The film comes to mind as members of another group – formed by members of Congress and known as the “Squad” – seem to be experiencing a similar fate as their political lives, one-by-one, are being terminated.
The group initially consisted of four women who won congressional seats in the House in 2018. They included Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who all banded together to form the far-left wing of their political party. Since then, they have been joined, in 2020, by Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., and, in 2022, by Greg Casar, D-Texas, Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Delia Ramirez, D-Ill.
The Squad, which boasted “Nine Little Progressives” by 2022, has repeatedly endorsed socialist policies that burden taxpayers with providing freebies, such as tuition-free college, for supporters. Their advocacy has also brought them into conflict with members of their own party who prefer to see these progressive policy beneficiaries put some skin into the game. Various Squad members have been supported by the Justice Democrats PAC and Democratic Socialists of America. Their appeal seems to be to a younger political generation.
But 2024 has not been kind to the Squad. In June’s Democratic primary election, Bowman became the first member to lose his seat to a more moderate candidate. Only two months later, a second Squad member, Bush, suffered a primary defeat as well.
Bush’s defeat was undoubtedly helped by her strong position against Israel in the Gaza war, which earned her opponent the financial support of the pro-Israel group AIPAC. Bush did not take her loss gracefully, threatening to work against AIPAC when she leaves Congress.
As a Squad member, Bush also naively promoted the effort to defund police, spending campaign funds to hire her own security. It will be interesting to see once she loses access to those funds if she will continue to hire private security or choose to rely on the diminished police coverage she helped promote for the rest of us. Bush also became the subject of a Department of Justice investigation in January for using those same funds to hire her own husband as part of her security team.
Just like fate took its toll in “Ten Little Indians” as group members were held accountable for their transgressions, so too are Squad members being held accountable for theirs. They have promoted outrageous policies that have negatively impacted the average citizen. Although Omar won her recent primary, we can only hope Minnesota voters in her district come to their senses for the general election.
Meanwhile, of the “Nine Little Progressives,” now there remain but seven. Like the last survivors in the film, we can take some comfort in knowing they are rightfully fearing for their political survival.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>Let us examine what occurred at the opening ceremonies.
Many observers were shocked to see the famous painting by Leonardo Da Vinci of the Last Supper of Jesus with his 12 apostles grossly mocked, depicted in a scene involving sexualized drag queens. Some advertisers were so repulsed by it – such as Mississippi’s largest telecommunications company C-Spire – that their advertisements were immediately pulled.
While the Olympic Committee issued an apology the next day about the depiction and removed their video of the event from the internet, its statement was somewhat shocking in itself. It claimed the depiction was not intended to “be subversive or shock people or mock people.” As much time as the committee had to prepare for the opening ceremonies and with Catholicism being the world’s largest religion, it is absurd to believe committee members gave no thought as to whether any offense would be taken by the depiction.
One can only imagine the violent fallout that would have resulted had Olympic organizers decided instead to portray the world’s second largest religion – Islam – in such a light by having Prophet Muhammad depicted by a drag queen. Obviously more thought was given as to why that should not be done, remembering the 12 staff members of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo who were killed in 2015 by Muslims upset about Muhammad’s depiction on its cover.
What progressives seem to lose sight of, however, is any call for societal balance. It is obvious that in a free society like the U.S. with a population of 330 million, it is impossible to achieve unanimity concerning an issue. But two reasonable rules exist that should be logically acceptable to all.
The first has been stated a bit differently for thousands of years and in many different cultures.
Whether it was written by the ancient Greek rhetorician Isocrates, or the influential Chinese philosopher Confucius, or Epicteus from the ancient School of Stoicism, it is also found in a multitude of holy books including the Talmud, the Koran and the Mahabharata. Its words of virtue are known as the Golden Rule. Its simple message tells us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In 2016, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-Missouri) took on the task of providing an historical perspective of the Golden Rule and encouraging compliance with it as a new Congress was seated.
Cleaver recognized, “The most significant building block necessary to develop a federal government that actually inspires peace and tolerance across our bifurcated country is the practice of the Golden Rule.” It is also a societal building block that calls for common sense ethics – i.e., the ethics of reciprocity.
