What else did Milo Yiannopoulos do wrong?

A gay provocoteur who was supposedly a "conservative" has since broken the law on immigration in the USA, and has been deported. Based on what else is told here about Yiannapoulous, he was asking for it:

Disgraced British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Thursday and will remain in custody pending deportation, the Department of Homeland Security announced Friday.

Yiannopoulos, a 41-year-old British citizen, was arrested at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. DHS said he legally entered the United States through New York City on May 14, 2019, but overstayed his visa.

An immigration judge issued Yiannopoulos a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to appear for an immigration hearing, according to DHS. [...]

TMZ first reported that immigration officers had apprehended Yiannopoulos at the airport ahead of a Kanye West concert scheduled for Friday night in New Orleans.

Yiannopoulos previously served as West’s chief of staff and political director. The former Breitbart News editor also served as an unpaid summer intern for former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2022.

Yiannopoulos’ career collapsed in 2017 after footage surfaced in which he argued that relationships between older men and younger boys could be a positive “coming-of-age” experience.

He stated that such relationships could “help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.”

That same year, footage surfaced of Yiannopoulos in 2016 singing at a Dallas bar as members of the crowd gave Nazi salutes. The bar’s owner said the staff began removing the group once the “Neo-Nazi type stuff” started, saying the establishment did not condone it.

Those vile statements of his involving children were repulsive, and it was humiliatingly bad what he did. How couldn't we have seen through this chalatan to begin with? He even recently indicated he was kowtowing to Islam, and that spoke volumes too. Taylor Greene's also a bad lot, and why isn't it shocking he'd work as an intern for her?

Anyway, it looks like he's already been shipped back to Britain, and may never have a chance to return to the USA. He really was useless for the conservative movement, and if he was trying to humiliate it in the long run, he sure did quite a job in that context. Maybe he should now languish in a prison cell, based on what he said about young boys, and his drivel is more than reason enough to fully ostracize him.

America before the dhimmitude propaganda took hold

Tim Rice tells about how the USA got to where it is now with Islam having taken hold in the quarter century since September 11, 2001:

It’s popular among a certain sort to point out that Islam has always been a fact of American life — Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran, don’t you know — but that’s not really true. Before 9/11, Islam was only tangentially relevant in American life. As recently as 1993, the journalist Robert Kaplan was still using the term “Moslems,” which feels like “Boer” or “Hottentot” or something else we left in the 19th century.

But on September 11, 2001, Islam and America collided, and the former has been on a speedrun in our country ever since.

It’s fascinating but not entirely surprising that an Islamic terror attack on the United States somehow led to the rapid mainstreaming of radical Islam in this country. Countries tend to import bits of former enemies’ cultures, like how we all drive Hondas and the Japanese love baseball. But the acceptance of even the most vile and un-American forms of Islam was hastened by the liberal obsession with fighting “Islamophobia” during the War on Terror, an arguably good intention that paved the road down which folks like Abdul El-Sayed now trod.

Our problem is not a lack of awareness necessarily — consumers of conservative media at least are familiar with things like the footwashing station in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport and the semi-autonomous Muslim town in Texas. The problem is that even those of us paying attention don’t appreciate how quickly we got here.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of 9/11, consider the scandal that rocked the 10th: the planned construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from the site of the terrorist attack. Dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” the project was almost universally derided. Howard Dean said the project was “a real affront to people who lost their lives” on 9/11, while then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called for the builders to pick a different site.

It’s hard to imagine Democrats reacting that way now, and that’s a problem. But even in 2011, things had gotten away from us. Reid and Dean broke with President Barack Obama, who defended the project. Obama may not be a secret Kenyan Muslim, but he sure did his best to make criticizing Islam socially unacceptable.

Even years before, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were already enabling footholds, and there were alleged conservatives who were just as hostile as some leftists to the whole notion of daring to speak negatively about the Religion of Peace. Tucker Carlson's quite possibly one of those. Many of these same people are more than utterly willing to call even 911 Families "bigots and xenophobes", and in the past quarter century, I remember a man from Titusville, PA, claiming to be a teacher, who said that while he may not call a kid whose firefighting father died in the WTC tragedy a bigot, he would be perfectly willing to say he was wrong to come within even miles of saying anything negative about the Religion of Peace. Its makes no difference whether somebody's willing to employ crude language or not, what's offensive there is that somebody in a position of "education" is basically saying survivors of 911 and their families have no moral authority and are systematically forbidden to address serious issues like these in any way, shape or form. And it should be noted the man I speak of later embraced a book laced with anti-American metaphors that minimized sexual violence. That man, to my knowledge, died 4 years ago at just 57 years old, of an illness, but the damage people like him did to morale and unity is stunning. And that people like him were willing to support books with repulsive viewpoints speaks volumes.

I've thought at times about what Rice says on the high liklihood the Democrats today wouldn't say a word against building a mosque near Ground Zero. And the election of Zohran Mamdani to mayoral office in NYC is additionally chilling, because it speaks volumes about what kind of electorate now resides in the Big Apple, and not just Muslims themselves. It also makes clear how many non-Muslim leftists now reside in a burg I myself never felt much attachment to, and that spells serious trouble going forward. Especially if they reelect Mamdani in the next few years.

John Daniel Davidson now claims Ben Shapiro's a "neo-con"

The Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson continues to go insane in his claims it's "neo-cons" like himself who're responsible for supposed problems like attacking vice president J.D. Vance:

As we near the halfway point of President Donald Trump’s second term, the neocon establishment is openly scheming to reclaim the Republican Party.

That’s why they’re attacking his proxy and likely successor, Vice President J.D. Vance, attempting to paint him as a socialist of the “woke right.” These attacks are being launched by the same people who opposed Trump in 2016, who derided the America First agenda as protectionist, socialist, isolationist, and denounced the president as a fascist and a xenophobe over his immigration agenda. The NeverTrumpers are back, and they’re recycling the same attacks they leveled against the president a decade ago, aiming them now at Vance in a bid to retake the GOP.

The NeverVance campaign has been going strong, especially on X, ever since Vance said in an interview last week on Fox News’ The Will Cain Show that “You don’t stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market. You stop socialism by making people’s lives better.” He was responding to the primary success of a handful of DSA-affiliated Democrats who are selling voters on the idea of socialism as the answer to affordability problems.

Vance’s crime, according to critics like Ben Shapiro and Erick Erickson, was acknowledging the affordability issue is real and proposing that government should do something about it. Shapiro responded with a bizarre post about free markets and process neutralism, while Erickson wrote a lengthy essay arguing that Vance thinks low prices are bad and that America needs a strongman to manage its decline. [...]

Neocons like Shapiro are not making an actual argument, either for the free market or against socialism. They use these as slop terms to express dislike for Vance. Indeed, Vance’s shot last week at those who would “throw slogans at people about the free market” is well-aimed in this regard. What we have in America today, across vast swaths of the economy, is not really a free market but a rigged market full of moral hazard, overregulation, and manufactured scarcity — precisely in the industries that hit families the hardest.

While Erickson is a bad lot himself, I've never heard of Shapiro being accused of being a neo-con before, and while Shapiro has said some stuff I disagree with, something tells me Davidson's much too eager to take swips at him while excusing anything appalling Vance has done so far. What Davidson's telling here only hints he hasn't mended any of his own woke rhetoric, nor his negative stands on Israel. And then, Davidson even makes a questionable statement about the following subject:

Why is this happening? One reason is mass legal immigration, which has brought millions of foreign nationals into our country on H-1B visas, taking jobs in tech and software development that should have gone to American workers. Recent data from the Labor Department showed that through the third quarter of this fiscal year, employers filled more than 830,000 positions with foreign workers on the H-1B program — nearly a third of which went to software development positions.

Umm, how do we know none of those jobs went to illegal immigrants? And how do we know the legal ones didn't study for these particular jobs? They're not allowed to seek employment in the USA, if they think that's where they'll find the best wages? All that aside, some of the people Davidson's attacked don't read as neo-cons at all, and it sounds more like he's just desperate to belittle everyone else in his own confused quests. This is another example of how Davidson's not worth listening to, and perhaps it's about time I just ignored him altogether, because no matter the content in his "op-eds", he fails to convince, and the Federalist itself has gone way downhill for a number of years now. People like Davidson simply aren't worth reading.

