Trump endorses Netanyahu

Donald Trump has announced his support for Benjamin Netanyahu in the Israeli election, which will take place next week:

President Donald Trump endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for reelection, describing him as having “been strong, brave, and brilliant.’

In a post on Truth Social, Trump addressed a letter to the people of Israel and warned that “if Israel has the wrong Leader,” which is someone other than Netanyahu, the United States will have to do the job of fighting Iran by itself.

“Bibi Netanyahu has been a Great Warrior Prime Minister, and an even greater Partner for Peace in combatting the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its 51 year old chant, ‘Death to Israel, Death to America! We will destroy the Little Satan and the Big Satan,” Trump wrote. “What Country can survive when things such as this are allowed to be said, because eventually, they always end up being true?”

Trump continued, pointing out that “it would have been only a question of time until Iran would have put that ominous phrase into effect.”

“But they have been systematically destroyed, both Militarily and Financially, and unless they change their ways, rapidly, we will soon finish the job,” Trump continued. “If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so. Bibi Netanyahu has been Strong, Brave, and Brilliant in the face of tremendous opposition, including that coming from even Israel, itself.”

I certainly hope this encourages and convices the Israeli public to vote for Netanyahu's Likud party. It's also important for the future of Europe.

Poll finds 4 in 10 young USA citizens support Islamic sharia

I rarely read the Federalist site now, because of how some writers like editor John Daniel Davidson leave a bad aftertaste, but the following report (via Jihad Watch and Front Page), which is favorable to Israel as well, tells the USA has a very sad case of whole generations who were indoctrinated into being Vladimir Lenin's "useful idiots":

A set of polls released this week by Our Republic and Rasmussen show a concerning trend among American youth, especially in light of recently revealed immigration numbers under Biden: A quarter of 18-35 voters polled would support a community implementing Sharia law as the legal code for the entire town, city, or state if the majority of residents living there desired its adoption.

Additionally, according to the Our Republic poll:

Overall, 21% of likely voters said they have a mostly or somewhat positive opinion of sharia, compared with 57% who have a negative opinion. Positive views were much higher among younger Americans, including 43% of voters ages 18–24 and 39% of those ages 25–29.

The reason American youth may be trending this way, according to Justin Haskins, president of Our Republic, is a lack of understanding about the “value [of] the Constitution and the protections it provides.”

It could also be that they lack appreciation of civilized values, and if it turns out they know more than we think about what Islam is like, they're actually okay with it.

Other findings from the same set of polls clarify the suspicion young people have of Israel, with 46 percent of voters ages 18–24 and 60 percent of those ages 25–29 reporting they would support a proposal “to completely dismantle Israel and replace it with a Palestinian-led nation in exchange for ending the war with Iran and providing the United States with lower oil and gas prices.”

Haskins does not believe that American youth who take these positions are necessarily committed Islamists, nor does he believe they are considering Sharia primarily “as an extension of religious liberty.” Rather, says Haskins, “the more important factor is that Muslims are widely perceived as an oppressed or marginalized group in the United States,” he says. “Within that framework, groups perceived as marginalized are often treated sympathetically without much scrutiny of what those groups or their belief systems actually teach.”

That's another chilling problem - they practically indoctrinated into taking predetermined positions, yet if and when it turns out some leftists get caught committing crimes, those who pretend they're not guilty complain the MSM is just cliche-hunting and never does any research. This is exactly why laws are badly needed to deal with such an issue as sharia. It wouldn't be shocking if the pro-sharia crowd they speak of is already willing to support imposing sharia in cities like Dearborn and Hamtramyck, Michigan. Also, if they're against the war on Iran's autocrats, that too speaks volumes, as does their hostility to Israel, and their potential desensitization/willingness to commit violence, the latter which is particularly offensive.

Now since we're on the subject, the Van Zandt County committee in Texas passed a resolution condemning sharia:

Van Zandt County Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday denouncing Sharia, making it the first Texas county to pass a resolution specifically addressing use of the Islamic religious code.

Van Zandt County Precinct 2 Commissioner Cliff Williams said he brought the resolution forward because of an 80-acre land purchase in southern Van Zandt County by a family with ties to Muslim youth organizations.

The resolution was inspired by a draft resolution introduced by Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, that denounces Sharia in the United States. Self’s resolution has not been passed by Congress.

