Pope Leo's tour of dhimmitude continues

The current Catholic pope, whom Donald Trump recently took issue with over his disturbing kowtowing to bad causes, is now disembarking on a journey to Algeria, where he'll be the first pope to visit the Muslim dominated country:

Leo XIV will become the first pope to visit Algeria on Monday, taking a message of dialogue with Islam on a trip that also represents a personal pilgrimage for the American pontiff.

Algeria is the first stop on an 11-day tour of four African nations, covering 18,000 kilometres and also taking in Cameroon, Angola and Equatorial Guinea from April 13 to 23.

No other pontiff has visited Algeria, a North African country where Islam is the state religion, and the 70-year-old’s arrival is being eagerly awaited by the Catholic minority.

The visit also holds a strong personal dimension for Pope Leo, as modern-day Algeria was home to Saint Augustine (354-430), a great Christian theologian whose spiritual legacy permeates his pontificate.

As the world watches anxiously with war raging in the Middle East, peaceful coexistence will be at the heart of the pope’s message in a country where 99 percent of its 47 million inhabitants are Muslim.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said the pope’s aim was to “address the Islamic world, but also to confront a common challenge of coexistence”.

Algeria’s constitution guarantees freedom of worship, although the authorities must approve both the place of worship and the preacher.

Yet human rights groups say the repression of religious minorities has continued in Algeria in recent years.

Don't count on Leo bringing up the persecution of Christians in the region, or even in Syria, for that matter. Islam doesn't recognize co-existence. It only recognizes erasure and replacement of all other cultures, though what's really horrific is the violent content of the koran.

Predictably, Leo responded to Trump's criticisms about how you could possibly expect:

Pope Leo XIV responded Monday to President Donald Trump criticising him over the U.S.-Israel war in Iran, telling reporters the Vatican works for peace and reconciliation based on the teachings of the Gospel, adding he fears neither the Trump administration or vigorous debate.

“To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is,” Leo told the Associated Press aboard the papal plane en route to Algeria where he is beginning an historic four-country Africa trip.

“And I’m sorry to hear that but I will continue on what I believe is the mission of the church in the world today.”

And that's "turning the other cheek" when it comes to a savage-run country building nuclear weapons, huh? Leo's doing nothing to turn the tide on the Religion of Peace, and John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist news site so far hasn't commented on where the pope's going, which only suggests said site's not really interested in getting rid of Islam as a "teaching tool".

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 42 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.

Negotiations with Lebanon

With the Iranian threat of missiles stopped for now, the Israeli government says it's going to negotiate a peace deal with Lebanon, which includes a demand to disarm the Hezbollah jihadist organization:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel will begin direct negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible,” aimed at disarming Hezbollah and advancing what he described as a “historic, sustainable peace agreement,” as tensions persist over the scope of the fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire.

The directive, issued following a cabinet decision, came after what Netanyahu described as repeated requests from the Lebanese government to open direct talks, with the negotiations set to focus on dismantling Hezbollah’s military capabilities and establishing peaceful relations between the neighboring states.

“The negotiations will focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon,” Netanyahu said, adding that Israel “appreciates” the Lebanese prime minister’s call to demilitarize Beirut.

Addressing residents of northern Israel after the announcement, Netanyahu stressed that the diplomatic track does not signal a halt in military operations, declaring that “there is no ceasefire in Lebanon” and that Israeli forces will continue striking Hezbollah “with full force” until security is restored.

Indeed, the Hezbollah's still been attacking Israel with their own missiles, and there's sadly no guarantee Iran will comply honestly with demands from the USA in the long run, so long as they're still under the thumb of Islamofascists. As far as Lebanon is concerned, an effort must be made to get the Islamofascists out of any rulership there, and make it safe for non-Muslims again. And there's no telling if any negotiations with the Lebanese government will bring positive results.

Iran seemingly folds, agrees to 2-week ceasefire

It appears that, after all the repugnant attacks Iran's dictators waged with missiles not only against Israel, but also against other neigboring gulf countries, now they've agreed to what's described as a cease-fire for 2 weeks:

President Donald Trump and the Islamic Republic of Iran both announced on Tuesday evening just before the U.S. president’s deadline for a deal that they have agreed to a two-week ceasefire while negotiators finalize a deal between the warring nations.