John Daniel Davidson still gives fishy signs, even if he now ostensibly takes up a legitimate issue, while other writers do a better job

The Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously wrote some very reprehensible screeds against bringing down Iran, and even attacked Israel, is now seemingly taking up a more legitimate subject, that being Islamic entrenchment in America, but he still gives troubling signs he's not grasping the full picture, or appreciating certain measures taken to prevent sharia law being imposed in the USA:

What might that look like in America in 2026, practically speaking? Well, Democratic lawmakers in Massachusetts recently introduced a bill to create a “Muslim Commission” to place Muslims in state government and influence policymaking. In addition to assessing programs and policies in state agencies and recommending new legislation, the commission will serve as a “liaison between government and private interest groups,” and accept private donations and grants.

On the local level, it means Muslim immigrant communities recreating versions of their home countries here in America. In Hamtramck, Michigan, the first Muslim-majority city in America, the all-Muslim city council recently voted to legalize backyard animal sacrifice over the objections of the non-Muslim minority. Sharia courts, which function as putatively voluntary arbitrage bodies on matters of family law, have in recent years drawn the attention of some Republican officeholders. Yet efforts to “outlaw Sharia” miss the mark, mistaking the effect for the cause. The reason Sharia courts are growing across America is because we have brought in a large population of Muslims that want to use them. Even El-Sayed has said he has an “obligation” to follow Sharia law until the day he dies.

While there's a fully valid argument that it's bad to allow Islamists into the country, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to pass laws to prohibit sharia courts, regardless of whether Muslims are in the USA or not. Same with laws to prohibit communism. And if Davidson, the same man who opposes toppling Iran's Islamofascist government, is against outlawing sharia, that's troubling, as is the following:

The results have been mixed, to say the least. The Muslims of Britain do not have the same priorities as the left-wing managerial class represented by the likes of Labour’s erstwhile prime minister, Kier Starmer. They also don’t necessarily conceive of themselves as ideologues making common cause with the left. Rather, they tend to view themselves as a distinct ethno-religious community with its own distinct priorities and commitments, not least of which right now is Gaza.

Indeed, the appearance of independent Muslim political candidates in Britain in the 2024 elections — candidates that might have once run under the Labour Party — was the direct result of the Israel-Hamas conflict. There were five such candidates, all of whom won thanks to large numbers of voters in their districts who say the number one political issue for them is the conflict in Gaza. They delivered huge upsets to Labour in areas that had long been secure. Elsewhere, senior Labour politicians in areas with large Muslim populations narrowly fended off pro-Palestine independent candidates and saw their majorities drastically diminished. Because a majority of British Muslims are more likely to have a positive view of Hamas than a negative one, it simply made political sense for single-issue candidates in 2024 to run on a pro-Hamas platform.

Is Davidson implying that fighting against a savage entity following the same Islamic doctrine as many other Muslim societies is wrong? Or that that's the only reason Muslims in Britain voted for Muslim candidates? Well that's disturbing, and there's something fishy about this, not the least being that he apparently buys into taqqiya that would imply Israel's the sole cause of their tyranny. Davidson is one truly naive disgrace.

Geert Wilders, writing on Breitbart, has a much better view of the situation:

The holiday season is not over yet, but it is time for some reflection. Those who have been travelling in Western Europe will undoubtedly have noticed how our continent is rapidly changing.

From Bergen, Norway, to Cork, Ireland, from Salzburg, Austria, to Florence, Italy, from Hamburg, Germany, to Perpignan, France, everywhere the number of djellabas, headscarves, even niqabs, has dramatically risen.

The media talk about heatwaves, but none of them dares to mention the demographic wave. Its effects on our economy (drained), our way of life (diminished), and our well-being (squandered) are profound. And while the heat will pass, the change in population will not.

Across Western Europe, Islamic radicals are increasingly asserting themselves. Women are intimidated. Jews face rising antisemitism. Homosexuals are attacked. Critics of Islam require police protection. Yet Europe’s political class refuses to connect the dots.

Our countries are rapidly Islamizing. Politicians, the media, the police are very keen to show off their “respect” for Islam. Is it respect or submission? In the Netherlands, Islam has already become the largest religion among people under-25. It is realistic to think that by mid-century, Islam will be the largest religion in the land – larger than Christianity.

We are already reaping the bitter harvest of this transformation. The Dutch government, once Israel’s staunchest ally, now takes the lead in advocating sanctions against the Jewish state. Our changing demographics, and its electoral repercussions, have prompted politicians of the left and centre-right to internalise the malevolent lie that there is an Israeli genocide going on in Gaza.

Our streets are taken over by neo-Marxist and Islamic extremists, staging violent demonstrations in favour of Palestinian terrorists and Iranian mullahs. Our traditional religion, our values, our national identity are being replaced. We are becoming strangers in our home, paralyzed by a fear to assert our national interest and back our allies.

While we stand at the precipice of a silent conquest, the ruling establishment keeps singing the praise of cultural and religious diversity. But if we do not halt immigration, we will soon be a mono-cultural society again. No longer Judeo-Christian, but Islamic.

Absolutely correct. And 2 Republicans from New York have warned about the rising influence of socialism in the USA:

Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) are warning that socialist ideas are gaining traction among young Americans as the country heads toward the midterm elections, pointing to the education system, the appeal of “free stuff,” and the experiences of countries including Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Yugoslavia as they argue against bringing similar policies to the United States.

Tenney and Malliotakis discussed the rise of socialism and left-wing politics in an upcoming episode of the Republican Study Committee’s Right to the Point podcast. Breitbart News obtained an advance transcript of the interview ahead of its release.

The interview comes as both parties turn toward the midterm elections, with Tenney and Malliotakis focusing much of the discussion on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and other socialist candidates.

Both lawmakers brought personal experience to the discussion. Malliotakis said her mother fled Communist Cuba in 1959, while Tenney said she grew up spending significant time in Communist Yugoslavia, later studied there, and worked for the Yugoslav consulate during the Sarajevo Olympics.

Malliotakis argued that socialist systems begin by gradually expanding government power through measures such as price controls and restrictions on individual freedoms.

“It is sort of the baby steps where they begin to implement changes. They begin to take away freedoms. They begin to ration things, to implement price controls that are very destructive to the economy,” she said.

She pointed to Cuba and Venezuela, arguing that policies advocated by Mamdani resemble policies implemented in those countries.

“They want to seize the means of production. They did that, particularly with the oil sector in Venezuela,” Malliotakis said. “They want to abolish private property rights. They want to have government-run supermarkets.”

It's vital to note that Islamism could be rising among young Americans too, even hidden in plain sight, and that too is bad. Also note that the government-run groceries Mamdani's opening are operating according to halal customs, and that's also very telling. And then, Bill Maher has an interesting observation on immigrants not assimilating:

During his “New Rules” segment at the end of the show, Maher said, “And finally, new rule: If you want the American Dream, you have to take the American values. There’s no bigger issue in electoral politics these days than immigration. And there’s no doubt, at least in my mind, that both sides went to extremes, Biden’s policy of open doors, and then Trump’s policy of broken windows. Now I’m on the page of America doing what it used to do so well, stealing hard-working, talented immigrants from around the world and making them Americans. But something has changed in the equation. Now most immigrants still want to assimilate, but some now have this other attitude of melting pot? F*ck you, you melt.”

Maher also takes issue with Zohran Mamdani's opening government-run groceries, which again reeks of communist tactics mixed with sharia:

Maher said, “He’s opening these city-run stores, grocery stores. I don’t think they have one yet, but that’s the plan, that will sell meat and bread and other items, I assume, for 30% below market rate. His quote was, the Mayor said, I look forward to the competition. May the most affordable grocery store win. Well, it’s not competition if you’re undercutting legitimate businessmen by 30%. I wonder who’s going to win. But who’s subsidizing that, who’s paying for that? I guess richer people, and that’s the plan.”