For example, applying such ethics of reciprocity would encourage one who finds transgenderism unacceptable but who is asked to refer to another person by a preferred pronoun, different from such other’s biological gender, would do so out of a common sense of respect for that individual. (It is not unlike others honoring the First Lady’s request to be addressed as “Dr. Jill Biden.”)
However, this is where progressives lose sight of balance in failing to apply a second behavioral rule known as the rule of the Common Good.
It is contrary to the Common Good to mandate transgenders be accommodated to the point of discomforting an opposing biological sex member majority, allowing the former to share segregated facilities based on biological sex just because one has mentally shedded one’s own biological sex. In some cases, such as housing transgender females in women’s prisons, a serious and unnecessary risk to the biologically female majority population has been created.
Thus, application of the Golden Rule would have a transgender’s request – to use a preferred pronoun – being honored while application of the rule of the Common Good would have the transgender honoring the request of a member of a different biological gender for gender privacy.
What is so divisive in our society today is the wokeist effort to disrupt everything that makes common sense by imposing a progressive mindset that ignores the interests of the Common Good, assisted in this endeavor by a government content to allow the ensuing disruption to occur.
Implementing the Golden Rule and the rule of the Common Good jointly would work wonders towards establishing tolerance and mutual acceptance in society – a society that today is chaotic because wokeness ignores both rules.
Foregoing any attempt at eloquence, former President Donald Trump perhaps bluntly said it best with his observation about a basic reality of wokeism. He noted, “Everything woke turns to sh*t!”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>In pulling the rug out from under Biden, the NYT let Biden down easy, delivering an anti-Trump punch, revealing its leftist bias. The board wrote, “It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation – the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 – from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long.”
Another group with bad news for Biden are the oddsmakers. While recognizing his home field advantage going into the debate, giving him a 38.1% chance of winning the November election, after the debate those odds dropped to 23.1%.
Other Biden debate critics included President Barack Obama (admitting it was “bad”); CNN Democrat analyst Van Jones (he did the best he could, “But he had a test to meet tonight to restore confidence in the country and of the base, and he failed to do that …”); Democratic strategist Donna Brazile (admitting Biden’s performance was lacking while remaining confident he will still be the party’s nominee); Obama’s former adviser David Axelrod (a “sense of shock” existed over how poorly Biden performed); and a frustrated Michael LaRosa, Jill Biden’s former press secretary (citing mainstream media’s post-debate dishonesty in covering for Biden exclaiming they were “gaslighting” and “spinning.”
While some of Biden’s media supporters find themselves finally having to acknowledge his obvious incompetence to serve a second term, Democratic Party leaders still fail to do so. They will continue to cheerlead for Biden until the “magic moment” occurs. We are left wondering whether it will occur at the Aug. 19 Democratic National Convention or earlier.
The indications are the DNC will push for a stronger candidate to replace Biden. Of course, the issue is whether Biden will endorse the plan. Clearly, a key obstacle to this is Jill Biden who exhibits no hesitancy about allowing her husband to continue embarrassing himself. She, better than anyone, should recognize his incompetence, having to assist in leading him off stage or to finish a thought.
While MSM warns, if elected again, former President Donald Trump will launch a revenge campaign against his Democrat opponents, they remain silent about Jill keeping Joe’s nose to the reelection campaign grindstone as she seeks revenge against Trump. Selfishly, both Jill and Hunter gave Joe the post-debate advice not to withdraw.
Despite Biden’s low popularity, some polls indicate a surprisingly close race. That, along with Biden’s refusal to go along with the replacement ploy, may leave party leaders with but one choice – to accept Biden as the nominee but dump the albatross around his neck, Vice President Kamala Harris. As unpopular as Biden may be, Harris is among the most unpopular VPs in modern history.
Clearly Biden’s 2020 selection of Harris sought to give impetus to the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiative he would launch as president. But Harris’ incompetence and Biden’s age worry voters. Therefore, whether or not Biden is replaced, Harris has to be shown the door if Democrats hope to win the election. Not since 1944, when Henry Wallace failed to be renominated as FDR’s vice president (replaced by Harry Truman) has an incumbent VP been dropped. It would raise questions, however, whether it represented a high level failure of Biden’s DEI policy.
