Are the Mullahs Worried About a Revolt After Attack on Israel?

Are the Mullahs Worried About a Revolt After Attack on Israel? 1

This post was originally published on this site

Are the Mullahs Worried About a Revolt After Attack on Israel? 2

If this report from Reuters is accurate, the mullahs of Tehran have every reason to worry. Not just because Iranians know that Israel will eventually respond to the missile attack, and not because they fear the Israelis. They are sick of the mullahs, and now worry that the IRGC has pulled them into a war that will make their lives even more miserable than usual:


“Economic pressure will mount, our safety will be jeopardized … We must avoid conflict at all cost. I don’t want a war. How can I protect my two children? Nowhere will be safe.”

Housewife Parvaneh fears an Israeli strike could be the final hammer blow to the economy, weakened by years of sanctions, mismanagement and corruption.

“We Iranians have endured more than enough for years. War brings only disaster. My husband is a factory worker. We do not have even enough money to buy staples let alone stockpiling them,” said the 37-year-old mother-of-two in the central city of Yazd.

And this is what they say on the record, when the IRGC police state and mullahs are watching. Imagine what they say more privately.

Overall, the mood in Iran resembles that of the immediate post-revolution period or the start of the 1980 war with Iraq, Reuters reports further. That is reflected in a sudden thirst for hard foreign currency, a key indicator of a crisis in confidence in a government, in which the rial descended into microscopic depths. The official governmental exchange rate for the Iranian rial is 42,060 to one US dollar, but panic trading for hard currency pushed it to over 700,000 per dollar, CNBC reported on Sunday, a record low for worthlessness.  

We do have a pretty good indication that the regime is worried about the mood of the country. Also Sunday, the IRGC declared a ban on any expression of support for Israel on social media platforms:

The intelligence unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement on Sunday warning against any pro-Israeli posts by Iranian social media users, state media reported.

Some Iranians, inside and outside the country, have voiced their support for Israel after Iran launched an overnight drone and missile attack in retaliation for Israel’s suspected bombing of its consulate in Syria’s capital on April 1. 


That doesn’t sound as though the regime has much confidence in the support from its subjects. Declarations such as these will likely make that situation worse, in fact, as are the sudden moves by Western nations to pull their personnel and families out of Iran. 

Will Israel strike to get the ball rolling — or simply wait to see how much longer the mullahs can keep the dissent bottled up? According to the Jerusalem Post, the unity government has decided on its response to the Iranian attack, but they’re going to let the mullahs stew for a while:

The IDF has decided how it will counter-strike Iran and its proxies but has not yet settled on the timing; multiple sources told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. …

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi hinted that the timing of the attack was not very imminent during a visit to the Arrow air defense battery of Battalion 136.

He said, “We are enabling a home front policy to at least give citizens this Passover week to live almost like normal because we completely trust you and your readiness.”

It is also possible that Halevi, Home Front command policies, and other officials keeping their regular schedules are part of a clever fake-out to get Iran and its proxies to lower their guard. But at least the plain reading of the relevant signals suggests that a major attack is not imminent in the coming days and could even be postponed for longer.

The IDF took out three Hezbollah commanders today in targeted strikes as its response to Hezbollah attacks over the weekend, but that’s separate from the response to Iran.


At this point, perhaps sanctions might be most effective. If the US and the EU put together a set of sanctions that can strangle Iran’s ability to get income from its oil, for instance, that may set off an already restive and unhappy populace. But that would require Western nations to show some courage and deal with China’s unhappiness over oil restrictions, and thus far few if any of Israel’s allies seem willing to go that far. 

The only real solution to the threats from Iran is regime change. After October 7 revealed the true nature of Iran’s proxy war against the West, we shouldn’t pursue any other policy goal in regard to Tehran. 

