A new documentary about the dangers of migration from Islamic countries to the west

The Heritage Foundation developed a new documentary about how mass migration from Islamic countries has had a disastrous effect upon Europe, and the USA's also now feeling the effects:

The West is in a self-inflicted crisis, and the only way to fix it is to recognize the problem.

A new documentary created by The Heritage Foundation in collaboration with former Virginia Delegate and current Blaze TV host Nick Freitas shines a light on how decades of mass immigration have dramatically transformed the U.K. for the worse.

“The Immigration Crisis That Will Destroy the West” gets to the heart of the skepticism of mass migration, particularly from Muslim countries that don’t share similar values. [...]

While President Donald Trump has dramatically shut down the chaos at the southern border and put tighter restrictions on legal immigration, there is still a broad movement to return to the open border, near-limitless immigration policies of his predecessors.

In both the U.K. and the U.S., Freitas noted, there are significant numbers of “mainstream” media, institutional, and political actors who insist that unfettered mass migration is “necessary, economically, socially, and even morally, and to the extent that we have of our own, we should be ashamed of it, and therefore grateful for the cultural enrichment we are now experiencing.”

The documentary highlights how British immigration policy was transformed—beginning with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the early 2000s—from “slow and steady assimilation” to “globalist multiculturalism.”

Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, said pointedly of Blair in an interview that his legacy was “disastrous” in terms of “ushering this era of mass migration into the U.K.”

Freitas observed in the documentary that when he visits the U.K., he sees a lot of culture—but it isn’t English. Instead, entire towns and cities resemble locations in the Middle East.

The cultural and legal changes happening within the U.K. resulting from decades of industrial-scale migration are perhaps even more shocking.

As several interviewees in the documentary noted, many of the newcomers have vastly different norms when it comes to gender and behavior between men and women.

For instance, GB News host Patrick Christys said in one interview that there had been a recent court case involving three “illegal migrants” who were housed in a fancy hotel and then raped a woman on a local beach. When they were brought before a court, one of them was asked, according to Christys, if he knew the difference between rape and sex, and the man replied by saying that rape is sex.

“That is the kind of culture that sadly we are importing,” Christys said.

While the U.K. doesn’t publish crime stats by religion, there has been a significant problem of organized, industrial-scale rapes being conducted by mostly Muslim men. The country’s political establishment clearly wants to sweep this under the rug, but the human cost has been enormous.

This is happening because of the astounding and unprecedented demographic changes that the people of England have been forced to accept as the new normal.

That's the sad result of communist/socialist ideologies being normalized to boot. And France has experienced even more horrifying cases like these too over many years. Blair was definitely one of the worst enablers of the situation as we see it today, and what if it turns out he knew anything about the Rotherham rape scandal? This is what Freitas and company mean when they say the political establishment's been trying to hush up the horrors.

It may be possible to reverse this horror, and the war against Iran is an important start. But no doubt, it's going to be very difficult, especially when supporters of totalitarianism enable the Religion of Peace to gain footholds.

911 could happen again if ignorance continues to prevail

Rick Moran (archive link) warns that 911 could tragically happen again, based on how the establishment does everything possible to prohibit discussion of Islam: "Teachers, parents, elected leaders, and the media do a disservice to the republic by hop-skipping past the religious “why” behind 9/11," writes Todd Bensman in MEF.

"In supposedly protecting a new generation of Americans from knowing the why, they will fail to apply the time-tested wisdom that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

In the last 25 years, have we been lucky or good in avoiding another mass-casualty attack? We're currently fighting a war in Iran, where most Americans seem to have forgotten that our goal is to prevent the most destructive weapon in world history from falling into the hands of the most unbalanced, primitive, fanatical society in modern history. That's a worthy goal in and of itself.

It's too late to make a deal. They still have 400 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%, which is just a hop, skip, and a jump from the 90% enrichment necessary to build about eight bombs. Depending on the number and quality of centrifuges they have left, they could spin up that 60% uranium to 90% in anywhere from 10 days to three months.

The acquisition of power or territory doesn't motivate the Iranian clerical-fascists. What motivates them is a hatred so profound that they are willing to wipe an entire people off the face of the Earth. In a righteous world, the nations would be united to remove this regime before it could carry out its genocide. Instead, some nations see an advantage in allowing this nation to threaten Israel and the West, because anything that weakens the U.S. or Israel, they believe, strengthens them.

This is why another 9/11 is inevitable. We may have sophisticated tools to surveil threats and potential threats, but the mindset of the American people has reverted to 9/10. The media, the left, and even some on the right downplay the threat of terrorism, pointing to the threat to civil liberties and the unlikelihood of a serious attack. Others claim to fear that a president could use the expanded powers given to the government in the aftermath of 9/11 for nefarious purposes.

Well that's also why Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor, tragically enough. Because the population of New York was indoctrinated all these years by the very sources Moran speaks of. Now, as a result, even NYC could be more vulnerable than we think to another tragedy.

On a related note, Matt Margolis warns that leftist activists are working round the clock to erase all clear mention of 911 from history lessons in schools:

Here's the number that should make every American furious: only Arizona and Florida legally require public schools to teach about the September 11 attacks. Ten states have statutes that merely encourage some form of 9/11 instruction, according to an August University of Wisconsin study, and that can mean anything from a moment of silence to a full lesson. New York, where the towers actually fell, mandates only a moment of silence and a passing mention in Board of Regents standards. No statewide curriculum exists.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), who is pushing legislation to require 9/11 education in all 50 states, told the New York Post, "We made a promise to 'Never Forget', but today, only a handful of states require 9/11 to be taught in their schools."

But it gets worse. So much worse.

According to the North America Values Institute, an education watchdog group, leftist activists, some backed by George Soros, have produced 9/11 lesson plans now used in schools nationwide, including in New York City. One, "Teaching Beyond September 11th," spends exactly one paragraph on the actual attacks and never once calls the hijackers terrorists, instead building entire units around "Right-Wing Extremism" and "Islamophobia and the Oval Office." It describes Osama bin Laden only as a man the United States "accused" of masterminding the attacks, leaving out his own confessions and his declared jihad against a country he called the "worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind."

The curriculum was developed by the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education beginning in 2019 and is now recommended by education departments in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Zineb Riboua, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute, said this kind of material teaches kids "that America is responsible for the atrocities around the world to develop a moral framework that can be activated very quickly to get policies that reduce America's power and sovereignty." She said the tactic mirrors what the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps use to target young people. "Ayatollah Khamenei said the best audience to target is students," she added.