If Biden remains adamant about remaining the nominee rather than face the indignity of withdrawing from the election, party leaders may negotiate a deal by which he replaces Harris with a more acceptable candidate to Democratic voters – along with a condition to placate the Bidens – i.e., if elected, he would gracefully resign early on in his second term to allow his VP to take the helm. The question then becomes, who would be a more acceptable candidate for vice president to replace Harris?
Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton might be an option should her ego allow her to accept the No. 2 spot. Gavin Newsom is another option, although his destructive track record both as mayor of San Francisco and now as California’s governor may turn some voters off. He also carries moral judgment baggage having had a 2005 affair with his best friend’s wife while she was suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. While Newsom deflects Biden replacement rumors, saying he supports Biden’s reelection, he obviously would not turn down a DNC coup to do so.
Michelle Obama’s name has been tossed about to replace Biden, though she claims disinterest. There is only one way Joe could win, by selecting a heretofore unmentioned VP who would unify Democrats behind him. It would involve Barack Obama running as Biden’s vice president. The 22nd Amendment, passed in 1951, states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. …” The key word is “elected.” Thus Obama could legally be elected vice president, paving the way for Biden to resign soon after his inauguration and for Obama to occupy the Oval Office, completing his term.
A scholarly article suggests “A twice-before-elected President may become a Vice-President either through appointment or through election and – like any other Vice-President – may thereafter succeed to the Presidency for the full remainder of the pending term.” It finds the 12th Amendment’s mandate, “… no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States” does not bar this.
What will be interesting regardless of whether Biden, Harris or both are replaced on the ticket is the party’s justification after 35 months of promoting them as fully competent to serve, even after Biden’s disastrous debate performance. Hollywood donors announced they will not be “giving any more money” to the Democratic Party unless Biden drops out. How is it, while Biden’s incompetence is discernible by Hollywood’s elite, Harris and the majority of Biden’s Cabinet do not see it, failing to remove him from office under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment?
If the DNC is going to work out a presidential nominee deal, it is under pressure to do so before the August convention due to the need of meeting Ohio’s Aug. 7 ballot deadline. Thus, there is talk it may act on July 21. Meanwhile, Biden claims he is in the race until it ends, causing several Democrats running for reelection in key races to distance themselves from him.
Of 31 incumbent U.S. presidents who have run for reelection, 21 won second terms while 10 did not. Which side of history Biden will join in November may well be determined Friday as he seeks to recover from the disastrous image he portrayed in his June 27 debate with Trump. On July 5, ABC will air his interview with George Stephanopoulos. Traditionally, when Biden has suffered a political hit, Stephanopoulos has proven to be “the go-to guy.” As the interview will not be live and therefore open to cutting-and-pasting, viewers will be left wondering. But should Biden fail to come across as alert and logical, he may well be toast.
But the underlying message voters should take from the party leadership’s continuing defense of Biden’s deteriorating mental health is its prioritization of political power over the country’s best interests.
It will be fascinating to watch the DNC event. It should provide us with a magic moment unlike any party convention has done in history.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, was due to retire in 2019. Thus, Trump had to designate a replacement. For some reason, Trump was high on the U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, despite the advice, not only of Dunford but Secretary of Defense James Mattis, that Milley was not their first choice. Nonetheless, Milley got the nod and was sworn in as CJCS on Sept. 30, 2019.
During his confirmation hearings, Milley assured the Senate he would resign before doing anything improper, such as obeying an “illegal, unethical or immoral order,” and would never soft-pedal his advice to the president. Just before being sworn in as CJCS, he told Trump, “I will always provide you informed, candid, impartial military advice.” Trump responded with, “You’re my friend. You’re my adviser, and you deserve this position. I never had a doubt. Congratulations.” Based on the insights of a whistleblower who personally witnessed how the events of Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol unfolded, it appears Milley may have acted improperly, making the accolades given to him by Trump unwarranted.
A key issue concerning the January 6 incident is the National Guard’s failure to immediately deploy to stop the pro-Trump mob from entering the Capitol. But, instead, there was a four-hour delay. U.S. Army Col. Earl Matthews was in a position to know exactly what happened that day as he was serving as the National Guard’s legal adviser. But, after hearing two of Milley’s senior minions testify, allegedly contrary to what Matthews knew happened, he could no longer remain silent. In December 2021, he sent a shocking memo to the congressional committee investigating the incident.