Grab Your Emotional Support Rabbit: Columbia’s President to Testify About Anti-Semitism on Campus

Grab Your Emotional Support Rabbit: Columbia's President to Testify About Anti-Semitism on Campus 3

This post was originally published on this site

Grab Your Emotional Support Rabbit: Columbia's President to Testify About Anti-Semitism on Campus 4

Columbia’s President will be on the congressional hot seat tomorrow, following the trail blazed by three other university presidents last year, two of who later lost their jobs. President Nemat Shafik has the advantage of at least knowing what she’s in for ahead of time


On Wednesday, Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, will testify about antisemitism before the same House committee that grilled the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When asked a question about whether calling for the genocide of Jews would break their universities’ rules, the presidents responded with lawyerly answers that sparked a spiraling backlash…

This hearing may be different, because Dr. Shafik and Columbia University already know many of the questions they will face and have had months to prepare.

If that’s the upside for Shafik the downside is that Columbia seems to be home to some of the most extreme undergrads in the country. Even after the presidents of Harvard and UPenn resigned, the campus activists at Columbia seem to have doubled down. Last month they held an unauthorized event on campus called “Resistance 101.” 

As I pointed out here, participants in the event praised Hamas fighters and praised the group’s willingness to collaborate with Marxist organizations supporting them. “There is nothing wrong with being a member of Hamas, being a leader of Hamas, being a fighter in Hamas,” one participant said.

President Shafik suspended four (some reports say five) students over that event, giving them 24 hours to vacate their dorms. But just a few days later the same group held another unauthorized event on campus at which some of those students complained about their treatment. The Washington Post reported on that event today.


…a phalanx of students suddenly appeared alongside the school’s administration building, marching in black with kaffiyehs covering their faces. Another masked group appeared on the other side, descending the stairs. Soon protesters were massed at the center of campus, holding signs with messages such as “GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA.”…

“We will honor all the martyrs!” a tightly masked speaker called out. Protesters spoke of the deadly bombing of a hospital in Gaza, and — using a phrase heard by some as a Palestinian rallying cry and by others as an outright call to annihilate Israel — chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!”

The fact that these masked students don’t seem to care about observing the rules on campus is made clear later on in the story.

While students routinely come together without incident, as at a spring music festival earlier this month, fault lines can be thrown suddenly into stark relief. At the recent protest, after speeches punctuated by protesters drumming, blowing horns and banging pots together, pro-Palestinian protesters abruptly began to march away from the school’s central Sundial directly past Jewish and Israeli students. Rosen said the move made him nervous; his mind flashed to the idea that they might form a sort of wall around them.

A few counterprotesters, waving an Israeli and an American flag, kept taunting the crowd. “Free, free Palestine,” a student chanted sardonically, “ — from Hamas!”

As the protest moved toward academic buildings, a university official handed papers to marchers warning that they were violating campus rules. Some fluttered to the ground as people refused to take them, or dropped them in disdain.


The pro-Palestinian students see the current crackdown, including the suspensions, as part of an attempt to shield President Shafik from congressional criticism. [Bonus points for the pro-Palestinian extremist having an emotional support rabbit.]

“It’s not a coincidence that this is happening right before Minouche Shafik has to appear before Congress,” said Aidan Parisi, 27, a suspended student from the School of Social Work. He is still fighting his eviction, which would mean finding housing that would accept his emotional support rabbit. “Unfortunately, she is willing to risk our housing, and overall well-being, for her career.”

You can’t make this stuff up. In any case, President Shafik really should do better than her predecessors, both because she’s had time to prepare and because she seems to genuinely be willing to tell the extremists to get bent on occasion. However, her critics have also had additional time to prepare and have demanded a bunch of material from the school about how it dealt with anti-Semitism on campus that could turn out to be embarrassing. The bottom line is that tomorrow’s testimony should be another sign to other administrators around the country that they need to remain vigilant and now allow the far left to run rampant.

Update: Here’s something Columbia’s president might be asked about tomorrow.


It Was All Propaganda: Bonobos MORE Aggressive Than Chimps

It Was All Propaganda: Bonobos MORE Aggressive Than Chimps 5

This post was originally published on this site

It Was All Propaganda: Bonobos MORE Aggressive Than Chimps 6

Peace activists and hippies have for decades used Bonobos–a chimp-like primate known to be peace and sex loving relatives to human beings–as potential models for a peaceful future society. 


Bonobos, we were told, were like the hippie ideal, all free love and stoner-friendly. 