See also this item by Ben Domenech about women in the USA who're succumbing to dhimmitude. What the neo-communist education system and leftist press are doing is nothing short of repulsive, and it wouldn't be shocking if they were among the leading sources who're practically banning 911 Families and survivors from speaking at universities, schools and such. That's why one of the worst things about the tragedy - and also October 7, 2023 in Israel - is that neo-communism/socialism, in its own way, has led to far less freedom to discuss challenging issues.

Will Ofer Winter's new party damage the right-wing coalition?

That's what some are worried about:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday again warned that Ofer Winter’s new People of Israel party could cost the outgoing right-wing coalition essential seats if it runs alone in the upcoming election, urging Winter to meet with him and address the issue.

Netanyahu’s concerns came as he has so far been unsuccessful in his efforts to unite parties in his bloc ahead of a September 8 deadline to finalize slates before the October 27 election, risking votes backing him as prime minister being wasted if one or more of the smaller parties fail to cross the electoral threshold.

“I’m concerned that this party could do one of two things: either waste votes or cause one of the parties I mentioned to fall [below the electoral threshold],” the prime minister said during an appearance on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14.

Netanyahu asserted that Winter was drawing almost no support from voters backing rivals B’Yachad chair Naftali Bennett or Yisrael Beytenu chair Avigdor Lieberman and urged him to coordinate with the broader right-wing camp.

“I say to Winter: Let’s meet, let’s talk. Immediately. To prevent a situation in which a party like this brings down the bloc,” Netanyahu said, while also confirming reports that the two have already met to discuss the issue. According to those reports, Winter refused the premier’s request to coordinate.

Winter rejected Netanyahu’s comments, saying in a statement that his party is “part of the right-wing camp” but “doesn’t work for anyone — only for the people of Israel.”

I think it's a shame if Winter's not cooperating. What if he ends up causing the kind of damage a bad lot like Naftali Bennett did a number of years ago? I'd like to think his entry into politics is a welcome one, but if he's splitting the right, that's not a good omen, and he may end up being blamed for bringing down the government for the sake of a left-wing one, which we do not need even now.

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.

CBC tried to downplay 9-11, and desecrated the memory of victims

The CBC, one of the worst news outlets north of the border, has really dug a hole for their reputation by telling their staff not to refer to 9-11 as a terrorist attack:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sent a memo to its reporters and editors this week instructing them not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attack on America as a “terrorist attack.”

The memo, first reported by an astonished Warren Kinsella at the Toronto Sun, used boldface type to emphasize the directive to CBC employees.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said bluntly.

“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center was destroyed,” the memo continued, by way of explaining why the atrocity seen by most of the world as the textbook example of a “terrorist attack” should not be described as such.

According to Kinsella, the memo originated with Basem Boshra, the Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News. [...]

By the time Kelly got around to Canada’s National Post, she was engaging in Matrix-level reality distortions by claiming it was “wholly inaccurate to state our journalists have been urged to declare that this was not a terrorist act” – even though the memo said literally, exactly that, and in boldface type to boot. The CBC spokeswoman was effectively arguing there is a difference between refusing to call 9/11 a terrorist attack, and definitively stating that it was not one.

Kelly also tried to justify the memo by pointing out that CBC refused to call the October 7, 2023, atrocities perpetrated against Israel by Hamas “terrorism,” an argument that did not exactly provide the escalator ride out of the moral basement that she was hoping for. [...]

Outrage quickly boiled over on both sides of the border. Conservative MP Rachael Thomas pronounced the CBC memo “absolutely shameful,” and accused the outlet of “choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11.”

“Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day,” Thomas wrote on X.

“9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop. Trying to sanitize or rewrite that history is deeply offensive and does a disservice to everyone who was affected by the attacks,” she concluded.

“What possible motive could there be for sanitizing the worst terrorist attack on American soil?” asked the social media account for the U.S. House Republicans, perhaps insinuating that Canada’s public broadcaster was behaving badly due to the trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada – although, in CBC’s defense on that point, it has clearly been working on whitewashing terrorism for many years now.

What this horrific info makes clear is that, if a news source like CBC's not willing to refer to October 7 as a terrorist attack, then it's a foregone conclusion they don't consider September 11 one either, and that a news channel that's anti-Israel is more than fully willing to be anti-American. If that's what their staff believes is "justified", that's exactly why they don't deserve an audience at all. A most repulsive channel that only gives Canada a bad name.

Altalena ship has been recovered

The Altalena ship, which was fired upon by Palmach soldiers led by somebody who became a bad politician years later, has been tracked by scuba divers off the Israeli coast, and the news site sure does want to paint right-wingers badly, even as they admit something not all do:

Divers have located the Altalena, a cargo ship bringing arms to the Irgun militia during the 1948 War of Independence that was hit on the orders of then-prime minister David Ben-Gurion and sunk off Israel’s coast, two far-right ministers announced Monday.

The ship, still intact, was located at 12:30 a.m. at a depth of 503 meters (1,650 feet), some 20 kilometers (12 miles) off Israel’s coast “during a complex maritime search operation,” National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, of the Otzma Yehudit party, announced in a joint statement.

They credited “long months of meticulous planning and preparation” and “special sensors and advanced survey systems” for the find, saying more details were to be revealed at a press conference. [...]

Hagai Ronen, the agency’s director-general, said Monday that “The locating of the Altalena is an exciting historical moment, in which knowledge, technology and advanced mapping capabilities allow us to touch on a significant chapter in the history of the State of Israel.” [...]

The location of the Altalena was previously announced in December 2012, when it was said to be located a few miles off the coast of Rishon Lezion at a depth of 300 meters. At the time, the government said it was interested in raising it and installing it on dry land in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem as a monument.

The gun-running ship was initially brought to Israel by Menachem Begin’s right-wing Irgun militia during the country’s War of Independence in June 1948.

With the state and its military only a few weeks old, Ben-Gurion, who was at bitter odds with Begin, demanded that the ship and cargo be turned over to the newly formed IDF, sparking an armed confrontation.

As the ship reached the coast and then ran aground, a standoff ensued that ended in a shootout between Irgun members aboard and IDF and Palmach soldiers on the shore, who were ordered to destroy the vessel. The ship was set ablaze by artillery fire by the forces on the shore under the command of a young Yitzhak Rabin, later the IDF chief of General Staff and prime minister.

Sixteen Irgun members and three IDF soldiers died in the incident, and the ship’s cargo was lost.