The two senior officers involved were Gen. Charles Flynn, the deputy U.S. Army chief of staff, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt. Matthews held nothing back, accusing them of providing “perjured testimony.”
Despite his memo, Matthews was recommended for promotion to brigadier general in November 2022, only later to have it denied. This led to him filing a 37-page complaint on Jan. 3, 2024, claiming retaliation by the Army for blowing the whistle on his seniors. His complaint called them “absolute and unmitigated liars” in their testimony before Congress.
It was primarily due to testimony by the two generals that reports by both a Pentagon inspector general and the House committee investigating the January 6 incident found no impediment was deliberately placed by senior military leaders to delay the National Guard’s deployment. It is the Army’s narrative of the events of that day, supported by these reports, upon which the Colorado Supreme Court relied to justify getting Trump’s name removed from the ballot.
But in a recent interview, Matthews identified the person who delayed the Guard’s deployment, someone who had no authority to do so – Milley. Although the National Guard falls directly under presidential control, Milley circumvented his role.
Matthews made some fairly damning statements about the former CJCS in a recent interview. “Milley is the Don Barzini (a reference to the crime family in the ‘Godfather’ movie) of the Deep State,” said the Harvard Law School graduate. “He’s the most powerful chairman of the joint chiefs in history. It was Milley all along, and I didn’t realize it. Milley was manipulating this entire stuff from point start.”
Matthews shared that Milley projected himself outside of his authority. As CJCS, Milley was only to serve in an advisory capacity to the president with no legal authority within the chain of command. However, through his position and exploitation of other generals, he was able to maneuver himself into controlling the Army. Matthews explained:
“The problem was not with Donald Trump; it’s Mark Milley and the Army leadership in control. They stopped the Guard from coming, then lied about it and said the Guard acted at sprint speed. This is about civilian control of the military. There was none. There is none. I argue that – Mark Milley had more control over the D.C. Guard on Jan. 6 than Donald Trump did – if Donald Trump wanted to call the Guard to go to the Capitol, Milley wouldn’t let him do it.”
Among those supporting Matthews’ account are several District of Columbia law enforcement officials, including former Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund. He reported that the Pentagon seemed more concerned about the “optics” of military personnel engaged in crowd control as opposed to quickly deploying the Guard. He noted,”I got on a call with the Pentagon and pleaded for the National Guard. There was delay after delay after delay.”
Matthews reported once Sund’s request was received, it took more than three hours to receive the authorization to move Guard troops – who already had been equipped and pre-positioned – to the Capitol. He squarely faults Milley, stating, “I’m saying that his people delayed us, but Milley is in the center of everything, making the decisions – no question about it.”
Both Biden and Trump have leveled charges against each other that the other’s actions endanger democracy. What both should be demanding now is an investigation specifically into Milley’s actions for a rogue CJCS may well have violated his oath of office. If Matthews’ claims are accurate, they strongly make the case for a CJCS to have breached his constitutional authority, contrary to the clear intent of our Founding Fathers that the military at all times remain under civilian control. Absent such an investigation, Milley may well have gotten away with taking an unconstitutional walk on the wild side.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>Pearl Harbor claimed .002% of our 1941 population; the Oct. 7 Hamas raid claimed .01% of Israel’s. Comparatively speaking, this is the equivalent of a 500% greater impact upon Israel. Additionally, only 68 civilians lost their lives at Pearl Harbor – the consequence of Japanese pilots primarily targeting military assets; however, in Israel, the vast majority of losses were civilian as that was Hamas’ primary target.
America’s response to Japan’s surprise attack was not immediate as we had much to do before taking the war to the enemy. Comparatively, Israel’s response was much faster as it had the wherewithal to quickly respond and take the war to Hamas. But, by late 1945, Japan learned – as Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto who led the Pearl Harbor attack feared in attacking the U.S. – it had awoken a sleeping tiger.