Yeah, well, it was all bul**hit. Bonobos are even more aggressive than chimpanzees, a famously aggressive primate known for tossing its excrement at zoogoers. I don’t know if bonobos are into flinging poo, but they are over twice as likely to be aggressive than chimps. 

Chimpanzee societies are dominated by males that kill other males, raid the territory of neighboring troops and defend their own ground with border patrols. Male chimpanzees also attack females to coerce them into mating, and sometimes even kill infants. Among bonobos, in contrast, females are dominant. Males do not go on patrols, form alliances or kill other bonobos. And bonobos usually resolve their disputes with sex — lots of it.

Bonobos became famous for showing that nature didn’t always have to be red in tooth and claw. “Bonobos are an icon for peace and love, the world’s ‘hippie chimps,’” Sally Coxe, a conservationist, said in 2006.

But these sweeping claims were not based on much data. Because bonobos live in remote, swampy rainforests, it has been much more difficult to observe them in the wild than chimpanzees. More recent research has shown that bonobos live a more aggressive life than their reputation would suggest.


All this fits with the hippie myth if you think about it. You can talk all you want about peace and love, but conflicts are inevitable, and aggression, if undesirable, is unavoidable

The big difference between bonobos and chimpanzees, it turns out, is that chimps are more likely to cooperate than bonobos. Also, bonobo females are more likely to be aggressive than chimpanzees. 

Sounds like Generation Z to me

As expected, given that females commonly outrank males, we found that bonobos exhibited lower rates of male-female aggression and higher rates of female-male aggression than chimpanzees. Surprisingly, we found higher rates of male-male aggression among bonobos than chimpanzees even when limiting analyses to contact aggression. In both species, more aggressive males obtained higher mating success. Although our findings indicate that the frequency of male-male aggression does not parallel species difference in its intensity, they support the view that contrary to male chimpanzees, whose reproductive success depends on strong coalitions, male bonobos have more individualistic reproductive strategies.

Aggressive women and unhappy loner men who lash out. And Andrew Tate-types get the girls, apparently. 

It’s 21st-century Western culture all right, and it’s hardly the utopian future that the Left keeps promising us. Maybe that is why they keep on pointing to bonobos as the future of mankind. 


The researcher, Dr. Maud Mouginot, set out to study why bonobos were so peaceful. Harvard researchers had put forth a theory about females domesticating males by mating with the more peaceful. 

She found life didn’t live up to hype:

Dr. Mouginot soon became perplexed, as she saw that male bonobos acted aggressively on a regular basis. Unlike male chimpanzees, who started their days in a mellow mood, the male bonobos seemed to wake up ready for a fight.

“I thought, where is the peaceful bonobo?” Dr. Mouginot said.

She and her colleagues trained field assistants, who made more observations throughout the pandemic. The new analysis, based on 9,300 hours of observations on 12 male bonobos and 14 male chimpanzees, found that bonobos committed aggressive acts 2.8 times as frequently as than the chimpanzees did.

The myth of the bonobo mirrors the one that Margaret Mead created about Somoa, in which peaceful natives practiced free love and lived in harmony with nature. 

Of course, what was presented as sociology turned out to be complete fiction, but fiction that set the stage for the casual sex revolution that has plagued the West

Mead completely misrepresented Samoan sexual attitudes and practices both before and after Christianity. Rather than being a society built on promiscuity, the entire civilization was actually built on the veneration of virginity, a devotion that Christianity only intensified.

For Samoans, there were no women more esteemed than the ceremonial virgins (called taupous), whose virginity at the time of marriage was so important that Samoans had an elaborate pre-marital, public ritual to determine virginity.

Furthermore, as Freeman shows, this regard for virginity was not confined to the upper classes from which the taupous came, but permeated the entire society, down to the lower levels — the levels Mead claimed were sexually the freest. Casual sexual liaisons under the palm tree, rather than being smiled upon, were (when they actually did occur) “recognized by all concerned as shameful departures from the well-defined ideal of chastity.” Finally, contrary to Mead, marital exclusivity was taken with the utmost seriousness by the Samoans. Adultery was punished by beating, mutilation or even death.