And then, as Josh Hammer at PJ Media says, electoral integrity issues aren't about Israel, but about Islam:

More than any political cycle in memory, the 2026 primary campaign season has been marked by frequent, and often hysterical, condemnations of the influence of the so-called "Israel lobby."

After the conspiratorial anti-Trump gadfly Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) lost his Republican congressional primary in northern Kentucky in May, he quipped about the Trump-endorsed former Navy SEAL officer who defeated him: "I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv."

Way to question the patriotism of a decorated SEAL Team Six veteran, Tom. Keep it classy!

On the Democratic side, the bogeyman du jour has been the America Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some successful Democratic candidates, such as Abdul El-Sayed in Arab-heavy Michigan, rode anti-AIPAC fervor to victory. And some losing candidates, such as the comically corrupt Cori Bush in St. Louis, blamed AIPAC for their rejection. In her concession speech, Bush vowed to dismantle AIPAC's "kingdom."

Your loss couldn't possibly be because you defrauded two federal relief programs during COVID-19, could it, Cori?

These (literal) losers are barking up the wrong tree. [...]

Last year, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia deployed the single largest sum of money of any foreign country — nearly $92 million — to lobby for its interests in Washington. Turkey was fourth; Israel wasn't anywhere close. In the two decades beginning in 2001, the kingdom — whose nationals included most of the 9/11 hijackers that same year — retained the single most agents registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (148).

Saudi frenemy Qatar, the spiritual and financial home of the Brotherhood worldwide, is routinely the single largest foreign funder of American higher education. The Qataris cut massive FARA checks to land favorable coverage with prized outlets, such as Tucker Carlson's cesspool of a podcast. The emirate owns a piece of the Washington Wizards and the Washington Capitals, and even a chunk of the Empire State Building.

And I thought it was bad enough Qatar may own a large share of the Shard office building in London, UK. If Massie - and Davidson - have nothing to say about Saudia Arabia's influence, that can say all we need to know about where they stand. People like the latter now stand as unconvincing in their alleged concerns over Islamofascism, mostly because they won't jettison their anti-Israel obsessions. And in the long run, that could be very costly.

Curtis Sliwa offends 911 Families, and indicates he's pro-Islam

I think the following disgust makes clear why Sliwa lost the election for NYC mayor almost 2 years ago:

Curtis Sliwa on Thursday told relatives of 9/11 victims who want New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani kept away from this year’s Ground Zero commemoration to “stop being sore losers,” arguing that they should respect the office even if they disagree with the person holding it.

“He’s the mayor. Stop being sore losers!” Sliwa told reporters Thursday. “You knew this is Zohran Mamdani. He was never a fake, phony, fraudulent, fugazi like a lot of politicians. He told you who he was.”

And what does that mean? Does Sliwa actually believe 911 Families voted for Mamdani?!? Or is Sliwa saying that because Mamdani made some of his repellent beliefs and platforms known, they should've literally accepted that a whole segment of NYC's populace would turn traitor by voting for him? I'm not sure what exactly Sliwa's driving at here, but the following should be telling something:

Sliwa also revisited a controversial exchange involving Cuomo and radio host Sid Rosenberg during the closing stretch of the 2025 mayoral campaign.

Rosenberg had joked with Cuomo, who was running as an independent, that Mamdani would cheer for the terrorists if another September 11 attack occurred while he held office. Cuomo chuckled before responding, “That’s another problem.”

Sliwa said Thursday that the comment damaged Cuomo politically at a moment when the former governor had been gaining momentum.

“He was gaining traction, and then he made that stupid remark and then didn’t handle it well,” Sliwa said. “And then Zohran exploited the hell out of it, as he should.”

“That was Islamophobic,” Sliwa added.

This says all you need to know what's wrong with Sliwa, and explains perfectly why he never discussed Mamdani in his own interview on Rosenberg's program. Now, maybe Rosenberg's the one who actually made a mistake there by joking about a serious topic, but it's bizarre how Sliwa doesn't seem to notice, and only seems interested in Cuomo. One of the commentors on the article said:

By using the word "Islamophobic" Sliwa has lost all credibility. As anyone with a functional brain knows it is simply a term of manipulation and abuse.

I always thought there was something really fishy about Sliwa.

He's just another two-bit political poser who will say or do whatever he has to for a photo-op or sound-bite.

His disrespect for those who lost family members in the 9-11 attack by Islam reveals what an iniquitous TOAD he really is.

Henceforth thou shalt be known as Slime-bag Sliwa!!!

For all we know, Sliwa was quite possibly helping Mamdani secretly during the election. Sliwa's made clear that as an alleged Republican, he's a poor example for a mayoral candidate, and it's to be hoped his repulsive attack on 911 Families will end his career aspirations. I hesitate to think if Sliwa would've helped build up Islam's presence in NYC more than it already is now. Another commentor said:

Curtis, calling 9/11 families “sore losers” is disgraceful. They didn’t lose an election. They lost husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers to Islamist terrorists.

I visited Ground Zero when it was still essentially two enormous holes in the ground. I saw some foreigners standing in front of it smiling for pictures with a disposable camera. You don’t get it comrade.

Seeing people smiling for pictures in front of the place where nearly 3,000 people had just been murdered enraged me. I grabbed the camera, threw it over the fence, yelled at them, and Americans around me cheered.

You want to stand in front of the place where 3,000 Americans were murdered and treat it like a smiling tourist photo op? Go fK yourself.

And spare me the “Islamophobic” label. Criticizing Mamdani’s associations, or objecting to Hasan Piker saying America “deserved 9/11,” is not hatred of Muslims. Calling criticism “Islamophobia” does not answer the criticism.

You say we should “respect the office.” Fine. Start by respecting the dead and the families who buried them. America is not FOR you comrade.

Sliwa certainly made a pariah of himself. For all we know, he's probably of the Tucker Carlson crowd. He has no business representing NYC on anything, and he's disgraced the Guardian Angels security patrol movement he co-founded in the 1970s. If there's anybody else who doesn't belong anywhere near the 911 Memorial service, it's Sliwa.

Federalist writer Eddie Scarry lets his hostility to Israel poke through the seams

Here's another example of how the Federalist's writers are going downhill, as their contributor Eddie Scarry, in pretending neo-cons are truly the ones against J.D. Vance, goes so far as to attack support for Israel from the right-wing side, and perpetuates the RINO opposition to the war on Iran's dictatorship:

Worth slightly more attention is what Thiessen wrote this week in The Washington Post. Recall that Thiessen is the Post content creator and former George W. Bush speechwriter whom Trump, for inexplicable reasons that may be explained in the future, has reportedly been reading and consulting privately about foreign affairs. Thiessen took an opportunity on Thursday to continue the very obviously coordinated attack on Vance planned by a slimy mix of neocons, lazy Republicans, and Israel Firsters.

Evaluating the Iran war, which has grown increasingly unpopular, even among Republicans, Thiessen wrote, “Perhaps it’s time for the president to take the advice of those who have delivered him success in Iran — not those like Vance who have failed him.”

Thiessen blames the failures in Iran not on what certainly look like short-sighted decisions by the commander in chief, but on Vance, whose primary responsibility in the conflict has been negotiating its end with Iran’s leaders. That’s at least honest. But let’s look at what Thiessen says a real victory, without any negotiation, would look like.

He wrote that the war’s objectives are: “eliminate remaining [Iranian] leadership figures; further entomb Iran’s nuclear sites; take out Iran’s remaining ballistic missile sites; destroy the economic and energy infrastructure that provides the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a financial lifeline, as well as key highways, railroads, airports and seaports by which the regime gets financial assistance from bordering countries; and demolish Iran’s remaining defense industrial base so it cannot rebuild its destroyed capabilities.” Then, with presumably a straight face, Thiessen said, “That’s it.”

Oh, is that all?!