The incident is widely perceived to have brought the nascent state to the brink of civil war. Begin, who ordered his forces not to fire back, would later say, “My greatest accomplishment was not retaliating and causing civil war.”

That's what Rabin did at the time, long before he led the country to serious disaster. All that aside, Ben-Gurion himself was being very petty at a time when unity was needed, but his communist side got the better of him. The whole incident was abominable, and something the Israeli left never genuinely apologized for, in all their obsessions with socialism and communism. It's reminiscent of how Canada's Pierre Trudeau had an accepting view of communism that, for all we know, may have precipitated the horror story that China is now.

Here's some more history of the Altalena, and how it was located, though it's unclear if the whole ship can be raised above water properly.

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.

Religious families of Golani brigade soldiers who disliked women singing at event should be ashamed of themselves

We recently had here another case of religious families and soldiers who cowardly follow the belief they shouldn't listen to women sing, effectively desecrating the memory of the biblical Miriam:

An end-of-training ceremony for Golani Brigade soldiers at Golani Junction sparked disappointment among some religious soldiers and their families after organizers announced that women's singing would be included as part of the event.

According to the father of one of the graduating soldiers, attendees were informed before the ceremony began that female vocal performances would accompany the program and that anyone who objected could step aside during those portions. Parents had arrived at the site as early as 5:00 a.m. to attend the ceremony following the soldiers' concluding march.

The father said that, in practice, a number of religious soldiers and their families repeatedly left the parade ground whenever female soldiers performed. However, he argued that the loudspeaker system surrounding the area meant they could still hear the singing, making the arrangement ineffective. Throughout the ceremony, officers addressed the graduates and praised their families, with musical performances alternating between speeches. "You could see mothers with headscarves and fathers wearing kippot walking aside again and again," he said.

According to the father, his own son joined the groups leaving during the performances, returning to formation after each song before departing again when the next performance began. "It was a disgrace," he said, adding that his son later told him, "Is this what we walked dozens of kilometers all night for, that they would spit in our faces?" The father said the experience left many feeling they were being singled out rather than accommodated.

After the ceremony, several parents reportedly tried to locate the unit's rabbi, who had attended similar events in the past, but were told he had already left. "We couldn't do much," the father said. "It's a military ceremony, and we respect the army and the event, but I don't understand how mutual that respect really is."

If they don't have the courage to listen to women sing, let alone dance, what are they fighting for exactly? And why does this article feel so biased in their favor? After October 7, 2023, that they would continue this shoddy embarrassment and corruption of Judaism is repulsive, and did they ever consider they're humiliating the lady singers? One sure thing, if I had a daughter who sang there and they tried to get her censored, I'd press police charges against said religious families and soldiers for making petty issues at a lady's expense. It's been argued in the past that modern generations aren't being taught to defend/respect a woman's honor and dignity. By refusing to appreciate a woman's ability to sing and dance for the right reasons, they're perpetuating such a problem. And again, they're disrespecting biblical Miriam as well.

Update: INN appears to have erased the article. Is it really that embarrassing for them that they gave such a report sans objectivity? This definitely is surprising now.

Socialism continues to have a terrible effect in New York, this time under Zohran Mamdani

3 Democrat candidates for Congress in NYC who were endorsed by their first Muslim mayor, Mamdani, won primaries, including at the expense of an incumbent who's reportedly pro-Israel:

Zohran Mamdani’s growing influence over the Democratic party was on show in New York City on Tuesday as three congressional candidates endorsed by New York’s democratic socialist mayor won closely watched primaries, while voters in Maryland, Utah and South Carolina cast ballots in primaries and runoffs.

Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller who also ran for mayor last year before endorsing Mamdani, won his race comfortably, defeating the Democratic representative Dan Goldman.

Another Mamdani ally, Claire Valdez, a state lawmaker and former union organizer, defeated Antonio Reynoso, the preferred successor of retiring Democratic Representative Nydia Velázquez in New York’s seventh district, encompassing parts of Brooklyn and Queens. And in a stunning upset, the public defense investigator Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Representative Adriano Espaillat, the powerful five-term incumbent who chairs the Congressional Hispanic caucus, in the state’s diverse 13th congressional district, which covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.

What makes this additionally disturbing is that Goldman was attacked in a social media post by Poetica Coffee, which is reportedly owned by Uzbek managers, for his pro-Israel positions. The DOJ opened an investigation into this incident, but sadly, the damage is done in more ways than one, given that Mamdani saw success with his repellent endorsements.

It would definitely seem much of NYC's residents are now revoltingly in favor of both socialism, and Islamism, if what Mamdani oversaw says anything. This is another terrible defeat for 911 Families, and also pro-Israel advocates.

Geert Wilders is right: when streets turn violent, we must reclaim them

Following riots in France that occurred after a sports match, Geert Wilders has written about the need to take back our streets for safety's sake:

Following a football match, rioters in Paris went on a rampage in the French capital, looting shops setting cars on fire, attacking, even firing at police officers. Videos and television footage showed that many rioters had an immigrant background. It is a scene Europeans have become all too familiar with – not just in France, but all over the continent.

In the past decades, Europe’s ruling elites have allowed millions of immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world to settle in our midst. Some of them hate their host country to the extent that they want to destroy it. They loot and vandalize, assault and rape, and even murder.

Leading politicians – such as Emmanuel Macron in France, Rob Jetten in my own Netherlands, Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels, and many others in their ivory towers – think that people do not notice what is going on. But they do notice, and they are deeply worried. They want the chaos to stop. They also realize the root cause of our societal break-down: Mass immigration by people who contribute absolutely nothing to our societies and reject our cultural values.

While our cities begin to resemble war zones, our governments continue their march of folly. In my country, the authorities want to force literally every municipality in the Netherlands to house a quota of asylum seekers. These fortune seekers, many of whom are young men, are being lodged in hotels, holiday resorts, former schools, former army barracks, even on cruise ships.

I have called on the Dutch people to resist – firmly, but always in a non-violent manner – the establishment of centres for asylum seekers in their neighbourhoods. I have recently begun a nation-wider resistance tour, visiting local communities where the authorities are planning new asylum centres.

The response has been overwhelming. The mainstream media do not report on the protests because the demonstrators are peaceful and law-abiding.

It is not our people who go rampaging in the streets, ravaging their neighbourhoods! We are not conquerors like the thugs in the streets of Paris; we defend our homes. We do not destroy our communities; we love them. We do not loot our neighbours; we protect them. We do not harass and attack our women; we stand up for them.