In July 1945, at the Potsdam Conference, the U.S. and its allies demanded Japan surrender unconditionally. The demand came from a position of power, placing blame on Japan’s military advisers for bringing the country to the “threshold of annihilation.” Setting forth the terms of unconditional surrender, the demand hoped Japan’s leadership would now “follow the path of reason.” It ended with the warning of Japan’s “prompt and utter destruction” if it refused the Allies’ terms.
Interestingly, Japan’s leadership had been meeting to discuss a peace proposal. They were worried that after numerous battlefield defeats, starvation of the people and the firebombing of its cities, its citizenry was on the brink of revolution.
But, as a response was not forthcoming from Tokyo, the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima (Aug. 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9). That did trigger an Aug. 10 response offering a conditional surrender. This was rejected by President Harry Truman who felt, based on the sacrifices Americans had made to claim victory, it had to be a total victory. On Sept. 2, 1945, Japan finally executed an unconditional surrender agreement.
It is interesting that pro-Hamas groups in the U.S. have failed to date to protest Hamas for making no effort to negotiate a total surrender. Hamas has been silent despite the fact that the Palestinian people and low-level Hamas recruits in Gaza have taken a beating.
Both the Israeli leadership and the Israeli people have made it clear nothing will derail them in their journey to destroy Hamas. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated, “Israel under my leadership will not compromise on less than total victory over Hamas” – a standard that was perfectly acceptable by the international community for Japan 79 years earlier.
A decision the Israeli leadership must make quickly is whether the top priority is to destroy Hamas or gain freedom for its hostages. In a recent poll, the vast majority of Israelis were opposed to withdrawing IDF forces from Gaza to obtain the release of the hostages. An amazing 70.5% responded in the negative about withdrawing first while 18.5% responded positively to doing so to get them back. This shows not only a warranted distrust of Hamas but a commitment to stay the course.
Nonetheless, Israel proposed a release of the remaining 136 hostages. The Israeli Cabinet approved a two-month ceasefire in exchange for a staged release (based on age, sex, medical need, etc.).
But the poll results underscore Netanyahu’s earlier vow that Israel will never repeat the mistake it did with the Oslo Accords. In that 1993 “peace” deal, Israel surrendered control of Gaza and portions of Judea and Samaria in exchange for nothing. Thus, any negotiation for a Palestinian terror state remaining is a non-starter.
Most recently, with reality setting in for Hamas, forcing it to drop its demand for a permanent ceasefire, it informed mediators it was open to releasing some hostages for a pause in the fighting.
Serious negotiations by Hamas to end the war may be due in large part because – unlike the Japanese leadership that saw firsthand the hardship their people were experiencing – its leadership lives a life of luxury in places like Qatar, counting the billions of dollars meant for Palestinian assistance with which they have absconded. They also gleefully continue counting Palestinian deaths, knowing it fuels the fires of global antisemitism.
There was a report the leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, keeping safe in Qatar, may be interested in serious peace negotiations. If so, this would not be due to increasing Palestinian deaths but, rather, due to mass surrenders by his fighters. He undoubtedly worries those who are supposed to sacrifice their lives for Allah may be undermining the terrorist group’s cause by surrendering (as if its leadership already was not doing enough by enjoying a lavish and safe lifestyle).
Israel knows what is needed to achieve total victory – and that it is not there yet. Reportedly, fewer than 30% of the Hamas fighting force has been eradicated. Some Israeli leaders noted that what Hamas needs to claim victory is a peace agreement allowing it to survive in any capacity to govern all or part of Gaza. But these Israeli leaders added, “The survival of Hamas in power would severely damage Israel’s deterrence and its regional standing, which could bring more military conflicts and thwart future normalization agreements. Therefore, it must be ensured that under any endgame scenario, Hamas will not have the ability to govern. …” This is why Netanyahu firmly rejected a recent Hamas proposal that would leave it intact.
In May of 2020, during his presidential campaign, Joe Biden told a black radio host that black voters who were torn between voting for him or President Donald Trump “ain’t black.” The comment ignited a firestorm of criticism, causing him to later apologize. While Biden’s comment was in poor taste, a much more palatable observation is that U.S. citizens supporting Hamas “ain’t American.”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>But based on a recent flurry of social media activity on TikTok, there may be good reason to expand the lawsuit to include young adults who have demonstrated a lack of common sense, accepting at face value the contents of a 2002 letter written by the terrorist founder of al-Qaida and mastermind of 9/11, the late Osama bin Laden.