Well, not really. Thiessen, perhaps to his credit, didn’t even pretend to hide the ball. Though having concluded, “That’s it” — just the complete decimation of a global energy supplier’s entire transportation infrastructure and economy — Thiessen went on to do the equivalent of, But wait! There’s more! He then said the U.S. would simply have to commit to keeping American troops just off the shore of Iran in perpetuity and “provide covert support” to Iranian rebels, in hopes that they might fight their own government. You know, just like they are now! Wait, that’s not actually happening, is it? Oh well!

Mr. Scarry ignores so much of previous research it's not even funny. He relies on reports from the otherwise shoddy AP Wire, doesn't pay any attention to the Tea Party Patriots research on the USA public's support for the war, and even ignores that much of the Iranian inhabitants are unarmed, making it difficult to fight against the Iranian government savages. If that's how Scarry's going to act, can somebody like that be counted on to fight against the Islamofascist regime being established in Europe? Or even the USA itself?

With this, the Federalist continues to send troubling signs they're not dedicated to freedom and liberty any more than say, Ron Paul, who was probably the role model for some of their more questionable writers. It's utterly head-shaking as it's sad they're becoming as overrun with phonies like Scarry, much like the Democrats are becoming overrun with Islamists and communists.

Co-founder of the Federalist continues the Orweillian ignorance act

Perhaps it's not a shock, but Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of the Federalist, has indicated he's against the war on Iran's tyrants, despite previous research telling there are Americans who believe Iran's Islamofascists should be brought down, and tries to frame it all as some kind of "neocon/never-Trump/RINO" conspiracy, all the while not willing to admit he actually represents such disgraceful movements:

It is inarguable that the war in Iran is a massive drag on Donald Trump’s numbers, as well as those of the Republican Party heading into November. This is largely driven by consistently high gas prices, which also drive up the price of everything else.

Trump obviously knows this, which is why he’s been searching for an off-ramp for months. He knows he was elected to get gas prices down and the economy in shape (which he did until the war jammed up the gears).

But a major problem for Trump’s presidency right now is that nearly everyone outside his inner circle pushing for this war — and this includes the entirety of so-called conservative pundits who never found a war they weren’t willing to make others fight and pay for — also hates Trump (and especially J.D. Vance) and sees the war’s negative effect on his popularity as a secondary benefit of the war they’ve been salivating over for decades. To them, his declining numbers are a feature, not a bug.

With the Iran war, the NeverTrump neocons have gotten everything they ever dreamed of — war (which they love), and a massive political quagmire for Trump that threatens to consume the rest of his presidency and destroy any future political chances of J.D. Vance and the entire MAGA/America First movement.

Boy, this guy sure is clever and cunning, trying to do what the British call "fobbing off" the blame on everyone else but himself, all the while pretending he's actually a Trump supporter himself, but in reality, chances are very high he's actually a Vance supporter for all the wrong reasons. Assuming he supposedly opposes having an Islamic caliphate established in Europe, what Davis is doing decidedly contradicts any claim he might make that he's against having Islamofascism conquer Europe. Seriously, I'm not convinced people like him are against the Religion of Peace at all. Period.

I sadly predicted the Federalist would not debate the points of the Tea Party Patriots' polling research, and Davis' bizarre propaganda screed certainly confirms that, more or less. The Federalist is once again proving they're a blight upon conservatism, and an insult to anybody who's against totalitarianism conquering the world. What if it turns out Davis has no genuine issues with NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani, or even communism? He also ignores very valid reasons why Iran's Islamofascist leaders should be taken down, and is practically undermining efforts to protect the USA in the long run. We can only hope the Federalist's losing audience they don't need over their disgraceful behavior, which again only obscures challenging polls that tell a different story than the ludicrous narrative they sadly want to follow.

Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges are still a danger being hidden underground

Recent reports warn that Iran's dictatorship has moved their uranium enrichment tools to a deep underground complex in Natanz:

Iran transferred thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges to underground facilities deep inside Natanz's Pickaxe Mountain last fall, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing Israeli and US officials.

The centrifuges were transferred to the mountain following the 12-day war in June 2025.

During the war, American and Israeli strikes pummeled three of Iran’s main nuclear sites, in an operation the US called "Midnight Hammer."

US and Israeli officials noted that the transfer of sensitive equipment inside the mountain increases concerns that Tehran is working to ensure continued uranium enrichment, even in the event of a large-scale military attack on its soil.

Pickaxe Mountain is located south of the Natanz nuclear complex, the site of two of Iran’s uranium enrichment plants bombed in June 2025.

The tunnel facility under construction at Pickaxe Mountain wasn't targeted in either of the wars, according to the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a US-based think-tank focused on nuclear non-proliferation.

Satellite imagery shows that the complex was carved to a depth of more than 100 meters below bedrock, making it deeper and more fortified than the Fordow enrichment facility, a highly fortified, underground uranium enrichment facility.

I suppose the RINOs at the Federalist are okay with this? I noticed one of their writers publishing stealth propaganda against the war on Iran just late last month, and continuing their attacks on Mark Levin as well. Oh yes, and even sugarcoating JD Vance, despite how otherwise poor and questionable his own dedication to civilized values and liberty is. And the writer even made sure to scapegoat Israel stealthily too. Writers like those at the Federalist are the reason this war is being prolonged, and also puts in serious doubt whether they're really concerned about Islamofascism's infiltrations into Europe. It also makes clear they don't put much value on concepts like selflessness, let alone caring about the lives and safety of innocent and defenseless women. This is why the war has to be waged, and we can only hope the military is doing what it can to put a stop to Pickaxe Mountain's own chamber of horrors without letting the whinings of RINOs like the Federalist's get the better of them.

JD Vance shows his true colors on Joe Rogan's podcasts

The USA vice president is proving to be the one of the worst omens for Israel, and making matters worse is that he aired horrific viewpoints on the podcast of a man who already gave indications he was hostile to Israel too:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance suggested on Wednesday that some elements within the Israeli government backed an influence campaign aimed at undermining the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, while emphasizing that Israel remains a U.S. ally.

Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Vance said, “I think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal.”

“There was a Times story that came out yesterday that basically there are certain influencers in America who are being paid in order to attack the deal,” Vance said. “It lists a bunch of people who have quite literally been paid by a former Trump campaign person who was himself paid by certain elements within the Israeli government.”

He said he has been accused of taking “marching orders from Tucker Carlson” and that “there’s just so much bullsh** out there when what I’m actually trying to do is accomplish what the president of the United States told me to accomplish.”

The vice president said he had no objection to Israel attempting to influence U.S. policy, calling such efforts a routine part of international diplomacy.

“A lot of other countries do,” Vance said. “I think some are better at it than others. I think the Israelis are definitely more effective at it than most. But I wouldn’t say that they’re the only effective country by any means that tries to influence American politics.”

“I mean, why wouldn’t you?” he said. “It’s a country of 9 million people. We have 330 million people. And so, of course, they’re going to try to persuade Americans. They’re going to try to move Americans in one direction or another. I think that’s just the nature of the beast.”

I think the use of the word "beast" is disturbing, and no matter what he says about not objecting to Israel trying to influence USA policy, it's clear he is disturbingly biased. Ruthie Blum addressed the news like this:

As much as I dislike citing Maya Angelou—and absolutely loathe using a single plural pronoun to describe a single noun—one of the late activist-poet’s famous quotes is so spot on that it bears repeating: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

This certainly applies to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who illustrated it most recently on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

Yes, during a nearly three-hour chat with the most-streamed podcaster on Spotify, Vance yet again showed us just who he is.

Not that it was tough to do with a host like Rogan, who didn’t challenge a word his interviewee said. Oh, other than asking him what “MoU” stands for and expressing surprise that “dove” in the political context is the opposite of “hawk.”

Where blaming the Jews and Israel for the doomed memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic was concerned, there was no pushback. On the contrary, Rogan goaded Vance to keep going down his embarrassing rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.

These included the groyper line about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s deep ties to the Mossad or the CIA. It was as though anti-Israel political commentators and podcasters Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens prepped the VP for the one-on-one. They undoubtedly were pleased with his performance.

Take the following passage, for instance:

“I definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and derail the deal,” he said, referring to the MoU with the Islamic Republic that his boss, U.S. President Donald Trump, had declared dead in the water mere days earlier.