While introducing the resolution, Williams explained how Sharia is practiced in various Muslim-majority countries.

“Sharia, as practiced by governments around the world, is more than a private devotion. It operates as a complete political and legal order,” he said. “Where states enforce it, the record speaks for itself. In Iran, women have been beaten in jail for uncovering their hair. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws have sent people to prison and stirred mobs against them on a single person’s accusation.”

Williams also discussed the treatment of women under some interpretations and applications of Sharia, saying a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, her inheritance is half that of her brothers, and her ability to work, marry or travel can depend on a male guardian.

“It’s not American,” Williams said. “Compare that with what we hold as Americans and Texans. Every person stands equal before the law.”

This is also exactly why even abroad/overseas, we can't just stand idly by while Islam dominates anywhere else. And parents who really care have to start taking serious responsibility for what their children think and end up advocating.

Update: the surveys get worse, as the following from the Buckley Institute reveals there's a considerable number of undergraduate students who believe what Hasan Piker espoused:

Just weeks after the United States commemorated the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, a new poll reveals more than one in five undergraduate students believe America deserved the attacks, while nearly half of all undergraduate students think physical violence is justified to stop so-called hate speech.

The Buckley Institute’s 2026 National Undergraduate Student Survey polled 803 American undergraduate students between September 5 and 14.

A shocking 22 percent agreed that America deserved 9/11, including 28 percent of liberal students. Notably, leftist streamer Hasan Piker — who campaigned with Michigan Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and cozies up to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — has said America deserved 9/11. Meanwhile, Aber Kawas, a Democratic Socialist of America member and nominee for the New York state Senate, has said that America brought on 9/11 because of capitalism, alleged white supremacy and racism, and alleged Islamophobia.

The poll also found that 45 percent of American college students believe physical violence can be justified to stop hate speech — among which 54 percent of liberals agree compared to 30 percent of conservatives.

“Interestingly, 72% of those who agree that physical violence can be justified to stop hate speech also agree that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment,” The Buckley Institute found.

Shortly after Charlie Kirk was murdered on a Utah college campus for his free speech, a YouGov survey conducted from September 10-12 asked respondent whether they think “it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?” Twenty-five percent of respondents who identified as “very liberal” said it can be justified, while 17% of self-identified liberals said the same. Just nine percent of people who identify as either conservative or very conservative said it was justified.

Meanwhile, a recent poll conducted by the Center for Strategic Politics found “Democrats want Trump out by (almost) any means necessary” — including assassination.

Well this is also very chilling, and fully confirms why parents need to stop even sending their children to universities, even if they don't espouse this kind of garbage indoctrination. The influence of violence is a very grave issue that needs serious address everywhere, and Europe too is in sore need of it.

The USA Girl Scouts sell out to Islam

Without a doubt, the Boy Scouts have too, but for now, what's really chilling is how the Girl Scouts have done exactly that:

[SADLER] We’re going to talk about something about the Girl Scouts and trouble within the Girl Scouts, in a column that Maggie wrote for us. Maggie, I’m going to let you jump right into this, because when I was reading the column, I could not believe this was actually happening. But the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts, they just keep stepping in it, in terms of the wokeism. So describe to me your column, the problems and the concerns that you have with the Girl Scouts.

[MCKNEELY] This is such a crazy and troubling story. The Girl Scouts was founded back in 1912 to help empower women. This was back before women had the right to vote. And so this organization was started to help enable women to go pursue their dreams, pursue careers they thought they would be best at, and to enable and encourage their talents. And yet now, fast forward to 2026, and we have the Girl Scouts giving a platform to Islam, a religion that does not allow women to even have their hair uncovered.

For most of the Girl Scouts’ history, a lot of the troops — you can have freestanding troops, but you can also have Girl Scout troops that are sponsored by a church, by a cathedral, or a synagogue. But apparently you can also have troops that are sponsored by a mosque. And so there was a recent report that came out recently that showed that there are a lot of troops that are not just encouraging girls to deepen their Islamic faith, but also to share it with the non-Muslim communities. So there’s now an organization called the Islamic Community of Girl Scouting. And what they have done is create a number of badges related to Islam. So you can be the Girl of Islamic Faith, which requires a number of steps to go through to get this badge, to be the Girl of Islamic Faith. But what’s more insidious is that there are also badges related to sharing Islam. Like, you can get a Share Ramadan With Your Friend badge. You can get all sorts of badges related to actually sharing Islam with the non-Muslim community.