Well if Donald Trump can perform mass deportations of monsters from the USA, so can European governments, and that's something the public must dedicate itself to demanding now. Wilders is right that something must be done.

Why the NYT doesn't belong in Israel

Robert Besser makes a case for why the New York Times and its reporters have no business being in Israel:

Just because Israel is a democracy that believes in free speech does not mean that we Jews must commit suicide on the altar of the free press.

Rather, let Israel take actions to protect ourselves from the Jew-hating New York Times, including:

1) Stop New York Times reporters from working in Israel because the Times does not report truthfully about Israel.

2) Israel must not allow New York Times reporters to work in Israel because they apply a double standard in criticizing Israel that they do not apply to other countries.

3) Israel must bar the New York Times from working within Israel because they have an anti-Israel political agenda and do not provide their readers with unbiased or truthful reporting.

Of note, this issue goes far, far beyond Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times, who wrote unbelievably on May 11 that the Jews of Israel use dogs to rape Arabs.

Kristof’s column was labeled the “most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel," by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In writing such age-old antisemetic libels, Kristof was doing was what he is paid to do by the New York Times as one of their hired guns. As proof of this, senior editors allowed his May 11 blood libel against the Jews to be published. They did not fact check or question Kristof’s absurd obscenities…..because at the New York Times everyone is paid to believe such lies.

Kristof is one of the most desensitized-to-violence writers to be found in what passes for journalism today, and he could make a great example of a reporter who should no longer be welcome to enter Israel at all.

It's okay to defend a sane country from being corrupted

J.D. Vance sent an important message of support to the citizenry of Britain that applies also to countries like France, Italy, Spain, Denmark and even Israel:

U.S. Vice President JD Vance encouraged the British public protesting against the longstanding government policy of flooding the jobs market with mass migration to “just keep going” and remember “it’s OK” to want to live in a safe, culturally homogenous place.

The U.S. Vice President stood in for press secretary Karoline Leavitt at the White House press briefing room on Tuesday to cover her maternity leave, as reported by Breitbart News, and amid responses for a wide range of questions spoke out about the weekend’s Unite The Kingdom Rally.

The rally, convened by veteran street organiser and child rape gang critic Tommy Robinson, was called on Saturday 16th in defence of freedom of speech, civil liberties, and “our shared British identity, our history, our heritage, and the culture that connects England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland”.

Responding to a question that specifically highlighted protester’s concerns about “mass illegal migration and replacement of British culture”, Vance encouraged Britons who reject the modern paradigm of business-dominated government constantly pushing wages lower through human quantitative easing to keep fighting.

Read more. If there's something where Vance is doing the right thing, it's through messages like these, which should resonate in Israel and Europe alike too, and also Africa and Asia.

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.

2 failed premiers who precipitated October 7, 2023 join forces again

Daniel Greenfield addresses the reteaming of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, who both have some responsibilities to shoulder for bringing about October 7, 2023, which most local leftist press outlets won't clearly admit:

The Israeli Left, which controls the media, judiciary and the cultural opinion shapers in that country, obsessively hates Netanyahu, not because of anything the generally mild-mannered and moderate prime minister has actually done (limited market reforms, refusing to make completely excessive commitments when pursuing dead end negotiations with terrorists) but because he symbolizes their inability to take and retain power.

That’s something the Left did to itself by successively alienating every immigrant group, Holocaust survivors, Middle Eastern Jewish refugees, Russian Jews, with their arrogant abuses.

The Israeli Left is unable to win elections outright and Clinton and Epstein pal Ehud Barak remains the last remnant of a time when the Left could win an election (with a lot of help from Bill Clinton.)

Israelis (outside Tel Aviv and a few of the ritzy suburbs) hate the Left so much that it can only hope to win through a coalition of new fake ‘third way’ parties, along with the usual Muslim Brotherhood parties.

The fake ‘third way’ parties usually involve a retired celebrity general, in this case Yashar with Gadi Eisenkot, who stand for absolutely nothing except making the most of their 15 minutes, and some fake reformist third party promising to use ‘common sense’ to fix things which actually carrying out the left’s program.

In this case, it’s a comeback coalition for political losers Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett. Lapid was a vapid nepo baby celebrity TV show host and Bennett, formerly the post-Netanyahu hope on the right, sold out to careerism so badly that he previously allied with Lapid in an alternating prime ministership that turned over gas fields to Hezbollah and allowed Hamas terrorists disguised as ‘workers’ to roam Israel.

The duo get much of the actual credit for Oct 7 though the media would never dare suggest such a thing since Bennett and Lapid are the only real hope of the Left reclaiming power.

Bennett has shed his ‘right wing’ credentials and is now running as a Silicon Valley style technocrat.

Which was actually rather obvious for years now. Worst, what if the twosome actually do end up winning the election? If they do, it'll be awful.

Will ICE deport a Muslim monster in Rochester back to Afghanistan? They must

Daniel Greenfield wrote about the disturbing case of an Afghan "refugee" who tried to commit an honor murder in the late 2000s:

The trouble began when Allah and Mohammed (full name: Waheed Allah Mohammad) stabbed his sister. His sister was looking to move to New York City and was waiting on a ride. Allah decided that she wasn’t a good Muslim girl, got a knife from his car and started stabbing her.

Later, the Afghan refugee named after both of his religion’s holy figures explained to the local cops in Monroe County that his sister was a “bad Muslim girl” who had disgraced the family by wearing immodest clothes (potentially anything short of a burka) and going to clubs.

So what was an Afghan named Allah to do?

By then it was the second case in Monroe County (named after the fifth president, who’d never had to worry about Afghans stabbing their sisters near Lake Ontario) where refugee resettlement had taken its toll and Afghans were dumped in the county over the last twenty years. It’s gotten bad enough that the New York State’s Office of Mental Health has an ‘Afghan Refugee Health Program’, but can’t help a man who wants to stab his sister for Allah.

By then, Monroe County cops had been getting used to that sort of thing after Ismail Peltek, a Turkish Muslim, went after his wife and two daughters with a hammer and a knife because his brother had raped them. He beat his wife over the head with a hammer and stabbed her to death, he fractured the skulls of his wife and daughters, and even attacked his 4-year-old daughter because a doctor gave her a gynecological exam in case she had been molested.

“I was concerned that my family’s honor was taken,” Ismail explained to the cops.

“If you had the opportunity to kill the family again, would you?” he was asked.

“My female family, yes. My male family, no,” the Muslim immigrant explained.

Incapable of processing behavior that is entirely routine in the Muslim world, the authorities decided that Ismail must be crazy because surely no culture or religion could act this way.