Whoever used TikTok to dust off bin Laden’s two-decades old “Letter to America” perhaps was prompted by the Oct. 7 Hamas raid into Israel in which, despite every conceivable violation of international law being perpetrated, the terrorists received outrageous public support after Israel declared all out war. Chinese owners of the social media provider undoubtedly allowed its posting as an opportunity to inflict public opinion damage upon Israel and the U.S. by sharing the letter with a new generation of Americans undoubtedly unfamiliar with the epistle. And, by stoking the pro-Hamas fires, terrorist sympathizers probably also hoped to trigger additional calls for a Gaza ceasefire.
Bin Laden’s letter laid out his justification for the 9/11 attacks on America. It was translated by a British newspaper and posted online, from where it was recently obtained and re-published. Interestingly, it has since been removed both by the British newspaper and TikTok due to criticism of the large pro-bin Laden response.
The terrorist leader called the creation of Israel a “crime” in which the U.S. was complicit and, therefore, made all Americans criminals as well. He went on to accuse America of stealing Arab wealth and oil – “the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world” – as well as being guilty of occupying Muslim lands. He labeled America “the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” He blamed America for the global spread of AIDS. The roughly 3,800-word English translation of the letter rambled on and on, painting the constant picture of Palestinians, and all Muslims for that matter, as victims of the U.S. and its allies. Conveniently ignored by bin Laden was that by 2009 al-Qaida was responsible for killing eight times more Muslims than non-Muslims simply for failing to embrace his version of Islam.
Naive readers, apparently applying the often-used claim by former President BIll Clinton, “I feel your pain,” responded by glorifying the terrorist’s rationale, totally ignoring the freedoms and values he sought to destroy. Over a thousand young Americans, accepting bin Laden’s diatribe at face value sans fact checking, felt sufficient pain to post a pro-terrorist response.
American journalist Yashar Ali reported some of these:
“Many of them say that reading the letter has opened their eyes, and they’ll never see geopolitical matters the same way again. … [and many] say it has made them reevaluate their perspective on how what is often labeled as terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance to a hostile power.
“In one viral video, a woman said the letter is ‘wild’ and ‘everyone should read it,’ adding that reading it has ‘left her disillusioned.’
“Another woman said reading the letter left her reeling in an ‘existential crisis,’ and encouraged viewers to also read it. ‘In the last 20 minutes, my entire viewpoint on the entire life I have believed and I have lived has changed. Please read that entire letter.’
“‘I need you to stop what you’re doing and go read a “Letter to America,”‘ a male said on video. ‘It is literally the craziest thing I have read in a while and while I can’t say that I’m not surprised, I’m pretty shocked.’ He then proceeded to read the following X post, which he said was reminiscent of the letter: ‘Under settler colonialism, any kind of resistance is branded as [terrorism] because the only acceptable violence is violence by the occupier.’”
Sadly, these TikTok users seem to totally ignore a point bin Laden blatantly made concerning Islam’s mission – one impacting upon them directly. He calls for all non-believers of Islam (those fighting in the cause of Satan) to become believers (those fighting in the cause of Allah) as al-Qaida’s mission (and, by the way, that of Hamas as well) is to subvert all other religions to it! While these people advise reading bin Laden’s letter, they failed to read it closely. They also have not read the Quran, which preaches only three choices for non-believers: 1) convert to Islam, 2) subvert their religions to Islam or 3) die!
In the aftermath of the praise for “Letter to America” posted by TikTokers, former Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill, who killed bin Laden in 2011 during a daring raid into the compound in Pakistan where the terrorist was hiding, made an appropriate observation about these American mental lightweights: “Deceit is a mask the Devil puts over the eyes of useful idiots.”