And a number of these troops are also putting on events to share Islam. There was a troop out in Sacramento that had an event to bring the non-Muslim community in, and they had things like a try-on-a-hijab booth or a learn-about-Palestine booth to create empathy — I’m using air quotes there — with the Palestinian cause.

It seems really endemic. We’re seeing this all across the nation. It’s not just California. We’re seeing it in Virginia and Florida and New York and Indiana. So it is — it’s all over the place. And it’s just really troubling because it’s such a departure from what the Girl Scouts was originally meant to be.

[SADLER] And the proselytizing, that’s the other thing. It’s not only if you visit a mosque you get a badge — it’s how many people can you convert? Are there similar badges for the Catholics? Is there similar badges for the Baptists, for the evangelicals? Is there similar badges for the Jews?

[MCKNEELY] No, no, there’s not. There’s no Share Communion With Your Friend, no Have Shabbat With Your Friend badge. This seems to be specific just to the Islamic-sponsored troops.

[SADLER] And it’s just really incompatible. Islam is incompatible with Western values. As you mentioned, there is no freedom of religion for women in Islamic countries — in Iran, in Afghanistan. If you look at Afghanistan under Taliban rule, women can’t even get an education. They are subject to childhood marriage at around nine years old, before they even mature. They’re already sold off from their families to a man who could have multiple wives — not even, not even one wife.

Without a doubt, the Islamic movements with Girl Scout charters are under no obligation in any way to accomodate LGBT ideology. It's only the Judeo-Christian movements that are, and even the Buddhist/Hindu/Shinto movements, if there are any in the USA with Scout charters. This is absolutely awful, and one of the leading reasons many families have hopefully distanced themselves from the Girl Scouts movement itself, and shifted to movements like the American Heritage Girls, a similar movement I heard of years ago. No more Girl Scout cookies, and I've got a bad feeling there's quite a few charters that're now making halal cookies, as if things weren't bad enough.

Britain's immigration office granted asylum to a Hamas member who plotted more terrorist attacks in Europe

Britain's shoddy approach to Islamic jihadism has turned up again, as it turns out they'd granted asylum without question to a prominent Hamas member:

A former personal bodyguard to former top Hamas warlord Ismail Haniyeh secured asylum and a British passport before attempting to launch a deadly plot to attack European Jews, an explosive new report reveals.

The suspect, identified only as “Mr X,” served in the security detail for Haniyeh. Haniyeh was the terrorist mastermind who famously cheered the demise of American forces in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, and who celebrated the horrific Oct. 7 massacres from his plush hideout in Qatar before being eliminated by Israeli forces in Tehran.

Despite Mr X’s deep ties to terror, British authorities rolled out the red carpet for the jihadist operative, granting him sanctuary and eventual citizenship.

Now, he’s behind bars in the UK, facing extradition to Germany for allegedly helping coordinate a massive, synchronized terror campaign aimed at slaughtering Jews and targeting Israeli diplomats across Europe to mark the second anniversary of the Oct. 7 atrocity.

According to an exposé published by The Times, British officials granted Mr X refugee status in 2015 under then-Home Secretary Theresa May, despite his well-documented past as a Hamas operative.

Before landing in Britain, this was known about the suspect: He is the son of a senior Hamas official; he was photographed shielding Haniyeh while armed mobs raised machine guns in the air, and he was previously arrested by Egyptian authorities for running a cross-border smuggling tunnel used to move gold and firearms into Gaza.

May was considered a disaster in her job as premier, and this is compounding the negative image she's left behind from her time leading the UK government. It's disgusting how these pro-Islamic-terrorism acts continue to leave such a bad scar on society at large, and even if the UK government now is willing to extradite the monster they don't have the courage to name, they're still doing very bad things hurtful to Israel, and to other innocent people across the globe.

Update: here's more with commentary by Nigel Farage:

Commenting on the revelations, Mr Farage said on Sunday: “How can anyone trust the Tories again after today’s news? They gave refugee status and ILR to a known terrorist, allowing him to become a British citizen. The man had public ties to Hamas’ leadership!

“They failed to protect you. Only Reform will keep the British people safe.”

Seriously, after this, the Tories should not be considered a valid party ever again.