A year before Allah went after his sister with a knife in the name of his family honor, the court allowed Ismail to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and be institutionalized until he is no longer a danger to any female family members or anyone else. No word on his whereabouts.

“Unless you have experienced my culture firsthand, you would have no way of comprehending why my brother did what he did,” Allah’s sister had explained to the court.

Allah got ten years, served eight of them, got out, opened a Halal place and now ICE wants him out. The media is however providing Allah with lots of sympathetic coverage.

“This criminal illegal alien tried to kill his own sister,” ICE Director Todd Lyons said. “We’re conducting targeted enforcement operations to arrest and remove convicted criminals like Mohammad who pose clear threats to their families, communities and states.”

If any legal defense systems are trying to block either criminal's deportation, that's abominable. Yet at this point, surely not unexpected in New York, seeing where they've been going lately.

I also noticed that a few months ago, when Mohammed was arrested by ICE, ABC News13 seemed to be trying to downplay the seriousness of the incident by making it sound like the sister literally forgave him:

A court transcript from 2009 showed Mohammad's sister addressed the court and forgave him prior to his sentencing.

Mohammad's sister said in court that she was not justifying what Mohammad did but said, "unless you gave experienced my culture first hand, you would have no way of comprehending why my brother did what he did."

She also said in court, "he did not take my life and I do not wish to take his away. I do not believe he will attempt to harm me or anyone else again."

Assuming this is what she said, it's regrettable she had to say anything that could provide him with a weapon to use against anyone opposed to his MO who feels he should be banished from the USA. I don't know what her position is on him now, and I hope she's safely out of his reach. But it's a shame whenever a survivor of such a heinous attack has to weaken the case against the perpetrator, and no matter what was told, this Mohammed must be deported from the USA back to Afghanistan, period.

And if the ABC affiliate fabricated any of the above, that's offensive in the extreme, and entirely disrespectful of the victims of honor murder assaults.

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.

Melissa Gilbert continue to damage her image by defending husband Timothy Busfield

Actress Melissa Gilbert is still vehemently refusing to admit it's possible her disgraced husband Timothy Busfield committed the acts of sexual abuse he's accused of committing:

Melissa Gilbert contends she is “neither naive nor … complicit” having married and deciding to stand by her fellow actor Timothy Busfield amid numerous allegations of sexual misconduct, saying she exclusively has “heard his side of the story” and that it is “the truth”.

“I know this man in my bones,” the former Little House on the Prairie cast member remarked in an interview on Monday’s edition of Good Morning America. “No one knows him better than I do.” [...]

Gilbert told Stephanopoulos that she “talked to [Busfield] about it” before the pair embarked on their relationship – and she was satisfied with what he had to say.

“I am neither naive, nor am I complicit,” she said. “I talked to him about it; I asked him questions about it; I heard his side of the story – which no one [else] has ever heard, which is the truth.”

Gilbert said she anticipated Busfield would eventually share “the truth of these past allegations when he needs to”, though that time “is not now”.

“I know literally everything about him,” Gilbert also said. “He is nothing if not completely honest with me.

“He is an honorable, caring, generous human being.”

Blah, blah, blah. The problem is that, as an actor, Busfield seems quite the well-trained expert in concealing his dark side up to a point, and Gilbert is too. It sounds more like she's looking for every convenient excuse to defend him, right down to how she acts like it's virtually impossible for a husband to lie to his wife. Phyllis Chesler had the following observation to make 2 years ago about cases like these:

Many feminist trauma-related researchers and clinicians have long noted that the mothers who are married to pedophiles, including biological fathers and stepfathers who pray on pre-adolescent girls, (or boys), invariably choose the predator over their own daughters; deny that such abuse ever happened; claim that the victims are lying; and if they concede sexual acts did occur, blame it on the child herself, who is portrayed as a seductive “homewrecker,” a Lolita, even if they are under 10 years old.

Such mothers also view themselves as the real victims; resent being forced to choose between a husband whom they love and/or between a husband’s much needed paycheck and the needs of a troublesome daughter. If anything, such mothers also tend to ostracize or even exile the reporting child if she insists on continuing to talk about it or if she demands that the mother protect her.

Many incest victims in therapy are far more wounded by their mother’s betrayal than they are by their father, stepfather, or older brother’s sexual abuse. They continue to suffer this maternal failure-to-protect even more than the sexual violence itself. In part, this is also due to our society’s holding mothers to much higher expectations and punishing them for failing even a little, not to mention a lot — as well as to our complicated discomfort about and fear of being re-victimized by police or judges when we dare accuse a male of intimate of sexual violence.

Gilbert sadly appears to fall into a similar category, and she's certainly proven the whole #MeToo movement was a failure in the long run. Interestingly, the UK Guardian article refers to her as an "actor" instead of "actress", apparently perpetuating a bizarre woke modern PC position that removes gendered differences in descriptions of men and women, even in showbiz performance. It may look insulting, yet when somebody like Gilbert takes the kind of repellent standings she is now, it's hard to feel sorry. Also note that, as is told here, when Gilbert was at police headquarters, she acted angry, in contrast to how she acted during the GMA interview.

Anyway, last month it was reported that the impending trial has cost the twosome much of their fortunes for paying legal bills:

Accused child molester Timothy Busfield is confident he'll be exonerated in court, but the finances of the former thirtysomething star – and Little House on the Prairie legend Melissa Gilbert – are taking a major hit as he fights to prove his innocence, RadarOnline.com can reveal.

The West Wing alum, 68, is reportedly worth $1million, while Gilbert, 61, is said to have $500,000 in assets.

Legal Nightmare Drains Actor’s Fortune

"This case has already cost him a fortune in legal fees. It'll run into many hundreds of thousands, and neither he nor Melissa are all that wealthy, at least not by Hollywood standards," an insider observed.

"He's already been canceled in the entertainment industry, regardless of the verdict, and they're looking at downsizing their home and retiring somewhere low-key and modest once this is eventually behind them."

Well boo hoo, go cry us an ocean. Harvey Weinstein's quite possibly lost even more, but in any event, those who commit offensive crimes have no business complaining about money, and don't deserve an ounce of it. It's also worth noting that, unlike Gilbert, when the news about Weinstein became public, the disgraced movie mogul's own wife left his side almost immediately. So why's Gilbert still making such an embarrassment of herself by contrast?

Over here, it's told that:

“I’ll let Larry get into the specifics of what happened with that part of the complaint,” Gilbert responded, turning to Busfield’s attorney, Larry Stein, who was interviewed alongside her.