These young people need to read the comments of a 9/11 rescuer, still plagued with nightmares years later, who was queried about the victims jumping from the buildings:
“Although no one will ever know how these innocent civilians felt contemplating their choice of jumping (off the World Trade Center buildings) or burning to death, one can only imagine that it must have been a horrendous decision to make. I can share with you that some of the people seemed to simply fall from the towers as they were backing away from the flames that engulfed the area behind them. Others made a deliberate decision to jump out of the building to escape the horrors they were eventually going to face. There were others who would hold hands with another person and simply jump. I witnessed one group of 4 or 5 people holding hands as they fell to their deaths. Although I can’t imagine the thought process that went through their minds when they were forced to make this choice or what they were thinking during the time they were falling, but I can assure you that they died immediately on impact and did not suffer. …”
Whether it is Americans supporting bin Laden’s justifications or those of Hamas, it appears we will always be plagued by useful idiots. What is difficult to understand, however, is whether their motivation stems from ignorance, stupidity or, worse yet, an honest belief that acts of murder by terrorists can ultimately be justified.
If only such people could have been present during the early morning hours either in New York City’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, or in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. For those who willingly ingest an ideological poison, the only anecdote is a strong dose of reality.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>The above story is telling of one man’s courage in sending a coded message relaying how he honestly viewed his captors despite risks to his person for doing so. Today, a shameless congresswoman used code to send the Muslim world a message promoting violence and death to Jews – a message she undoubtedly thought would not be decoded by a Western world unfamiliar with Palestinian culture.
Rep. Rashid Tlaib, D-Mich., is the first Palestinian to be elected to Congress. In the wake of the barbaric attack by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas into Israel, triggering the current war in Gaza, she has failed to condemn the group while demanding Israel stop its “genocide” as it seeks Hamas’ destruction.
Additionally, Tlaib has posted false information on her website to incite antisemitism. She blames Israel for bombing a hospital actually hit by a misguided rocket fired by another terrorist group. Despite the truthful revelation about terrorist responsibility for the errant firing, she still irresponsibly refuses to remove her false claim about Israel from the web, continuing to incite antisemitism.
It is outrageous for Tlaib to accuse the Israelis of genocide. Civilians killed in Israel – babies, young people attending a concert, the elderly – were specifically targeted by Hamas because they were innocent. Civilians killed in Gaza are unintended targets of Israel who unfortunately became collateral damage due to Hamas intentionally locating its military resources – as it always does – within civilian facilities and residential areas.
Meanwhile, Hamas refuses to allow Palestinian residents to heed Israel’s warning to evacuate impact areas as the terrorist groups wants the Palestinian body count to climb in order to trigger further condemnation of Israel by the world community. It contributes to that body count by shooting those citizens attempting to flee in compliance with Israel’s warning.
Tlaib falsely posted a message to President Joe Biden about supporting Israel claiming, “The American people are not with you on this one” and suggesting that in supporting the assistance of Israel he is complicit in genocide. While there are numerous actions Biden has taken to date that most Americans oppose, two-thirds actually favor his support for Israel.
There is another reason Tlaib’s genocide claim is outrageous – she, in reality, has been encouraging the genocide of Israelis via coded messaging. She first conveyed this message in 2019 upon entering office and has repeated it in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas raid.
When she took office, Tlaib immediately displayed a map of the Middle East upon which a post-it note was placed over Israel with “Palestine” written on it. She took great satisfaction in demonstrating that the solution she sought for the Israel-Palestine conflict was not the two-state solution the U.S. government was pushing but a one-state solution that could only occur with Israel’s eradication.
In calling for a free Palestine, Tlaib often uses the phrase, “from the river to the sea.” This is a reference to the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. She used the phrase again in a post-Oct. 7 statement, falsely explaining it “is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.” Her explanation is total BS. As the geographical area referenced by her includes Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, this is a message of hate. The phrase has but one meaning – the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its people to establish Palestine as a single state occupying the entire geographic area.
Just like Tlaib rejects a two-state solution, so too do Hamas and other terrorist groups threatening Israel. Yet Tlaib seeks to camouflage this intent by posting the following absurd comment: “My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.”
While Tlaib has encountered criticism previously for her antisemitism, even her fellow Democratic congressional members have finally had enough. Accused of levying “unbelievable falsehoods about our greatest ally, Israel, and the attack on October 7,” Tlaib was finally censured as 22 Democrats joined Republicans in voting 234-188 to do so.