[...] Israel has also agreed to the ceasefire, per CNN, which quoted a White House official. “Israel is part of the two-week ceasefire President Donald Trump announced just an hour and a half before his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face escalated military attacks on civilian infrastructure, a senior White House official tells CNN,” CNN reported. “Israel has agreed to also suspend its bombing campaign while negotiations continue, the official said.”

What's most important here is whether Iran's agreed to surrender their uranium supplies:

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday morning the United States will work with Iran to remove enriched uranium from the destroyed sites bombed in Operation Midnight Hammer last June.

Trump detailed the plan in a Truth Social post on the heels of the two-week ceasefire announced Tuesday night.

“The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change!” he wrote.

“There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust,'” he added.

It would seem like there's been an achievement made in defeating Iran's Islamofascists. But the USA and Israel, along with anyone else validly concerned, have to prove they can also see to it that Iran stops forcing sharia law upon its populace, that women aren't forced to wear burkas and such. Similarly, if anybody wants to stop practicing Islam in Iran, then the tyrants cannot prevent them. And Reza Pahlavi should be allowed to return unharmed to his country and be able to arrange that a more civilized leadership be able to rise in place of the hopefully deposed ayatollah-run regime.

Also, Iran's tyrants must surrender whatever's left of their missile stockpiles and launchers. Those cannot be allowed to remain either.

USA military begins attacks on Kharg island, and deceased ayatollah's son is unable to operate

The USA military's begun some attacks on Iran's Kharg island, targeting mainly Iran's own military setups:

The US launched about 50 strikes on Kharg Island today (Tuesday), the Wall Street Journal reported.

The strikes on the island, which controls about 90% of Iran's oil exports, come as US President Donald Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran fails to abide by his 8 pm EST deadline to reach an agreement to end the conflict.

NBC News reported that the strikes targeted Kharg Island's military facilities, including military bunkers, storage facilities, and air defense systems.

It remains to be seen if the Iranian Islamofascist overlords will surrender, but chances are entirely possible they won't. And if not, they'll deserve to have their resources on the island destroyed after all the misogyny, antisemitism and racism they emphasized.

Next, according to recent reports, the now dead-as-a-doornail Ali Khameini's son, whom the mullahs in Iran tried to make the next ayatollah, is unable to function:

Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's new supreme leader, who was wounded in US-Israeli strikes that killed his father, Ali Khamenei, is reportedly incapacitated and receiving medical treatment in the holy city of Qom. Citing a diplomatic memo, The Times reported that the 56-year-old cleric was unconscious and being treated for a "severe" medical condition.

It's the first time the location of Iran's supreme leader is revealed. The central city of Qom is located 87 miles (around 140 kilometres) south of Tehran. The city is considered sacred in Shia Islam and is known as the religious capital of the Islamic republic.

"Mojtaba Khamenei is being treated in Qom in a severe condition, unable to be involved in any decision-making by the regime," the document, which is believed to be based on American and Israeli intelligence that was shared with Gulf allies, read.

Information on the Supreme leader's location was reportedly known to US and Israeli spy agencies for some time but has not previously been made public.

But what if the Islamofascists move him in an attempt to escape justice from the USA and Israeli militaries? Let's hope the USA and Israeli armies can track the monster down and punish him too.

Ukraine's president makes a horrific PR mistake by visiting Syria's autocrat

While Russia's war against Ukraine is abominable, so too is Syria's conduct under Ahmed al-Sharaa, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky made a serious mistake by paying the Islamofascist a visit:

President Volodymyr Zelensky visited Damascus, Syria, on Sunday, receiving a warm welcome from President Ahmed al-Sharaa and reportedly discussing cooperation on food and security exchanges.

Zelensky and Sharaa met once before, in New York, while both were attending the United Nations General Assembly in September. Both their countries have experienced significant aggression by both Iran and Russia – Ukraine is facing an ongoing Iran-backed Russian invasion, while Syria endured over a decade of civil war in which both Iran and Russia supported deposed dictator Bashar Assad. On the groundwork of these shared experiences, Sharaa and Zelensky appear to be pursuing closer collaboration.

This is an utter embarrassment, and truly disgusting. As though it weren't bad enough the Trump administration had to be lenient on al-Sharaa, now Zelensky's getting chummy with the monster, and at the UN, no less. This does not help Ukraine's situation at all.

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.