“Tim did not give the boys gifts. Melissa gave them gifts,” Stein said. “Melissa gave them and every other child at a Christmas party a gift. Every child at the Christmas party. Not treating them special or different than anyone.”

And that proves beyond a reasonable doubt she wasn't involved in any kind of grooming tactic? Unfortunately, this does little to convince she knew nothing of what transpired in the past few years, or that she wasn't trying to employ a facade, and from what I noticed on the IMDB about The Cleaning Lady, it looked like he only directed 6 episodes of a series that had little more than 46 episodes produced, and it could be asked, did he have the veto power to fire them from employment if he wasn't the only director in charge? If she knew about the accusations against him before they married, how did that not raise any red flags, and didn't she realize that with such serious accusations and prior charges against him, it would be ill-advised to take actions that could be seen as trying to persuade children to confide in her abusive husband? Sorry, but her lawyer's "defense" does nothing to disprove any of this.

And in this article, the sob stories continue:

“What has this whole episode been like for you?” Stephanopoulos asks Gilbert, who replies, “Hell. This has been the most traumatizing experience of our lives.”

“Our life as we knew it is done,” she says. “We are grieving what we had — all of our plans, all of our dreams, all of our ideas, all of our projects. For Tim, it's done. He's canceled. Even if he's exonerated, he will always be that guy. [He’s] the last person in the world who would hurt a child. And believe me, if I thought for a second that Tim Busfield hurt a child, he'd have a lot more to worry about than prison.”

So Gilbert and Busfield are traumatized, but not his victims, huh? What was the whole point of that feud Gilbert was having with Megyn Kelly on Instagram if this is how she was going to abruptly change her positions when it came to her own third husband by contrast? On which note, she seems to have been married to Busfield longer than her 2 previous hubbies. Why? Is it because his ideological perspective is far more in sync with hers than the prior 2? I don't know, but one thing is clear. Gilbert may want to consider whether her own career is done, and come to think of it, it is, based on where she's going with Busfield. What's more, if he hopefully is convicted and incarcerated, then she'll be alone in the house for a while, and there's no use being sorry for her. She proved no better than countless other wives whose husbands turned out to be sex offenders yet refused to part ways with them, presumably because what money the abusive hubbies had was more important than justice and common sense.

Update: speaking of money, lest we forget, Gilbert recently launched a lifestyle brand called "Modern Prarie", and anybody who's a realist should boycott her brand, and not spend even a penny on it, lest it go to bankrolling Busfield's legal bills. To be sure, there's plenty of people already who're avoiding any association with whatever business Gilbert's running, so the needless brand she's running will hopefully have collapsed into the dust where it belongs.

Update 2: some more PR experts have commented on the case, and here's one who told OK! magazine (via Reality Tea) the following:

“There are several pitfalls that come with celebrities who go public defending their spouses when accused of crimes like child s-- abuse,” says Shari Botwin, LCSW and author of Stolen Childhoods: Thriving After Abuse. One is that “celebrities speaking up on behalf of their spouses reinforces the message that family loyalty takes precedence over the truth.”

Botwin warns that these kinds of statements can discourage survivors from coming forward and may lead to public backlash.

“Another problem with these types of statements is it often portrays the spouse as enabling or further colluding in the silence that comes with the aftermath of child s-- abuse,” she says.

“Melissa Gilbert is all over the place with her volatile reactions. Since [she] is a Hollywood celebrity as well, she makes news in her own right,” forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman points out.

“Even though she may be trying to protect him — and their children — her statements are not helpful to his case,” she says. “Emotion-laden defensive statements tend to make courts and the general public more suspicious that there is indeed something to hide.”

Botwin notes that “if her statement, for example, does not match the statement of her husband that could cause more questions and come up in cross-examination.”

The PR Tightrope

“A spouse’s response often shapes the media narrative more than the initial statement,” says Amore Philip, founder of Apples & Oranges Public Relations.

“A partner’s tone, timing, and wording can either stabilize the situation or escalate it,” Philip explains. “Downplaying allegations or appearing dismissive of potential victims can undermine credibility. Overly emotional or reactive responses may also generate distracting headlines.”

As Busfield’s case winds toward a scheduled May 2027 trial, Gilbert’s unwavering support may necessarily become more muted.

“Public figures often struggle to support a partner while protecting their own reputation,” Philip says. “Loyalty does not require public defense; it requires restraint.”

Unfortunately, that's not what Gilbert's been doing, and it's just too late for her to quiet down. As the following indicates, she's practically shunning anybody who dares take issue with her loyalty to the creep:

According to insiders, the “Little House on the Prairie” star has taken on significant financial and personal strain, helping to cover “astronomical” legal costs while putting “many of her career plans on hold” to be by her husband, Busfield’s side.

She is also said to be “cutting anyone in their world who questions her or dares to suggest that she might want to take a step back and allow Timothy to fight his own battle.”

“This goes beyond loyalty,” the source told a news outlet. “It’s like she’s totally brainwashed by the guy, and God forbid how she’ll react if he doesn’t get cleared of these charges.”

Well if she's going to act that nuts, and vehemently refuses to recognize that truth can be stranger than fiction, then she doesn't deserve any further audience for her resume. A real shame too, obviously, but Gilbert's made herself yet another example of an ignorant wife who won't come to terms with how a husband can do repulsive things behind her back. Hopefully, Busfield will be convicted and imprisoned. It just remains to be seen then if Gilbert will be willing to accept reality. And even then, she'll be doing so awfully late.

Federalist contributors continue their ambiguous view of how to conduct a war against evil entities

So now the Federalist writer/editor Hayden Daniel's the next contributor to the site to make an unclear argument on how the USA should conduct a war in areas like Iran and other parts of the middle east. He's no better than the aforementioned editor, mainly because he slurs Mark Levin as a "neocon", more on which anon. There may be, oddly enough, some valid points made about Ronald Reagan here, but the op-ed still falters badly:

But, for now, the economically vital Strait of Hormuz remains shut, and over the past few weeks, the U.S. has transferred thousands of ground troops to the region. Given the administration’s shifting goalposts and unclear messaging over the last few weeks, escalation is still not outside the realm of possibility. And any further escalation of the conflict would probably mean boots on the ground.