Nonetheless, Vance continued in this vein, totally omitting two facts: that Tehran has been blitzing the Gulf (his only mention of the countries in that region is to say that they’re gung-ho for the MoU); and that Israel has been totally out of the fray for many weeks.

Well he certainly isn't helping to end the Iran war sooner than it could be done. Stuff like this also puts his sincerity regarding Europe into doubt. What if it turned out he had some responsibility for getting former Hungarian premiere Viktor Orban voted out? It remains to be seen if Vance will apologize for causing all the trouble he's going to cause with his conspiracy theory tactics, which aren't helping the situation one bit. Just plain embarrassing.

Update: here's what Fox News' Brian Kilmeade has to say about the subject.

Why recognizing Ahmed al-Sharaa as legitimate is bad

Amine Ayoub wrote about why the Trump administration's continued recognition of Islamists like Ahmed al-Sharaa is bad news:

The recent declaration by President Donald Trump indicating a willingness to remove Syria from the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism marks a perilous pivot in American foreign policy. Coupled with optimistic projections regarding an Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, Washington appears to be rushing toward a premature stabilization narrative in the Levant. At the center of this strategy is Ahmed al-Sharaa, the interim Syrian president who assumed power following the dramatic collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime.

Sharaa's sudden elevation from an international terrorist to a prospective diplomatic partner is not a triumph of moderate reform. Instead, it represents the most sophisticated mutation of Salafi-jihadist ideology observed in the modern era, posing a severe long-term threat to Western security and regional minorities.

The Illusion of Transformation

To understand the danger of the current U.S. trajectory,we must examine the meticulous career of Sharaa, previously known by his battlefield moniker, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. Sharaa is a veteran of the global jihadist movement who gained operational experience fighting American forces alongside al-Qaeda in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Following his subsequent incarceration at Camp Bucca, he spearheaded the creation of Jabhat al-Nusra, which operated as al-Qaeda’s official Syrian franchise.

Under his command, the group executed horrific suicide operations, systematically targeted religious minorities, and enforced an uncompromising version of Islamic law. His subsequent break with al-Qaeda and the creation of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, were widely interpreted by Middle East experts as tactical maneuvers rather than genuine ideological transformations.

The institutionalization of HTS under Sharaa demonstrates how modern radical groups adapt their vocabulary for Western consumption without abandoning their core Islamist objectives.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg, so read the rest. What the Trump administration's doing, continuing to give al-Sharaa legitimacy, is a very bad example, and when the Democrats don't raise any objections to the administration's dealings with al-Sharaa, you know something's wrong.

Opposition grows against selling military planes to Turkey

Benjamin Netanyahu urged Donald Trump not to sell F35 jets to Turkey:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voiced strong opposition to the possibility of the US selling F-35 stealth fighter jets to Turkey, following comments by US President Donald Trump indicating that he is considering approving the deal.

In an interview with CNN, Netanyahu argued that such a move would undermine regional stability and reward a government that has repeatedly adopted hostile positions toward both Israel and the US.

"Turkey is not a friendly state to the US," Netanyahu said, describing the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as "a regime that's infected with the Muslim Brotherhood, which hates the US."

Turkey under Erdogan has made clear they're as dangerous to Israel as Iran is, and the whole notion the USA would sell them military tools is despicable as it's also dangerous. Why, what if, just like Iran, Turkey's also working on nuclear development, and one day has weapons similar to what Iran's had until recently? Then nothing was solved to begin with. Also, what if Erdogan and his minions are planning to subject the country to Islamic sharia dictates? Another reason why they can't be allowed to posess western-developed weapons.

This issue comes as recent polls show Israelis are losing confidence in Trump on security issues:

The share of Israelis who believe that Israel’s security is a central consideration of President Donald Trump fell to a record low as Democratic support for Israel in the US continued to decline, according to two new polls on Tuesday.

A new poll from the Israel Democracy Institute found that, amid widening disagreements in Israel over US efforts to broker a new nuclear deal with Iran, the share of Israelis who believe Trump prioritizes Israel’s security had seen a “collapse" from 44% in May to 28% in June, pollsters said.

The survey, which polled 603 Jewish respondents and 151 Arab respondents from June 28 to July 1, found that among Jewish respondents, the belief that Israel can fully rely on Trump has plummeted by 38 points between March and June 2026.

Just over one-third of Israelis said they believed Israel’s strategic security situation is better today than it was before the war with Iran. The margin of error was 3.57 percentage points.

It's also reported a poll conducted in part by the AP Wire tells there's a considerable number of Jewish Americans who're hostile to Israel, and quite possibly even favorable to Zohran Mamdani. Assuming that poll has any weight to it, that too is disturbing, and very sad.

Update: also note how Trump's continuing relations with the new Syrian despot, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and that too is troubling.

Update 2: John Fetterman's the only liberal who's willing to oppose the sale of weapons to Turkey.

Does Vietnam-era mentality continue in the USA?

If the following poll data says anything, the mindset opposed to seriously defeating the Iranian dictatorship continues in the USA:

A majority of Americans want the United States to end the war with Iran now, according to a recent CBS News/YouGov poll.

The survey, which was taken Wednesday through Friday, asked participants, “The Conflict with Iran: What Should the U.S. Do Now?” CBS reported Sunday.

Seventy-eight percent said the nation should end the conflict now, while 22 percent said continue the conflict until Iran gives up more:

CBS/YouGov poll | 6/17-6/19

Do you think the U.S. should end the conflict with Iran now, or should it continue the conflict until Iran gives
up more?
End the conflict now 78%
Continue the conflict until Iran gives up more 22%
——
Do you consider the conflict with Iran to have… https://t.co/1fuGXyZcXD pic.twitter.com/UESuDVdYkC

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) June 21, 2026

The poll also surveyed Republicans, asking them, “What Should the U.S. Do Now?”

Sixty percent of all Republicans said the nation should end the conflict now and 56 percent of “MAGA” Republicans agreed. Forty percent of Republicans said the nation should continue the conflict until Iran gives up more, while 44 percent of “MAGA” Republicans agreed.

“This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,519 U.S. adults interviewed between June 17-19, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.4 points,” the article noted.

Now this is coming from a MSM business, so for all we know, it could be faked and distorted. Even so, if there's anything to it, it'll just further make this a most discouraging situation, considering there appears to be a sad case of those in the USA who won't study reality seriously. There's already people in Israel who're understandably worried about the deal with Iran, and if it leaves the current dictatorship in place, that's what's bad.

JD Vance sets a most divisive example

I don't know what exactly is in the final "deal" between the USA and Iran, something I'll try to comment on another time, but for now, vice president J.D. Vance is not improving the situation with attacks on Israel in regards to Lebanon:

The harsh criticism leveled against Israel by U.S. Vice President JD Vance has sparked angry reactions.

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida wrote: “Israel is our greatest ally and strongest partner in the Middle East. The evil Iranian regime wants to wipe BOTH of us off the face of the Earth. That will never happen because we will ALWAYS stand together."

“America’s unwavering support for Israel’s defense helps make the America First agenda possible, the U.S. stronger, and the world a safer place," he stressed.

Professor Jeffrey Lax of New York University, a prominent activist for the Jewish community and in the fight against antisemitism and discrimination against pro-Israel professors and students, was even sharper in his criticism.

“The most sickening part of JDVance's mid-book tour press conference? Right here, where he accuses Israel(!) of attacking civilian population centers in Beirut when every honest person on earth knows it is exactly the other way around," Lax said.

“This man CANNOT be our next president," Lax declared.

The criticism was also echoed by the “Green Prince," Mosab Hassan Yousef, who lives in the United States.

"Israel is not a client state. It is a sovereign, independent, and powerful nation. Its strength has never depended on any foreign leader, it comes from its own people. While the partnership with the United States has been valuable, Israel has never been a burden. It has delivered massive contributions to American technology, medicine, cybersecurity, and defense, far beyond what most Americans realize. At a moment when America is facing deep internal and external challenges, turning against one of its most capable and loyal allies is not just shortsighted, it is self-destructive. Those who believe they are weakening Israel by attacking it are actually weakening America’s own interests," Yousef said.

