lie amid the Mueller investigation, it was an orchestrated attempt to spread lies about an anti-establishment presidential candidate (Donald Trump) — someone they are still trying to destroy. The Left, which have become a large subset of both willing and unwitting Deep State Operatives, wound up believing and spreading the narrative until it was eventually proven to be a hoax.
“UNBELIEVABLE! I Just Discovered Epstein’s Biggest Crimes” – Whitney Webb [16:46]
May 16, 2025 Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t an anomaly — he was the blueprint.
Whitney Webb exposes the hidden power structure behind Epstein’s empire: CIA front companies, mafia money laundromats, and billionaire dynasties using blackmail as currency. Forget the client list — this is about the system that protected him… and still protects his allies.
🔥 This is the architecture of modern power — and it’s still running.
👉 Watch, share, and ask: *How deep does the rabbit hole go?
Whitney Webb Explains What Trump is HIDING From the Epstein Files [10:50]
1,001,518 views May 3, 2025 – Whitney Webb explains why Phase 1 of the Epstein Files that Trump released are so toothless and tells us what he’s hiding — and why Epstein’s financial crimes get overlooked in favor or Epstein’s sex crimes.
00:00 Trump’s limited release of what was said to be phase 1 of the Epstein Files
01:35 Why were Epstein’s other residences not raided?
02:35 Elon Musk’s involvement with Jeffery Epstein and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman
03:37 Larry Page and Sergei Brin of Google and Thomas Pritzker of Hyatt
04:27 Epstein’s financial crimes go unnoticed amidst all the reporting on his sex crimes
05:37 The Governor of Illinois J.B. Pritzker and organized crime connections to Barack Obama
06:20 The Crown Family’s connection to J.P. Morgan and Leslie Wexner
07:15 Whitney Webb does not regularly watch Megyn Kelly’s show
07:47 Epstein’s infamous client list
08:38 Transparency is no substitute for prosecution, Wexner’s connection to Bear Sterns and the 2008 Financial Crisis
09:26 Bipartisan secrets and why Trump isn’t going after the Democrats implicated in Epstein’s crimes
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for Unlimited Hangout. She is the author of the book One Nation Under Blackmail. Recently her work was referenced by Ian Carroll on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Follow Whitney on X https://x.com/_whitneywebb
Body Language Analysis of South African President Smiling to “Kill the Farmers” Song [19:14] The Body Language Guy