Iran continues to collapse

Eric Florack discusses how Iran's dictatorship, despite all their attempts to make it sound otherwise, is collapsing:

In the cleanest tell yet that Iran is on the ropes, a senior Iranian official just put a number on the table Tehran has never put there before. That official told Reuters on Sept. 22 that Iran can reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days if Washington eases military pressure and lifts the blockade on Iranian ports. Per that reporting, this marks the first time Tehran has attached a specific, dated performance window to reopening the strait rather than treating it as an open-ended bargaining chip. That's a meaningful shift. A regime negotiating from strength doesn't convert its leverage into a countdown clock — it converts it when the clock is running against it, not the other way around. Reuters doesn't name the "senior official," but it's a safe bet that it's either President Masoud Pezeshkian himself or someone standing close enough to him to speak for the office.

Of course, there's always the question of whether Iran actually follows through on its promises, and the standard response should be "they won't," since in practice, they never have.

That suspicion only deepens once you look at what other Iranian officials said in the same news cycle. CNBC's reporting notes that a separate senior Iranian government official told MS NOW, CNBC's Versant Media partner, that the Reuters and Kyodo reports were "not true." And according to yournews.com's writeup, Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency disputed the account, too. So this isn't a clean, confirmed data point. It's a single-sourced Reuters/Kyodo report, attributed to one unnamed official, that Iran's own state-adjacent media machine turned around and contradicted within the same day. CNBC itself states it "could not independently verify the reports."

That contradiction goes directly to a point I made back in April: Iran's civilian government under Pezeshkian and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aren't singing from the same hymnal, and this flip-flop looks a great deal like the result. It's reasonable to conclude Iran is fighting something close to an internal civil war right now, waged between the IRGC and whatever still passes for a civilian government in Tehran — one arm offering concessions to end a war it can't win, the other arm racing to deny it before Iranian state media has to explain the offer to its own people.

Let’s recall that Ali Khamenei was killed in a February 28 U.S.-Israeli strike and his son Mojtaba Khamenei was installed as his successor. Mojtaba is now reportedly walled off from his own government by an IRGC security cordon. Gee, big shock.

The walk-back on the Hormuz offer itself is the more useful data point, because it measures Iran's shrinking ability to control its own message, let alone its own war. Even Iranian state media has lately taken on a tone bracing its audience for something difficult, a marked departure from its usual self-assured, defiant register. Pezeshkian's own framing — "we emerged with our heads held high," vowing to "firmly defend" Iran's positions — is the language of a leader managing domestic face-saving, not one negotiating from a position that needs no defending. That combination — tough public talk paired with real, dated concessions offered quietly through mediators — is the classic signature of a regime under genuine pressure, trying to manage two audiences at once: an international one it's handing specific offers to, and a domestic one it's still trying to sell a story of resilience. It calls to mind the rhetoric coming out of Berlin in the days after the Allied landing at Normandy — total confidence on the radio, total collapse on the map.

Well let's hope this all signals Iran's tyrants will surrender soon. But let's still remember they're barbarians, and such monsters don't merely surrender so easily. So even if financial sanctions are having effects, it doesn't mean they'll give up so easily.

Amnesty Intl. willing to say Iran's dictatorship committed sadistic crimes

The otherwise pretentious civil rights group was willing to admit Iran's mullahs did an obscene thing earlier this year:

Iranian authorities committed crimes against humanity in the crackdown on 2022 protests that left hundreds dead, Amnesty International said Wednesday, adding that Tehran’s suppression of new mass demonstrations earlier this year bore the “same hallmarks” but on an even wider scale.

Several months of protests against the Islamic Republic’s theocratic authorities, known as the “Woman. Life. Freedom” movement, erupted in September 2022 following the death in custody of Iranian Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini, who had been arrested for allegedly violating the country’s strict dress rules for women.

The crackdown in 2022 amounted to “crimes against humanity” including murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearance, Amnesty said in a report marking four years since those protests, warning that the authorities’ actions earlier this year were “on an even deadlier and more staggering scale.”

Read more, but as harrowing and repulsive as this news is, there's no chance Amnesty's changed its positions on Israel, or even the USA for that matter, despite how repulsive the Islamofascists of Gaza happen to be. Indeed, it can be wondered if Amnesty's really opposed to Iran's regime if they don't oppose the Hamas' dictatorship in Gaza.