During a White House briefing yesterday (Thursday), Vance claimed that Israel was bombing Lebanon indiscriminately.

Based on what Vance has done, no, he's not fit to be the next presidential candidate. And we shouldn't buy his books either. So he obscures the Hezbollah's evils, and rails against Israel instead? Vance has really disappointed.

Update: on the subject of Iran, they've backed out of the deal signing in Switzerland, and Vance has delayed a trip there. So what's being accomplished so far when the deal may be questionable at most?

Update: the Federalist is making things worse by fudging the exact details, and makes it sound like it's wrong to destroy a terrorist organization, and as though Iran's literally right to defend said monsters:

Israel’s targeting of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been a point of tension during negotiations with Iran, sometimes breaking ceasefires and jeopardizing the openness of the Strait of Hormuz. Israel has also killed negotiators from Iran in the past in the middle of talks.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon have reportedly resulted in tense phone calls between Trump and Netanyahu, in which Trump has reportedly said his Israeli counterpart has “no f-cking judgement” during the negotiating process.

This is insulting to the intellect, and could also explain why the same news writers seem disinterested in freeing all Iranian citizens who don't want to wear outfits like the chador. This can also explain why there are certain commentators on the right, in and out of Israel, who find the way this has been handled troubling, and don't sound optimistic this'll go over well.

How conservatives woke up and realized their support for homosexual marriage "rights" was harming children

In past decades, many conservatives/Republicans regrettably supported LGBT ideology, until they finally realized that, worse than validating perverse practices, mainly by men, it was seriously hurting children in the process:

Conservatives are jumping the gay marriage ship. According to a new Gallup poll, Republican support for same-sex marriage has plummeted from 55 percent in 2021 and 2022 to just 37 percent today.

The reason is simple: Republicans were told that supporting same-sex marriage meant supporting their gay brother, daughter, coworker, or friend. They were told that opposing it meant they hated gay people, and many bought it. If supporting same-sex marriage was simply the price of treating loved ones with dignity and respect, they were willing to pay it.

What they were not told was that same-sex marriage would victimize kids. No sooner had gay marriage been achieved on the grounds that marriage had nothing to do with children than activists, judges, and lawmakers turned around and demanded parenthood too.

Republicans have no interest in persecuting their gay friends and family members. What they reject is the claim that adult equality requires making children lose their mother or father. And after a decade of watching the consequences unfold, it has become obvious that “equal marriage” was never just about adult “rights.” It was about parenthood and children.

Some could say it was about cutting the mother out of the child's life, and in hindsight, I think ultra-Orthodox clans like the Satmar have some blame to shoulder for putting the keys in the ignition with their ideological approach. Even Islam's doubtless had some responsibility, based on its horrific suppression of women. One could wonder if LGBT activists paid attention to the MO of certain religious movements and adapted some of it for their own MO as well. The irony some aren't willing to consider is that religion may have played a much larger role than we think in leading to homosexuality and transsexuality by extension. Also in discussion in this article is how the efforts to remove gendered words from legal statues are still prevalent, in New York, if anywhere:

Parenthood statutes are being stripped of sexed terms. Mothers and fathers are now interchangeable “parents.” Infertility is being reclassified so same-sex couples can deliberately produce motherless or fatherless children with the help of insurance subsidies. Birth certificates have been altered to legally exclude a child’s biological parent. New parentage pathways bypass both biological and adoptive safeguards. It is the legal obliteration of the nuclear family. When familial distinctions are erased, children become items to be awarded by state-enforced contract.

The madness has not stopped. Even now, New York Democrats are advancing legislation that continues to scrub sex-specific parentage language from state law. New York legalized commercial surrogacy through its version of the UPA, the ironically named Child-Parent Security Act. Now lawmakers are cleansing the remaining statutory code so the language matches the new reality they created, replacing longstanding mother-and-father terminology with sex-neutral parentage concepts.

That’s because if you can’t name it, you can’t legally defend it. And gay activists regard even the mention of mothers and fathers as an attack on their “rights.”

And this is another reason why I'd rather not visit NY ever again. Who would've thought it be one of the worst places you could live in the USA? And only Muslims will be allowed to retain the dignity of father-mother descriptions, no doubt. NY is really going down the drain of all this shoddy propaganda.

John Daniel Davidson is wrong to use Spain's 15th century expulsion of Jews as an analogy

Well, it looks like Federalist editor Davidson's crossed the line big time, and demonstrated why his news site has to be taken with a serious grain of salt. Case in point: he's taking issue with SCOTUS justice Neil Gorsuch in relation to topics like immigration, and along the way, he employs a horrific analogy with Jews as a subject:

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has done a series of interviews this week to promote his new children’s book about the Declaration of Independence and very clearly has a set of talking points, including a familiar liberal trope that’s no less false and incoherent for being familiar. America, says Gorsuch, is a “creedal nation,” essentially a set of ideas that anyone can subscribe to and become an American. What’s more, Gorsuch claims America was founded as a creedal nation — a creed that enshrines the three ideals of equality, inalienable rights, and the right of self-government.

“What unites us is not a religion, it’s not a race, it’s a belief in those three ideals,” Gorsuch told NRO in a recent podcast. To Nick Gillespie of Reason he said, “Our nation is not founded on a religion. It’s not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas. We’re a creedal nation.”

For conservative-minded Americans of a certain age, repeating this mantra that we’re a creedal nation, not a blood-and-soil nation like bad old Europe, has become something of a reflex — a defensive posture meant to deflect charges of racism and xenophobia from the left.

But it’s obviously false. One way you can tell it’s false is that no one who espouses this America-as-creed idea would ever follow through on its implications. If we were really a creedal nation, and in order to be fully American you had to believe and live by a certain civic creed derived from the Declaration and the Constitution, enshrining those three ideals Gorsuch mentions, then millions of our fellow citizens today would not be considered true Americans — to say nothing of the millions of recent immigrants who have never even heard of the ideals supposedly at the heart of our creed.

If we’re a creedal nation, such people cannot be our countrymen. If we were serious about our creed, we would denaturalize and deport them. We would expel heretics and unbelievers as readily as King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled all unconverted Jews from their kingdoms in 1492. That’s what creedal nations do.

Wow. If he'd made a case why Moslems need to integrate and assimilate or leave, that would've been impressive. Instead, Dumberson - as perhaps his nickname should be - chose to fall back on classic antisemitic allegories, and fail to make any distinctions between good and bad religions, if anything. If he doesn't think the USA should be founded solely on Judaism, that's one thing. But to say it was literally justified for Spain's monarchy to expel the community that founded the religion in remote times goes way too far, and I couldn't find anything about Islam in the "op-ed" Dumberson wrote. Suggesting that perhaps he really is that kind of a coward that he can't bring himself to research and point out anything disturbing about the koran's contents, and then, he even has the gall to say:

It’s telling that those most likely to invoke this notion of a creedal nation are the least likely to support something like mass deportation and denaturalization. They will declare that we’re a creedal nation but recoil if you suggest we should act like one. That’s because they either don’t understand what they’re arguing or don’t really believe it, and instead believe America isn’t a nation at all but an economic opportunity zone where anyone from anywhere can, with enough determination and skill, strike it rich.

Alas, based on what he previously told, that's why Dumberson's argument here falls flat, because he doesn't seem to either, and let's not forget his unwillingness to support a ground raid in Iran. And if he won't take an objective view of Islam, then it's hard to buy he's a devout Christian any more than the very pope he chose to whitewash. Does Dumberson also believe Jews/Israelis only came to the USA to "strike it rich"? That sounds eerily reminiscent of socialist cliches.

Amazingly, unlike Dumberson, another Federalist writer, Chris Bray, did show the courage to bring up the issue of Islamofascism while discussing Britain's election where Nigel Farage made significant gains. But it doesn't excuse the harm Dumberson's causing with his loathsome lectures, and if their staff is smart, they'll do what they can to give him the pink slip. He's as awful as Tucker Carlson, and clearly comes from almost the same school of thought.