It is unconscionable that Tlaib refuses to condemn Hamas for its brutality, saving her condemnations for Israel alone as it seeks to destroy the terrorist group for its never-ending determination to kill every surviving Jew.
Islamic ideology has taught its followers that killing non-believers is a right of passage to rewards in the afterlife. That ideology, codified in the Quran, promotes the belief that Muslims have available to them a license to kill non-believers, especially Jews. Such Islamic-inspired hatred is why tens of thousands of Muslims fought for Germany during World War II. While it is fortunate that the vast majority of Muslims choose not to accept this license, terrorist groups like Hamas do.
It is disturbing to think we have a sitting member of Congress who, by her actions and based on her Islamic faith, knows this yet still promotes the belief to Hamas and others of the availability of this license to do violence and kill non-believers in order to establish a Palestinian state stretching “from the river to the sea.” She is most deserving of the digitus impudicus salute!
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>Reflecting upon the current situation of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., one is reminded of this film by the recent antics of the senator’s staff. While Fetterman is still among the living, reports are that he has been physically and mentally sidelined by the impact of a pre-election (May 2022) stroke he suffered, combined with a diagnosis of severe depression – so much so that he remains hospitalized and is to receive inpatient care for “a few weeks.” Added to his medical problems most recently is a diagnosis of shingles.
Yet, despite Fetterman’s possible inability to function either physically or mentally to perform the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected, his staff – much like Bernie’s two employees – have been giving Pennsylvania voters the appearance that Fetterman is an active, functioning member of the U.S. Senate. It is amazing what an incapacitated Fetterman has been able to do, according to his office.
In the aftermath of the East Palestine, Ohio, train wreck and the environmental damage it has wrought, Democrats’ legislative efforts seek to introduce a new framework to enhance train safety. Fetterman’s office reported their senator was joining this effort and would co-sign the legislation. This, despite the fact Fetterman purportedly is unable to comprehend much of anything at this time.
According to Matt Vespa in Townhall, Fetterman’s doctor’s notes, “some of which were drafted by campaign donors … were rendered worthless when reports trickled out that he blew a fuse during a party retreat” in February, resulting in his being rushed to a hospital. The public has yet to see the senator’s medical records, while his staff deflects inquiries about his ability to consider such legislation. CNN reported that Fetterman’s stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center may be as long as a month and that he is unable to even care for himself. In addition to the railway safety legislation, we are told Fetterman is cosponsoring five other bills.
Questions remain over whether Fetterman has suffered brain damage. The situation is serious enough that Republicans now are demanding the senator appear on camera to prove he is still “alive and well” or resign if he is unable to do so. Perhaps prompted by this demand, his office did release a photo of Fetterman sitting in a chair in his hospital room, holding a paper he was supposedly reading. Of course, that photograph really fails to tell us anything about his physical or mental capacities as it could just as well have been staged.
There are apparently several other pieces of legislation Fetterman is said to be working on, but without being able to question him about those bills, we have no idea how much he really comprehends about them. It is doubtful someone hospitalized for severe depression is even capable of performing the duties of a U.S. senator. Therefore, we may well have a situation in which unelected staff members from Fetterman’s office are making decisions for him.
Although Fetterman’s physician, Clifford Chen, examined him prior to the election and reported he was perfectly fine, the senator’s chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, fears due to the stress of the campaign his boss may have suffered permanent brain damage.
Democrats were quick to jump all over Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., after he was elected on the basis of numerous fabrications about his background. While Santos has proven he did not need the benefit of political experience to be able to deceive voters, what he did by intentionally misrepresenting his credentials was unethical – for which he should be forced to resign.
However, what Democrats who worked closely with Fetterman both before and after his election did in misrepresenting that he was fit for office was also highly unethical. It tells us these Democrats cherished power more than acting in the best interests of the country. As a result, there are those in Fetterman’s office who are standing in his shoes to move the Democratic Party agenda forward under his name, while lacking any authority to do so.
Both in “Weekend at Bernie’s” and in Fetterman’s office, efforts were made by the main characters to be deceitful. In the former case, it was funny – a product of Hollywood’s outrageous creativity; in the latter, at a time Russia, China, Iran and North Korea threaten us and an alert U.S. leadership must be ready to act quickly, it is not.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
]]>