It shouldn’t surprise us that the scientific frauds all point in one direction because reality does not correspond with the wishes that leftists project on reality. 

That was as true with Margaret Mead as with the myth of the hippie ape and with the claim that net zero is compatible with a modern functioning society. Time and again, the cultural elite creates a myth that seems appealing to others, pushing the idea that there are no trade-offs in life and that we can have peace, love and happiness with no work, no conflict, and no restrain on our appetites. 

Would that it were so, but it never will be. 

Poll: Few Americans Believe Trump Acted Illegally in ‘Hush Money’ Case

Poll: Few Americans Believe Trump Acted Illegally in 'Hush Money' Case 7

This post was originally published on this site

Poll: Few Americans Believe Trump Acted Illegally in 'Hush Money' Case 8

How good of a job have the Biden Department of Injustice and the Democrats been doing in selling their series of lawfare trials against Donald Trump to the public? According to the latest AP-NORC poll, not very good at all. And that’s particularly true of the current “hush money” trial unfolding in New York City. Respondents were asked if they believed that Trump “did something illegal” in the Stormy Daniels case as well as the three other criminal cases that are currently pending. Fewer than one-third of people responding said they felt Trump acted illegally in his dealings with Michael Cohen and the adult actress. Other questions followed and while it’s clear that the entire nation hasn’t suddenly fallen in love with the former president, to say that they are “skeptical” of these show trials would be putting it mildly. (Associated Press)


The first criminal trial facing former President Donald Trump is also the one in which Americans are least convinced he committed a crime, a new AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll finds.

Only about one-third of U.S. adults say Trump did something illegal in the hush money case for which jury selection began Monday, while close to half think he did something illegal in the other three criminal cases pending against him. And they’re fairly skeptical that Trump is getting a fair shake from the prosecutors in the case — or that the judge and jurors can be impartial in cases involving him.

Still, half of Americans would consider Trump unfit to serve as president if he is convicted of falsifying business documents to cover up hush money payments to a woman who said he had an affair with her.

It must have really pained the people at the Associated Press to have to publish these numbers. They, along with nearly every other legacy media news outlet have been breathlessly covering every moment of all of these dubious legal proceedings on a daily basis. They surely must have thought they finally had Trump in a trap and Joe Biden would be saved. But that clearly does not appear to be the case.

In addition to the low number of people who believe Trump acted criminally, only 30% said that they believe that the prosecutors who are going after Trump are treating him fairly. Even fewer (20%) believe that the judges and jurors involved in these trials “can be fair and impartial.” In other words, even the people who fall well outside of Trump’s orbit can see that he’s being railroaded and they are not comfortable with this.


The only good news coming out of the poll for the Trump-haters is that a significant number of them believe that a felony conviction on any of the charges could hurt his reelection chances. Almost half said that Trump would be considered “unfit to serve” if he’s convicted. That’s a rather jarring result when you compare it to the other responses. Most people doubt that he did anything illegal and they don’t believe that the juries he will face will behave in a fair and impartial fashion. But if those same jurors find him guilty anyway, these people are willing to declare him “unfit” as a result? There’s some sort of disconnect being observed here.

Of course, the good news in all of this for Donald Trump should be equally obvious. Even if a significant number of people view him as “unfit” if he is hit with a guilty verdict, he is currently running against someone who is obviously far less fit to serve. If some of the votes Trump winds up receiving are from the “lesser of two evils” crowd, he will accept those votes all the same. In the end, that’s all that really counts.

In the meantime, despite what these poll numbers suggest, none of this lawfare appears to be eating into Trump’s overall numbers. As of this weekend, Trump is still leading Biden in a head-to-head matchup, if only barely. When you add in RFK Jr. and the other wannabes, Trump does even better. On a state-by-state basis, Trump remains well ahead of Biden in places like Florida and Texas while maintaining varying leads in nearly all of the swing states. That could all change by next month, of course, but at least for the moment, the nation does not appear to be buying what the Democrats are selling when it comes to Donald Trump.