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 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. Update: I just found 2 of Davidson's posts on X that say quite a bit more about where he really stands:

If this reporting is accurate, it vindicates those who have been warning about the dangerous influence of Christian Zionism inside the US government and the Trump admin. Protestant dispensationalism should have no place in US foreign policy, and it's not antisemitic to say so.

— John Daniel Davidson (@johnddavidson) March 3, 2026

So I guess even mild criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza is considered “antisemitic.” What nonsense. Israel and Netanyahu are not beyond criticism, and pointing out the horrifying civilian casualties in Gaza—including of children and noncombatants—isn’t some kind of double standard aimed at Jews. To suggest so, and smear @RCamposDuffy in the process, is disgusting and dishonest in the extreme.

— John Daniel Davidson (@johnddavidson) July 23, 2026

Well. And this was just a few months ago he spewed out this garbage that actually hurts the Christian movement Davidson supposedly belongs to, and makes clear he really is hostile to Israel. In that case, I'm not convinced he's actually opposed to the Islamic religion at all. And I don't think he wants to help Arab/Iranian women find a better life either. Just a shameful man this Davidson is, and now he's really showing his true colors.

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.

There is a majority of Americans who want the war against Iran to continue

According to polling data commissioned by Tea Party Patriots, it turns out that, contrary to what even phony "conservatives" like those at the Federalist would have everyone think, many Americans do want the war on Iran to continue until its Islamofascist regime is defeated:

A recent survey has revealed that the majority of Americans support continuing the war in Iran. Sixty-two percent of surveyed general election voters agree with the statement “The United States must finish the job once and for all to protect the United States and our allies — which means ensuring that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon and can no longer threaten American lives” data from Tea Party Patriots Action found.

The poll also asserted that the numbers found in the survey should be a “reality check” for the media.

“72% of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — agree that Iran cannot be allowed to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is consistent with President Trump’s policy,” Tea Party Patriots Action Chairman Jenny Beth Martin told Breitbart News.

Martin continued, “And 62% of Americans — including 56% of Independents — believe that we need to ‘finish the job’ in Iran. … There is no split in the conservative movement on this issue. … Conservatives are overwhelmingly sticking with President Trump and the American people as a whole agree with the president’s strategy.”

If the Federalist doesn't comment on these findings, that'll speak volumes about what they're really like. It's good to know there are realists in the USA now who recognize the threat Iran's regime poses if it isn't taken down entirely, and surely recognize that if a ground operation is what it inevitably takes to complete the job, just like in Iraq, it'll have to be done. So we must give the military all the backing they'll need in order to keep morale high, which helps tremendously in order to achieve vital results.

Why not say what that ideology is clearly?

Federalist writer Brianna Lyman argues it's not Zohran Mamdani who's the problem in the USA now, but rather, immigration of people who uphold the same kind of ideologies he does, which she curiously won't specify:

That said, conservatives still face a serious problem — it’s just not the threat Cruz and McCain are warning against.

The real danger is an immigration system that has imported millions of new residents and aspiring leaders (like Mamdani) who seek to fundamentally destroy the republic and replace it with the same kind of failed ideologies found in the very places these immigrants fled.

Mamdani is example No. 1: a Ugandan-born socialist whose politics are fundamentally hostile to and incompatible with the republic. An October survey from Patriot Polling showed just how necessary New York’s foreign-born population was to Mamdani’s winning coalition. The poll found he led among foreign-born New York residents with 62 percent support compared with just 31 percent of American-born support. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa had 40 percent and 25 percent support, respectively, among native-born Americans.

Mamdani himself has acknowledged that immigrants were decisive in his rise. He made a point of relating a conversation with one voter who said, “I just got my citizenship. And I’m voting for you.”

Mamdani then specifically thanked immigrants for powering his campaign during his victory speech: “We will fight for you, because we are you. Or, as we say on Steinway, ana minkum wa alaikum. Thank you to those so often forgotten by the politics of our city, who made this movement their own. I speak of Yemeni bodega owners and Mexican abuelas. Senegalese taxi drivers and Uzbek nurses. Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties.” He went on to assert that “New York will remain a city of immigrants: a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant.”

The speech was an acknowledgment of an electorate fundamentally transformed by immigration. America willingly imported foreigners who are fundamentally incompatible with the republic, and they make it clear through their voting patterns.