And that's unacceptable to Mr. Daniel, right? Seriously, why should we buy the notion he even wants to defend his own country's borders then? After all, rounding up violent illegal immigrants is tough too, and there are serious dangers involved. If we don't have the courage to defeat tyrants and demand they stop using Islam as an educational tool, then how will we be able to do anything about it back on home turf? Already, there's disturbing signs of some individual states selling out to the Religion of Peace, the aforementioned Utah included, and Daniel's not making any improvement when it comes to the troubles with dhimmitude.

But after decades of costly, ultimately futile wars in the same part of the globe, the prospect of another ground conflict in the region is deeply unpopular with most Americans. Such a move, if taken, would almost certainly tank President Donald Trump’s already wavering approval rating, sink Republican prospects for the midterms and even 2028, and mar his legacy with a long Middle East war he promised to avoid.

And that's solely Trump's fault, not that of the jihadists, huh? Mr. Daniel's just as appalling as his fellow editor John Daniel Davidson, and whatever merit the Federalist had when they first began about a dozen years ago has evaporated since. As for the issue of Levin, while there's obviously cause for disagreement, what Daniel says next is bizarre:

In light of that, our other options are to continue the air and naval war alone without a ground element, or, as some have suggested, to begin arming the Iranian people (or other groups like the Kurds and Azerbaijanis) so they can overthrow the regime themselves. Even if the U.S. stops its direct military actions against Iran in the coming weeks as Trump suggested, the administration could still arm and train Iranians to destabilize the regime from the inside.

Reagan admin veteran (as if he’d ever let you forget it) and neocon political commentator Mark Levin emphatically endorsed the latter option Tuesday.

Wow, this is the 2nd time somebody at the Federalist makes the claim Levin's a "neocon", even though his record shows he's anything but that, no matter his flaws. I just don't know what they expect to accomplish from such an all-too-easy putdown. That said, here's what they seemingly dissent with him about:

“ARM THE IRANIAN PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY!” he posted on X. “I’ve been calling for this for weeks on radio. One thing we can do, which Reagan did in Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua, is ARM THE PEOPLE in Iran so they are no longer butchered by these monsters without the ability to fight back! They will rise up as a real fighting force, but they need weapons! And it must be done IMMEDIATELY, especially if we are talking about ending our military operation in a few weeks!”

In 2015, the Pentagon set out to train up to 15,000 rebels to help take on ISIS and topple Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Five hundred million dollars later, we had only managed to train a few dozen men, and those who actually made it to the battlefield were quickly killed, captured, or fled. Some of them even surrendered their equipment over to terrorists in return for safe passage out of the country. A separate CIA effort to train rebels also met a dismal end and was thankfully cancelled by Trump in his first term.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis and Afghans we spent untold resources and man-hours on training to defend their own homelands cut and ran at the first sight of major combat against ISIS and the Taliban, respectively. Their cowardice left mountains of U.S.-provided equipment in the hands of terrorists, who subsequently distributed them to other militant groups.

In all this argument, it's missing a vital point: nobody tried to persuade the Afghans or Syrians to stop practicing Islam. If they don't have the courage to make the point, then why do they think these missions were a failure overall? Have they also forgotten their 2021 reports on how Dubya's administration did nothing at the time to stop sexual violence against children in Afghanistan? Let's be clear: if there's no courage in the press to confront bad ideologies in any shape or form, then no wonder even a government/military won't do anything about it in turn.

“But that was during the incompetent Bush 43 and Obama years. Reagan knew how to do it right!” Levin might respond. But, as it turns out, the exact three examples Levin cited also turned into fiascos for the United States.

The Reagan administration provided support to the anti-communist militant group UNITA against the communist MPLA during the Angolan Civil War. From the mid-80s to early-90s, the U.S. provided tens of millions of dollars in aid to UNITA, including state-of-the-art Stinger missiles, in an attempt to curtail Soviet and Cuban influence in Angola. This aid turned out to be for naught, as the MPLA eventually won the civil war. The MPLA, though it has shed some of its communist tenets, still rules Angola to this day. In recent years, Angola has cozied up to China, negotiating lucrative deals for its substantial oil and mineral reserves.

Levin, in an extremely puzzling move, cited Nicaragua as a positive example of the United States supporting rebels against a hostile regime. The Reagan administration helped fund the Contras, anti-communist guerrillas who opposed the Marxist Sandinista movement, which had just taken control of the government of Nicaragua. The catch came with how the U.S. was funding the Contras. In 1984, Congress had passed legislation cutting off aid to the Contras, but the Reagan administration was still determined to prop up the rebels.

So, the Reagan administration raised funds to funnel to the Contras by selling weapons to … Iran. The U.S. government sold tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons to the same Iranian regime we’re currently at war with and then used proceeds from those sales to fund rebel bands in Nicaragua.

The resulting Iran-Contra affair was a massive scandal during the Reagan era. And, much like in Angola, it didn’t change much. The Sandinistas negotiated peace with the Contras in 1990, and free elections saw the ousting of the Sandinistas from power. However, the party returned to power in 2006 and has ruled the country ever since.

While this is disturbing, and makes for a valid argument about why Levin's approaching this from a naive viewpoint that overlooks infuriarating details, including how the USA government naively made use of Islamofascists to fight against the USSR, Daniel still doesn't sound altruistic, and that's the problem, which continues here:

As we’ve seen, the strategy of arming the locals can be simply ineffective or can spiral into era-defining disaster. Providing guns and training to the Iranian people so that they can take on the regime themselves *might* work, but the best you’re going to get out of that is a long civil war and an uncertain future. But the potential second-and third-order consequences, especially involving a state with over 90 million people and access to the building blocks of a nuclear weapon, are too great to risk it.

If this is implying the USA military shouldn't track down and secure any nuclear materials still around, then what's the point of this article? Wars aren't won by leaving dangerous tools lying around that barbarians could one day make use of again if given even remotely the chance. Yet Daniel seems disinterested in demanding something be done to ensure they won't be given one. And if Daniel's not interested in finishing the job to prevent the enemies from having access to any kind of nuclear research, then his blabber is pointless. There are valid reasons to disagree with Levin about Nicuragua, but if Daniel doesn't think even the USA military should do the job itself, then he's perpetuated the same defeatist stealth tactics his fellow writers at the Federalist seem to be advocating now. Granted, they do make a point Reagan wasn't the genius some claim he was, but since they don't raise any alternatives that could be better, their argument still falls flat.

The Federalist staff aren't the only ones who're trying to damage morale. There's also podcaster Joe Rogan, and comedian Theo Von:

Podcasters Joe Rogan and Theo Von, who both hosted President Trump during the 2024 election, have strongly criticized military action in Iran.