Katie Couric to Bill Maher: Trump Support Comes From ‘Anti-Intellectualism’ and Class Resentment

Katie Couric to Bill Maher: Trump Support Comes From 'Anti-Intellectualism' and Class Resentment 9

This post was originally published on this site

Katie Couric to Bill Maher: Trump Support Comes From 'Anti-Intellectualism' and Class Resentment 10

Once upon a time, Katie Couric was a well-known morning show host. She became a celebrity and made a lot of money doing interviews and giving her opinions freely to the viewers. 


Couric is long gone from that show. Now she does podcasts. She spoke with Bill Maher on the Sunday edition of his podcast, Club Random. One topic was the polarization in society and the motivations of Trump supporters. 

Katie fancies herself as an intellectual and so she spewed forth on how it is that Trump supporters show “anti-intellectualism” and harbor class resentment. You might say that Couric had a deplorables moment or two. 

Katie Couric doesn’t understand Trump supporters because she has never bothered to try. She lives in a liberal elite bubble and none of her fellow bubble-dwellers have anything good to say about Trump. They all thought he was ok before he ran for president in 2015. His wildly successful television show, The Apprentice, and then Celebrity Apprentice, were top dollar-makers for her former network. 

Couric argued that the wealth gap in America was wider than ever before and had spurred class resentment in the culture. She argued this was driving the MAGA movement.

“The socioeconomic disparities are a lot and class resentment is a lot and anti-intellectualism and elitism is what is driving many of these anti-establishment — which are Trump voters — so, I think that is a huge problem that we have to address,” Couric said.

She went on to double down on her argument that class resentment and jealousy drove voters to support Trump.

“I mean globalization and the transition from an industrial to a technological society — I don’t know if you’ve ever been jealous of someone else or resentful — it is such a corroding and bitter, almost bile feeling,” she told Maher

“I think that when people who are really struggling see people who have everything, and are on top of that, looking down on them, it is just a recipe for such anger and resentment and grievance,” she continued.


I wonder if she has ever seen a Trump rally and observed the people who attend them. Those are not people filled with anger and resentment. They are happy people who are eager to vote for Trump again. They want the peace and prosperity his policies brought to them. To everyone. Couric may relish looking down her nose at Trump supporters but I imagine she appreciated the booming economy during his term in office as much as anyone else. 

Democrats think Trump supporters are their intellectual inferiors. Trump supporters are no different than any other voter groups, though. There are intellectuals and those who are not intellectuals in both parties. It’s projection on the part of people like Couric to point a finger at Trump voters and blame their support for him on ignorance. I don’t recall Couric blaming the Cult of Obama on ignorance and to a lesser extent, the same is true with Bill Clinton. 

If Couric was intellectually honest, she would marvel at the fact that the Democrat Party is now the party to millionaires and billionaires while the Republican Party is largely comprised of working-class people. That is the real story in politics since 2015. Trump captured the imagination of disaffected voters who no longer sit at home. They get out and vote for Trump to go to Washington and shake things up. He resonates with them. 

Has Joe Biden reached out to MAGA World? No. He’s courting Nikki Haley voters. Biden caused discomfort in everyday voters’ lives. Sixty percent of voters say they live paycheck to paycheck. Retired Americans are going back to work because they can’t afford to pay their bills. First-time home buyers can’t afford a home and renters are struggling to pay rent. The world is on fire. A war in Ukraine and in Gaza started during Biden’s watch. The southern border is wide open, with about 9 million illegal aliens who have entered the United States during Biden’s term in office. 


Biden’s America is a mess. We are living in a bizarre upside-down world. Biden promised a return to normal but that was a lie, too. Now there are daily protests in the streets with demonstrators chanting “Death to America, Death to Israel.” This was unimaginable four years ago. 

Trump projects the air of an alpha male. Biden is a weak old man suffering from dementia. That’s the truth. America deserves better than Joe Biden. 

Sydney Police Say Knife Attack Inside Church Was Terrorism

Sydney Police Say Knife Attack Inside Church Was Terrorism 11

This post was originally published on this site

Sydney Police Say Knife Attack Inside Church Was Terrorism 12

The city of Sydney has had more than its share of knife violence in the past week. Last week there was a stabbing at a mall carried out by a man with mental health problems. However, the NY Post reported yesterday that attacker Joel Cauchi may have planned the attack in advance.