The part where Mamdani made use of an Arabic phrase is the closest this item gets to alluding to anything about the Religion of Peace. Gee, why exactly doesn't Mrs. Lyman have the courage it takes to raise the issue outright? How can even communism be opposed if nobody's going to make things clear? Why, what about Scientology? Let's not think that couldn't also be a problem.

This is another Federalist article that falls way short of potential, all because specific ideologies aren't named, and it's not enough to mention socialism either if you don't also make clear why Islam's a serious problem. Not that we should be surprised an online magazine whose own editor is a bad lot could water things down so laughably. For all we know, if the editor's a shameful person, who knows if he's even willing to advocate defending Europe if they're conquered by Islam? This is sadly a far different era than that of WW2, and if he won't support defeating Iran's Islamofascist regime convincingly, then we can't take his word at face value that he allegedly cares about Europe. Failure to clearly acknowledge Islam and communism being an enemy is another serious letdown.

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.

"Memorandum of Understanding" collapses

So no sooner had Iran supposedly signed the USA's "memorandum of understanding" - and only electronically at that - then they went back to firing missiles at targets in the middle east again:

Air-raid sirens sounded in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain on Thursday, as Iran said it targeted U.S. military assets with missiles and drones in retaliation for American strikes on the Islamic Republic.

A Jordanian military source told Amman’s official Petra News Agency that air defenses intercepted eight missiles launched from Iran on Thursday afternoon. Debris from the interceptions fell in several areas, causing no casualties or damage, according to the report.

The Jordanian air-raid sirens were heard in some Israeli border communities in the Jordan Valley, according to Hebrew media.

The U.S. Embassy in Amman confirmed reports that “missiles, drones or rockets are in Jordanian airspace” and called on Americans in the country to “seek overhead cover and shelter in place immediately.” The mission added, “Remain indoors and pay attention to local announcements and alerts. The U.S. Embassy in Jordan will continue to review the situation and provide additional information as needed.”

A flight from Ethiopia to Tel Aviv was forced to turn around amid the missile attacks, Channel 12 News reported.

In Kuwait, a Defense Ministry spokesperson said the country’s armed forces intercepted three ballistic missiles, one cruise missile and 10 drones launched from Iran on Thursday.

“The interceptions resulted in material damage after debris fell at several locations across the country. One person was injured and is receiving the necessary medical treatment. The injured person’s condition is stable,” said spokesman Col. Saud Abdulaziz al-Atwan.

But are they actually going to gather what militaries they have and go to battle against Iran for what they've done? This report seems to suggest Jordan might be willing to, but only time will tell if they actually do.

For now, some can say the USA was being ridiculous to assume Iran would actually surrender, and this very much proves their tyrants aren't.

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.

USA administration cannot abandon the Iranian people who're oppressed

Jamie Fly and Katie LaRoque at Freedom House make a vital point why it's wrong for the USA administration to take any steps that would enable a sadistic dictatorship to remain in place and continue subjecting its citizens to horror stories:

In early 2026, when Iranian surgeon Alireza Golchini saw protesters with gunshot and stab wounds from the regime, he did what doctors are trained to do: he treated them. For that, Iranian authorities arrested him, charged him with “waging war against God,” and threatened him with a sentence that can carry the death penalty. His alleged crime was not violence or espionage; it was providing medical care to wounded Iranians.

His story is a reminder of a simple reality: the Islamic Republic is one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Just recently, a woman was sentenced to 74 lashes for singing in a YouTube video without a hijab, and a 17-year-old swimmer and boxer was sentenced to death for participating in a protest. The regime just executed another dissident, bringing the total number of political executions in 2026 to at least 45.

[...] For the Iranian people, however, the US-Iran deal as currently formulated is likely to deepen repression. It will strengthen the authorities that only months ago were imprisoning, executing, and killing Iranians in the streets for demanding basic freedoms and improved living conditions.

Late in 2025 and early 2026, millions of Iranians took to the streets in the most significant challenge the Islamic Republic has faced in decades. Authorities answered with a crackdown that left thousands dead and tens of thousands arrested. The regime also imposed a near-total internet shutdown that lasted for months, cutting Iranians off from one another and from a world that might otherwise have witnessed the scale of the violence. Yet reports indicate that a final agreement could bring this same regime sweeping sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, and billions of dollars in new investment. For Iranians who risked their lives demanding change, the likely outcome is not a more moderate government, but a more entrenched and repressive one.