Rand Paul sounding like his father by dismissing seriousness of Iranian threat

Senator Rand Paul, the son of the awful Ron Paul, is now sadly giving signs he's not better than his father:

Paul said, “The interesting thing about the War Powers Act is it’s misreported all the time. It’s misreported it as a reporting, requirement that after 60 days, the president needs to report. Well, people don’t read the whole War Powers Act. War Powers Act only says there’s three instances when a president can go to war, a declaration by Congress, use of authorization of force by Congress or an imminent threat.”

He added, “So really, the debate now should be is a 47-year-old conflict and imminent threat. Were there changes in their nuclear program that made this an imminent threat? And I don’t think the evidence is there that there was an imminent threat that would allow the president to go to war on his own.”

This is a disgrace and shame he's joined the army of underminers, because there was once a time when he'd made at least a few perceptive arguments, and now he's kowtowing to just what the Islamofascists running Iran would want to hear, along with anybody else who didn't give a damn about the threat of nuclear weapons in the Islamic world. I'd like to think the Kentucky populace who voted him into office would be willing now to vote him out, but I've got a bad feeling they don't care much either how naive and appeasing Paul's being. Which would explain how terrible situations like these come about, tragically enough.

The new right-wing anti-Trump crowd kowtows to Islam

Andrea Widburg discussed how bad right-wingers like Tucker Carlson, and also Pope Leo, have sold out to Islam along their path to undermining Donald Trump's policies:

Today’s news brought stories of two thought leaders—the Pope and Tucker Carlson—showing reverence for Islam. This differs from the left’s long-standing political allegiance with Islamic causes, something reflecting that the left and Islam share a common goal, which is the West’s destruction. Instead, this is a reverence for the Islamic faith. That’s new and, I must say, as someone who likes the Judeo-Christian worldview, disturbing.

The way I see it, the Koran is a pastiche of random lessons from the Bible, with which Mohammed was clearly familiar, plus a lot of rules that worked well for Mohammed’s personal advancement. Thus, Mohammed echoed such principles as a unitary god and the rejection of idolatry, charity to the poor, honesty in trade, respect for parents, mercy and forgiveness, and keeping one’s word.

The problem is that he added other rules that were carve-outs for Muslims. Thus, Mohammed himself is idolized to the point at which he is indistinguishable from God, sharia laws are utterly merciless, and Muslims have no obligation to extend to non-Muslims mercy, honesty in trade, or keeping one’s word.

In addition, Islam has icky things layered over it. For example, because the 50-year-old Mohammed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when he was 53 and she was nine, that’s a right given to all Muslim men. And because Mohammed veiled his wives because he was a prophet, Muslim women must wear tents.

Lastly, of course, there’s the whole war thing. Mohammed mandated conquest and war against infidels. Some people counter this by pointing to the violence in the Bible but the Bible is both a religious book and a history book. It recounts battles. But there is no “perfect man” telling Christians and Jews that they must convert the world through fire and sword, nor that women are the sexual spoils of such wars.

What’s disturbing is that two Western men who proclaim both their faith and hostility to Trump and the MAGA movement have lately become very supportive of Islam.

You could probably add a few more rotten apples to the list, those being the aforementioned RINO writers at the Federalist, who've also signaled support for Carlson and Leo. What the main 2 figures in focus are doing is merely an attempt to stealth indoctrinate the western populace under the guise of "conservatism", and we must hope most of the population understands what sellouts both these disgraces really are. They both keep silent on Christians persecuated by Islam, and it's chilling to wonder if both could be secret converts to Islam, much like some British in past decades wondered if King Charles was secretly a convert. Why, what if French communist Jean-Luc Melenchon is? For now, it's disgusting how Leo's following up Carlson as a religious figure who's a dhimmi sellout.

John Daniel Davidson continues his anti-war agenda by whitewashing Pope Leo

Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson continues his atrocious efforts to undermine the war against Iran by citing a source who's actually done more harm than good to America. First, let's see what Davidson says about Donald Trump's threat that a "whole civilization was going to die":

What does seem clear amid the fog of war, however, is that Trump’s maximalist, annihilationist rhetoric — talk of destroying Iranian “civilization,” “never to be brought back again,” taking out “the entire country,” bombing it “into the stone age,” targeting critical civilian infrastructure like power plants — has already gravely damaged the United States.

Why? Because America should only wage just wars, and waging a just war means being subject to certain restraints. Just war precludes immoral means — like the mass killing of civilians — to achieve victory. Even threatening such means, as Trump has done, damages the moral conscience of a people as much as it degrades the moral standing of a nation. Simply put, threatening to do something intrinsically immoral, even if you don’t actually do it, is wrong.

Yes, it was in poor taste for Trump to say that, and just because Iran's savages running the asylum chanted "death to America/Israel" and "great/little satan" over past decades doesn't justify what Trump said, considering there are some decent civilians there. But is Davidson, with his stealthy anti-war propaganda, suited to make the points? Because, and here now is the troubling part, Davidson obscured the positions of a certain recently instated Catholic pope:

That said, what should most concern Americans in this war is not the conduct of Iran’s leaders but the conduct of our own. Pope Leo, who has been a vocal critic of the war, spoke with moral clarity and authority on Tuesday when he said, “This is truly not acceptable. Here there are certainly questions of international law, but even more than this a question of morality for the good of people … attacks on civilian infrastructure are against international law, but it is also a sign of the hatred and division and destruction that human beings are capable of.”

Amid the tumult of world events in recent days, the pope’s words stand out in part because they offer such a contrast to the naked bloodlust and rumblings of annihilation coming from the Trump administration. Whatever happens, we cannot lose sight of the moral dimension here. In both word and deed, if we do not hold ourselves to a high moral standard then we risk, in a very real sense, becoming the villains in an unjust war.

Well! Is he subtly implying the war on Iran is unjust, despite all the rockets that were fired that even cost several USA soldiers their lives over in Kuwait? Until that can be figured out, however, what's also eyebrow raising is that Davidson touted a pope who acted as apologist for illegal Muslim immigrants in Europe as a just, sage voice. Yes, the same pope Leo who also signaled support for Islam. Leo also voiced support for illegal immigrants in the USA. This is whom Davidson considers a voice of reason? Wow, and to think he has such a problem with Mark Levin, whom the Federalist writers even had the gall to smear as a "neoconservative". I don't know if the term was considered negative years before, but I realize that in the past decade, it certainly took on a negative meaning since. But while there are valid disagreements to be had with Levin, citing somebody as awful as Pope Leo turned out to be does nothing to improve on the issues at hand. "Clarity and authority" my foot. Davidson's insinuation that the Trump administration is one dimensionally bloodthirsty is also disturbing, and hurts the mission of the war terribly.

And if Davidson's coming within even miles of stealthily implying the war against Iran's jihadists is not a just war, despite all the damage caused by Iran's rockets in the past month, which have cost a number of lives locally, then all Davidson's done is make clear why the Federalist is past its sell-by-date, as the British could say. Garbage like this "op-ed" is exactly why I came to find them increasingly repellent instead of the perceptive site I once thought they were. Now, under anti-war propaganda like what Davidson's now stealthily turning out, they're a train wreck, and are doing the conservative movement a horrible disservice.

Update: it's now being reported there's serious tension between the Trump administration and Pope Leo:

Relations between Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, and the White House have sunk to a new low since the outbreak of the Iran War, as the Trump administration wrapped its military messaging in deeply religious language, particularly in briefings by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

[...] The turning point came with the pope's "state of the world" address on Jan. 9 to the Vatican's diplomatic corps. Leo XIV said that "war is back in fashion" and that the international order built after World War II had been "completely broken." The Pentagon interpreted the speech as a direct attack on Trump's policies, especially the pope's statement that "diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus is being replaced by a diplomacy based on power, whether of individuals or groups of states."

[...] According to the report, the meeting contributed to the cancellation of a planned papal visit to the US. In May 2025, just two weeks after Leo XIV was elected, Vance invited him to celebrate the 250th anniversary of US independence. The Vatican considered the invitation, but according to the report declined it for three reasons: foreign policy disagreements, growing opposition among American bishops to Trump's immigration policies, and concern that the visit would be seen as political support for the administration on the eve of the midterm elections.