Mass murderer Joel Cauchi Googled knives and “how to kill” before he stabbed six people to death at Bondi Westfield on Saturday.

Cauchi, a paranoid schizophrenic, had a “fixation with killing” and a “fixation with knives” police reportedly told A Current Affair crime editor Simon Bouda.

“Initially, everyone thought this was a man suffering from schizophrenia whose mind has snapped, words in his head,” Bouda explained on Monday night’s ACA.

“I have learned today that the investigators have been able to download data from his phone, which has indicated that he had a fixation with killings.

Yesterday there was another knife attack inside a church and today authorities have said this attack was terrorism.

Australian police have declared Monday’s stabbing at a Sydney church a religiously motivated “terrorist act”.

A 16-year-old boy was arrested after a bishop, a priest and churchgoers were attacked during mass at the Assyrian Christ The Good Shepherd Church.

At least four people suffered “non-life-threatening” injuries, police say. The attacker was also hurt…

Australian police define terror offences as being ideologically motivated. Investigations are still under way, but they say they are satisfied this is a case of religious extremism.

So they haven’t revealed the religion of the 16-year-old attacker but there is at least one eyewitness who says the teen was saying “Allahu Akbar” during the attack. (This clip contains video of the attack.)


Why target this church? Apparently the bishop there is pretty outspoken about his views on Islam.

Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel is a prominent conservative leader of the Assyrian Orthodox Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley in Western Sydney.

The 53-year-old sustained lacerations to his head after being lunged at during a mass service at the church that was being broadcast online, with the NSW police commissioner saying he underwent surgery and was “lucky to be alive”…

He has also given sermons criticising non-Christian religions, including Judaism and Islam.

In another he said that “Islam flourished and expanded with the sword”.

Here’s a longer video showing the attacker being held down by police inside the church. He reportedly says (in Arabic), “If they didn’t insult my prophet I wouldn’t have come here.”


Because the stabbing was captured on the church’s livestream, hundreds of people came from the nearby community and surrounded the church where the assailant was still being held inside.

Police kept the crowd out but a couple of officers were injured, including one who was hit in the face with a brick. A bunch of police cars were also vandalized in what basically became a riot.

There are reports that the attackers fingers were all cut off by the crowd inside the church:

Police have not commented on reports that the boy’s fingers were severed by parishioners in the Orthodox Assyrian church in suburban Wakeley, but confirmed his hand injuries were “severe.”

Video of the attack spread quickly on social media and an angry mob converged on the church demanding vengeance. They hurled bricks, bottles and fence boards at police, who temporarily barricaded the boy inside the church for his own safety. Many in the crowd chanted “an eye for an eye” and “bring him out.”..

The church said in a statement on Tuesday it “denounced retaliation of any kind.” Police stood guard around mosques in parts of Sydney on Tuesday after reports that text messages were circulating urging the Assyrian Christian community to retaliate against Muslims.


Finally, here’s a video I found of the bishop criticizing Islam. This is apparently the kind of thing that inspired this act of terror.

‘Rust’ Armorer Sobs As Max Sentence Handed Down

'Rust' Armorer Sobs As Max Sentence Handed Down 13

This post was originally published on this site

'Rust' Armorer Sobs As Max Sentence Handed Down 14

Yesterday, we learned which direction the courts seem to be leaning in handling the shooting death of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Alec Baldwin’s movie “Rust” in 2021. Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was previously found guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a result of the shooting and on Monday, New Mexico District Court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer gave Gutierrez-Reed the maximum sentence of 18 months behind bars. The day was reportedly filled with highly emotional testimony and the armorer openly wept throughout the proceedings before being led away to begin serving her sentence. Now the focus shifts to the upcoming trial of Alec Baldwin, the person who actually fired the fatal shot. (NY Post)


“Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed sobbed throughout her court hearing as she was sentenced to 18 months, the maximum possible sentence, on Monday for her involvement in the accidental shooting death of Halyna Hutchins by Alec Baldwin in 2021.