[...] Both Rogan and Von seemed to reject the tactics made to “stop the terrorists.”

“Supposedly, they’re trying to stop the terrorists,” Rogan said.

“That’s crazy though if you’re the fucking terrorist,” Von laughed. “You know what I’m saying? Like, if you want to stop them, fucking stand in front of the fucking mirror. Just start there.”

The interview with Theo Von comes days after Rogan said “nobody thinks it’s a good idea” for the U.S. to engage in a military conflict in Iran.

Nobody needs somebody like Rogan to comment on the news, that's for sure. He wore out his welcome pretty fast, as did the Federalist as a news site. Von sounds just as bad. And these sites are all examples of how uncreative minds are ruining the right, assuming they really do represent it. If anything, they're just embarrassments to the cause, and it'd be best to avoid them. If commentators like these had been running the store during WW2, it never would've been won.

Update: now, Brianna Lyman offers an improved view of the rescue of 2 USAF officials from behind enemy lines, suggesting the site's editors realized they were making themselves look bad with their own shoddy stealth anti-war propaganda:

Americans can and will continue to debate the war in Iran. But what is not debatable is the competence on display of our military and its leaders during Saturday’s rescue mission. This rescue mission stands as a stark indictment of the generation of top brass who preceded it — the same admirals and generals who spent decades losing wars and abandoning Americans in times of need — all the while retaining their Washington, D.C. accolades.

[...] The successful rescue mission of America’s finest did not occur simply because the military rediscovered competence. It occurred because of decisive action by Hegseth and other leaders, proving failure has been a choice for decades.

Well isn't that how to win a war against tyranny? If Reagan had shown even a fraction of that competence, Iran wouldn't have reached the dangerous levels it did in over 40 years. Maybe now, somebody will start calling for more improved leadership, something Europe's going to need very badly now.

John Daniel Davidson seems to be continuing his efforts to damage morale, and even the Daily Caller

The Federalist editor John Daniel Davidson, who previously made defeatist arguements regarding the war against Islamofascism, which he termed "forever wars", looks like he's still keeping up a Tucker Carlson-influenced position, and hinting he's against ground operations, if that's what's needed to bring down the Islamofascists still in Iran. What he says was written in response to the crisis at the straits of Hormuz:

To open the strait, the administration is going to have to choose among a set of actions that are, for obvious reasons, unappealing and unpopular: all-out regime change, the deployment of U.S. ground forces to the Iranian coast (among other possible deployments inside Iran, like using U.S. Special Forces to secure nuclear sites and materials), and Persian Gulf convoys for the foreseeable future.

While much depends on how these things are done, they will likely be deeply unpopular — and not just with Trump’s critics on the left. Polls right now indicate broad support for the war among Republicans and the president’s MAGA base, but the minute U.S. troops set foot on Iranian soil we should expect that support to begin eroding.

So in other words, it's okay for Iran to cause chaos for anyone sailing through Hormuz, but ground troops bringing down the dictatorship is inherently wrong, huh? What a shoddy disgrace Davidson's being. Hey, of course it's bad if say, Europe's militaries aren't willing to take any of the needed steps to deal with this, but that doesn't mean the USA military shouldn't deal with the situation and do everything possible to put a stop to what Iran's doing there. Again, we seem to have here a situation where somebody refuses to recognize that freedom isn't free, and Davidson clearly doesn't want to help Reza Pahlavi in his own campaign to put a stop to the Iranian autocracy.

That’s why the Trump administration should begin a concerted and coordinated effort now to assuage Americans’ concerns about getting bogged down in Iran. If victory in Iran is going to require more than flying sorties over Iranian airspace and dropping bombs, then Trump and his officials should begin preparing the American people for that eventuality.

Indeed, support for any overseas military action often depends on managing Americans’ expectations. If the message is that the Iran war will be a walk in the park, or that it will be over by the end of the month, and it turns out that major, months-long operations (and possibly ground troops) are going to be required to secure the Strait of Hormuz or enact regime change, that will erode support for the war faster than anything.

Because Davidson wants it to. And that's shameful. I think this could be a case of wanting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm not convinced Davidson even cares about Europe's dire state, based on such fishy and otherwise shoddy coverage. If there's uranium in Iran that needs to be stopped, it's just all the more disturbing that somebody would oppose that, especially somebody claiming to be a conservative.

Since this subject came up, here's another article about the sad situation where a considerable number of Americans don't want to do any ground combat, and worse, may not want the USA military defeating Iran's ayatollah regime at all. although since this is the Daily Caller, the site co-founded by Tucker Carlson, perhaps what they're saying is skewed:

Recent polling shows weak support for the war among Americans. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released March 1, only 27% support strikes against Iran. Support among Republicans is at 55%, while it is 19% among independents and just 7% among Democrats — making it one of the most unpopular wars in decades.

“It’s unusual to have such a negative response when American troops are still fighting, and I think that has everything to do with the polarization we’re facing,” pollster Scott Rasmussen, founder of Rasmussen Reports, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Now, that the view about Iran is becoming more negative. Let’s be very clear about this. There is a lot of downside potential coming out of Iran that could really hurt the president, really hurt Republicans,” Rasmussen said.

What's strange is that in the following poll news, coming from Rasmussen's own company, however, contradicts what the Daily Caller's claiming:

Polling throughout the nearly three-week U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran has consistently shown near-unanimous backing for President Donald Trump’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury among the MAGA base and overwhelming support among Republicans, while a new Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday finds that a majority of likely voters overall say the operation has been succeeding.

The Rasmussen poll found that 61 percent of likely voters say the military operation against Iran has been successful so far, including 35 percent who describe it as “very successful.” [...]

Other polling has reinforced the same pattern across multiple surveys conducted since the operation began.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted in recent days found that 87 percent of MAGA supporters approve of Trump’s handling of Iran, while other surveys have placed support as high as 91 percent among MAGA-aligned voters.

This certainly is much different than what the Daily Caller's telling, and indeed, how is it possible Rasmussen himself would be quoted telling them such a downer? For all we know, they probably distorted his statements, and provided one more reason why anything coming from Daily Caller has to be taken with a grain of salt. I guess that's the Carlson influence in motion alright.

Davidson is not suited for his job with the bizarrely defeatist approach he's taking that doesn't recognize why it's inevitable when moral sacrifices need to be made among patriots to prevent much worse from occurring, and it's also shameful how he, along with the Daily Caller, are even belittling Reza Pahlavi's crowd and practically erasing them along the way. Apparently, more sensible people are invalid in their hypocritical viewpoint.