And this is who Davidson's supporting, right? What an embarrassment indeed. All this makes clear something is terribly broken in the religious system, and no telling if it'll improve for the better.

Update 2: and now, Trump's issued a more official statement taking issue with Leo for his grave mistakes:

In a post on Truth Social, Trump stated that he likes Pope Leo’s brother “much better” than he likes the Pope. Trump also noted he does not want a Pope “who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon,” or who “thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela.”

“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” Trump wrote. “He talks about ‘fear of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart.”

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon,” Trump added. “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country.”

Trump added that he also did not want a Pope who criticizes him because he was “doing exactly” what he was elected to do.

Indeed, Leo attacked the electorate, and that's simply unacceptable. So again, this is whom Davidson considers a great sage? A man who does what could be called "projection"? Please. Do tell us about it.

John Daniel Davidson continues his RINO-based anti-war agenda

Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson is continuing his efforts to undermine the war against Iranian tyranny, and while his approach may be subtle, the opposition to punishing totalitarian barbarians in his "op-ed" is there:

The American-Israeli war against Iran is now in its fifth week and shows no signs of ending anytime soon. Despite the heavy aerial and naval bombardment of Iran, the regime in Tehran is still intact, Iran retains control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranian military is still capable of launching attacks against U.S. positions in the region.

I think it can be said Iran's control over the straits of Hormuz is a bit exaggerated, since much of their naval fleet's been demolished, but Davidson apparently doesn't want anybody to know that. Obviously, there's still military monsters in Iran who're willing to cause chaos, but what's being told about Hormuz still seems pretty forced.

This list is different from the three-part mission Secretary of War Pete Hegseth laid out in the opening days of the war. On March 2, Hegseth said Operation Epic Fury’s three objectives were to destroy Iran’s offensive missile capabilities, cripple its navy, and prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, Rubio’s list makes no mention of other war aims that have been floated by President Trump, such as taking control of Iran’s nuclear materials (which was arguably the casus belli), regime change, or opening the Strait of Hormuz. Regarding the strait, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday night that Trump has told aides that he’s willing to end the war even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, “likely extending Tehran’s firm grip on the waterway and leaving a complex operation to reopen it for a later date.” The reason for Trump’s sudden willingness to compromise, we’re told, is that a mission to reopen the strait would extend the conflict beyond Trump’s four- to six-week timeline.

Somehow, it sounds like Davidson's unconcerned about even mere chemicals remaining in Iran's clutches, nor does he consider any possible pause could be to prepare additional military officials for battling Iran's jihadists. And then, Davidson continues to push propaganda in disfavor of war to defeat an evil entity:

Trump does seem aware that time is not on his side. Domestically, the war is unpopular. A consistent and sizable majority now disapproves of military strikes on Iran, and amid rising gas prices and general anxiety about the economy, Trump’s favorability rating has reached a record low for his second term. The unpopularity of the war will likely increase as time goes by, as will Trump’s disapproval rating.

Escalation in the form of the deployment of U.S. ground forces would deepen the war’s unpopularity. One recent Ipsos poll found 55 percent of Americans would not support the deployment of any ground troops to Iran, and only 7 percent would support a large-scale invasion of the country. Yet such an escalation seems to be in the works. The Pentagon is in the process of sending thousands of American soldiers and Marines to the Middle East in preparation for potentially weeks of ground operations in Iran, according to recent reporting from the Washington Post.

As expected, Mr. Davidson's obscuring previous research on Breitbart, in example, telling that a sizable majority of the USA public supports the war. Also, if this article tells something, Davidson's choice of polling material is as much from leftist Reuters as it is from Ipsos, so it's not hard to guess Davidson's relying too much upon leftist polling in the long run. What good does that do? This bias check page also indicates Ipsos is left-leaning. If Davidson's not willing to offer an analysis of what sites like Breitbart provide, then he's definitely not in favor of defeating Iran's jihadist tyrants at all. Besides, to win a war, you can't always rely on time limits in which to get the job done. I also notice Davidson fails to say whether he believes realists who care should call for stopping Islamic indoctrination. One more clue to why his whole "op-ed" is a joke.

The White House therefore appears, at times anyway, to be operating under the assumption that the only way to deescalate the conflict at this point is to escalate, hoping to find a point at which the pain inflicted on the Iranians is sufficient to compel them to accept a negotiated settlement and acquiesce to U.S. demands.

That might work, but even if it does it will take time, and Trump and the GOP will pay a heavy political price domestically for it, both in the midterms and in 2028. It also might plunge the U.S. into a Vietnam-like quagmire, unable to win decisively or to extricate itself from the war. [...]

The stark truth is that the president has no good options, and the best course of action at this point might be to leverage the apparent malleability of declared U.S. war aims to assert that they have in fact been achieved, while reserving the right to attack again if Tehran pursues a nuclear weapon or continues to target U.S. bases or allies in the region.

Sorry, but we shouldn't have to wait until Iran's tyrannical overlords once again try to pursue nuclear materials in order to attack them. And we also can't ignore the Religion of Peace's influence in this whole horror story. What needs to be done is preemptively strike against evil weapons being stored in secrecy, which is exactly how Iran's Islamic overlords will resume manufacturization if they're given the chance. And if Trump feels a ground operation is required to confiscate and destroy any chemical weapons in Iran that could still one day be used for causing mass deaths, then that's why the USA military must perform a ground operation if that's what it takes to take control of whatever obscene weapons Iran's dictators still possess.

Garbage like this is exactly why I've become hugely disillusioned and disappointed with the Federalist, as I've realized they're not really the "patriots" they must claim to be. Unless perhaps they replace him as editor, and find some writers who make a sad but necessary point that freedom isn't free, and that there's times where it's inevitable that sacrifices must be made, with the most important part being whether a call for improvement in education, religious or otherwise, can be made if you want to reduce the risks that're bound to occur in the future if the Religion of Peace is allowed to continue dominating anywhere. And Davidson's not doing anything like that. A real shame and disgrace he is.

Florida university had a very sad case of bad "Republicans" siding with Islamofascists

In the past week or so, the University of Florida had a most humiliating scandal, one that probably won't get coverage even in right-leaning news sources, concerning a College Republicans chapter that was disbanded for antisemitic positions, and it's even more chilling that some might think:

Another group for young Republicans is in hot water over revelations that its members have engaged in antisemitic activity.

The University of Florida disbanded its College Republicans chapter over the weekend following social media posts in which two members reportedly made Nazi salutes, among other actions. In response, the group sued the university, accusing administrators of violating its First Amendment rights. [...]

In a statement explaining its move to disband the group, UF said members of the College Republicans “engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated its rules and values, including a recent antisemitic gesture." Photos posted online by pro-Israel activists appeared to show members of the chapter flashing Nazi salutes, as well as posing with antisemitic influencers Nick Fuentes and Myron Gaines. Other reports of the leaked material describe group chats stating that Hitler “didn’t do enough."

The UF statement continued, “The University of Florida has emphatically supported its Jewish community and remains committed to preventing and addressing antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and harassment that are threatening and disruptive to our students and to the teaching, research and expressive activities of the campus community."

UF College Republicans had recently hosted James Fishback, a GOP gubernatorial candidate in the state who has embraced popular online antisemitic slang on the campaign trail. In its lawsuit and on X, the College Republicans group suggested the two events were linked.

[...] Fishback himself criticized the university for disbanding the group, likening it to the school’s decision to disband a pro-Palestinian group in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

“It is disgraceful for Florida’s taxpayer-funded universities to punish student groups for their protected speech," he wrote. “In 2023, it was Students for Justice in Palestine. Today, it’s College Republicans."

And then we wonder why any alleged conservatives in the USA as of today may not support efforts to bring down Iran. Without a doubt, these specific students are another product of the Tucker Carlson-influenced mindset, one that's undoubtably selling out to Islam even now. What can be done to mend the damage? It'll take ages, no doubt.