[...] At a minimum, the United States should make any relief conditional on five things: the release of Iran’s political prisoners, an end to the executions handed down in protest cases, a binding guarantee against another nationwide internet shutdown, and the return of the Americans now imprisoned in Iran or barred from leaving—six by the assessment of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation. Tehran should also be required to come clean about the fate of kidnapped former FBI Agent Bob Levinson and help his family recover his remains. These are among the clearest and most immediate signs of whether Iranian authorities are prepared to act in good faith.

See, these are vital reasons to topple a savage dictatorship, along with exiling monsters from what you would think civilized countries. I notice that Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously took disturbing positions that put his supposed understandings of reality under question marks, is now seemingly making valid points about the state of Europe while discussing SCOTUS' defeatist positions on birthright citizenship in the USA:

In countries like France and Britain, which have large numbers of Muslim migrants, this means multigenerational communities of non-citizens with a totally different cultural and political worldview — one that’s openly hostile to the host country. They will eventually, as they are beginning to do now, carve out their own insular polities within the nation, Balkanizing the country and destroying the possibility of republican self-government or even the possibility of national survival. An Islamified Britain will no longer be Britain, but something else.

Obviously, this can't go unopposed, but then, why did Dumberson oppose the war against Iran? Considering their Islamic tyrants were financing jihadism overseas, they could also be financing infiltration into the USA through illegal immigration, and does that sit well with Dumberson? Does it sit well with him that an innocent and defenseless woman could already have been tortured over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime? If he's not willing to approve of taking serious action against sadists in Islamofascist countries like Iran, then this current editorial of his rings totally hollow. That's why what he's saying now should be approached with caution, because it's not enough to defend just your home country, and to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the plight of innocent foreigners in distress is offensive, morally or otherwise.

If the Trump administration continues to allow the Islamofascist dictatorship in Iran to continue governing, it's always possible that could ruin election chances in mid-term. And if that's what happens, it'll make clear that when serious action isn't put to use, no matter the turnout, you cannot be surprised if the public will ultimately be disillusioned with the notion certain movements like conservatives really support responsibility, and applying equal standards everywhere. Also note how the Daily Caller is writing reports that're potentially hostile to Israel, which seem to be lamenting that Israel's military wanted to terminate "negotiators" from Iran, and you know something's wrong. If those very "negotiators" harbor Islamofascist beliefs themselves and are loyal to the dictatorship, why are they considered valuable? There are no doubt movements in the country that can be considered far better candidates for replacing the tyrants, and refusing to consider them only worsens the situation.

Oil can't be the only reason to go soft on Iran

Prof. Eyal Zisser spoke about how Donald Trump appears to have been lenient on Iran simply because of oil/fuel concerns:

Since US President Donald Trump signed the agreement with Iran that will bring the war to an end without achieving any of the goals he had set for himself, and worse, an agreement that strengthens the Iranian regime and grants Tehran the status of a regional power it never had before, Trump has repeatedly justified his surrender to the Iranians by saying that he did not want a "global economic catastrophe," and that because of the agreement, the stock market in New York "soared like a rocket" and oil prices fell dramatically.

Trump's remarks reveal a simple and bitter truth: economic interests dictate American policy, and they are the decisive factor. It is a pity only that Trump did not think all this through before withdrawing from President Barack Obama's nuclear deal from the previous decade, an agreement far better than the understandings he is now seeking to reach with the Iranians, or when he decided to go to war with Iran this past February.

It must be admitted that Trump is not the first president to give absolute priority to the economy and oil. One recalls the famous phrase attributed to an adviser to President Bill Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid." In other words, this is how the American voter makes his decisions, and so does any president who wants to be reelected or is thinking about his legacy.

It's certainly regrettable how everybody's dragging their feet in this whole aggravation, because here, the Bush administration of 2002 rammed Iraq straight through in not too much time, yet here Trump's going much slower, if at all, about battling Iran. And that doesn't bode well at all.

Iran violates supposed agreement

Just a week after the memorandum of understanding that Iran only signed electronically, they attacked a ship in the Straits of Hormuz with a drone, and now, the USA military had to strike back:

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced Saturday that American forces carried out another round of strikes on multiple targets in Iran after a Panama-flagged oil tanker was attacked near the Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. military launched new strikes against Iranian targets after Tehran allegedly ignored the ceasefire and launched a drone attack on a Panama-flagged oil tanker carrying more than two million barrels of crude oil.

“CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping,” Centcom said. “U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.” [...]

The strike came two days after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allegedly attacked the Singapore-flagged M/V Ever Lovely in the Strait of Hormuz.

So now, the whole "agreement" - developed on the assumption Iran would actually surrender voluntarily in short order - is falling apart. Following this, will Trump's administration realize that a savage dictatorship built on the Religion of Peace won't cooperate unless they're made to stop following said religion? We can only hope more serious steps will be taken soon against Iran's monsters-in-charge.

Mark Levin takes issue with Donald Trump

If there's any conservative commentator who's hugely disappointed with how Trump's handling the Iran issue, it's Mark Levin:

Fox News host Mark Levin criticized President Donald Trump's Memorandum of Understanding with Iran across a series of posts on X, with his sharpest break coming over the deal's soft treatment of Hezbollah.

"On top of this, we do the unthinkable," wrote Levin, a longtime Trump defender who has broken with the president over the agreement. "We capitulate to Iran's demand to protect Hezbollah."

The conservative host argued that the Iran-backed group, which he said has "brutally murdered hundreds of our fellow citizens," would emerge from the ceasefire untouched. Under the terms Levin described, Hezbollah "not only survives but is immunized" and remains "free to continue to kill Americans, Israelis, and others." [...]

The posts come amid broader pushback from conservatives over the deal.

What's disturbing is whether Iran will receive any money at all in their current incarnation as a savage dictatorship. Similar points can be made about Syria under Ahmed al-Sharaa, who should not have been allowed to ascend to autocrat there.

Here's more related news:

Fox News' major MAGA ally Mark Levin slammed US President Donald Trump over the Iran war peace deal, calling on the White House to release details of the accord’s Memorandum of Understanding.

Levin on X/Twitter wrote: “I have asked for days, why can’t we, the people, see the damn MoU? Not through people briefed by an anonymous person. Honestly, I’ve never seen anything like this. If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it.”

“Here’s an idea: if you want people to stop speculating about the MoU, release the MoU. Don’t brief a few anointed ones to control the narrative and expect everyone else to sit silently. That’s not how our country works. It’s going to be signed soon. It takes time for people to digest it all once it is released. Controlling the narrative can only last so long," he added.

Vice President JD Vance said the peace accord was signed electronically over the weekend.

Levin speaks out against Trump's attitude towards Netanyahu

Levin, a pro-Israel hawk, also slammed the president for lashing out at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after Israel attacked Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.

Trump had told a reporter that he questioned Netanyahu’s “f***ing judgment.”

“In a period of two-months, Israel has gone from a great ally and partner in war, fighting by our side against a horrible enemy that has killed thousands of our people, killed tens of thousands of their own people, and was a dire nuclear threat intent on attacking us, to Israeli PM Netanyahu being a difficult person who should be thanking us for saving his country from Iran and should get our permission if he wants to defend his people from Hezbollah and Iran, and stand down when his country is attacked," Levin wrote.

That the MoU was electronically signed can also make a serious point of contention, since the autocrats didn't sign it physically. And Levin's got a valid point that it's in very poor taste for Trump to be referring to Netanyahu with expletives, or make it sound like it's wrong for a politician to stand firm on positions meant to defend his/her country. How can we be convinced Trump has even Europe's best interests in mind if that's how he's going to act? Or even J.D. Vance? And here's more of what Levin had to say about how Trump's been acting toward Israel:

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”

Levin argued that Israel should not be pressured into altering its security decisions by outside powers.

“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin said. “I think it’s outrageous.” [...]

Levin’s online posts also targeted Trump’s criticism of Israel regarding its responses to Hezbollah attacks originating from Lebanon. Levin wrote that the first item in the MOU mandates an immediate and permanent end to the war, including Hezbollah.

“Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”

In another Saturday post, he claimed, “Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding.”

Of course it's angering, and shows weakness in the face of the enemy. Also note how victims of the Iranian dictatorship's massacres were obscured in all this mess, and that doesn't speak well for how the Trump administration is handling the issues so far. So is he willing to change his approach and apologize for what he's done lately? That remains to be seen, and the sad part is that damage has been done to the USA as much as Israel, and won't bode well for the future.