Gutierrez-Reed, 26, was led into court shackled at the wrist and wearing khaki jail scrubs with a white longsleeve T-shirt.

Her sentence was handed down by New Mexico District Court Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer after the rookie armorer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter last month.

You can’t blame all of the people involved for being highly emotional throughout these proceedings. Hutchins died a pointless death that never should have happened. Since the original event took place, I’ve gone back and forth on the question of culpability in what was clearly an accidental killing. But in the end, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was the armorer on the set and it was ultimately her responsibility to ensure that a tragedy like that could not happen. Many errors were clearly made on that movie set over the course of the project, but someone has to be held accountable and that was the job that she signed on for.

There’s no indication yet as to whether Gutierrez-Reed plans to appeal, but there is still plenty of legal work to be done. What of Alec Baldwin? He has yet to spend a single full day in jail and he is the one who fired the shot. He has consistently maintained that he bears no responsibility and even tried to claim that he never even pulled the trigger. Yet both of those claims seem to fly in the face of reality. 


Baldwin may not have committed murder, but he violated nearly every established rule of firearms handling on that set. Taking someone else’s word at face value that a firearm is “cold” simply isn’t good enough. When handed a firearm that was in someone else’s possession, you are supposed to inspect it yourself. Baldwin has been in that business for a long time and has had to handle many guns. He should have been able to recognize the difference between a live round and a dummy load, but it sounds like he never even looked. 

Further, the standard rules inform us that you never point a firearm at anything you don’t intend to shoot. Perhaps that’s unavoidable on a movie set, but even if you are forced to do so you certainly don’t pull the trigger. Baldwin continues to insist he didn’t do that, but experts have examined that revolver from top to bottom and concluded that it would have been incapable of firing the lethal round without the trigger being pulled. That, in itself, is not a violation of the law, but it resulted in the death of another human being. The courts have clearly concluded that the event constituted manslaughter, whether any of us agree with that conclusion or not. In that context, how could Gutierrez-Reed be guilty of manslaughter and not Alec Baldwin?

In the ultimate act of gall, Baldwin actually went back to the set last year and finished filming the movie. If there is any justice left in this world, people should refuse to go see the film. It’s an insult to the memory of Halyna Hutchins and the crew of Baldwin’s film studio should be held up as a negative role model when it comes to firearms safety in Hollywood. In 2024 there is really no reason for anyone to need a functional firearm or any live ammunition on a movie set. Everything can be reproduced using highly realistic props and Artificial Intelligence. There is simply no excuse for any more accidental shootings on film sets.


Trump Nostalgia Is Real and It’s Spectacular

Trump Nostalgia Is Real and It's Spectacular 15

This post was originally published on this site

Trump Nostalgia Is Real and It's Spectacular 16

Voters are looking back at the Trump administration and that’s not good for President Biden. Trump nostalgia is real. 

Former President Trump’s numbers on key issues with voters have risen 6 percentage points since 2020. A new New York Times/Siena College poll shows that a plurality of voters, 42 percent, now say that the Trump years were “mostly good.” Trump may have been unpopular with half the country when he left office, in light of his denial of the election results and the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, but he has bounced back. Only a quarter of poll respondents say the same of Biden’s time in the White House. 


Joe Biden calls Trump nostalgia “amazing.” I’m sure he thinks it is. Imagine how real it must be for the New York Times to report on it. Internal poll numbers at Biden’s campaign headquarters must be pretty scary for the old man. 

Biden has spent three-plus years trashing Donald Trump (and his supporters) at every opportunity. Biden ran on being a unifier and someone who could work with everyone. That man never existed but Democrats thought it sounded good at campaign rallies. It must be amazing to realize that voters are not falling for his malarkey.

In Biden’s America, who are you going to believe – your lying eyes or Biden’s campaign propaganda? Look at this tweet and how Jazz appropriately responded:

They must be mocked. It won’t stop them because the truth is not on Biden’s side but it does make them defend their absurd claims.

Except for the example of Richard Nixon, former presidents usually experience a rise in poll numbers as time passes once they leave office. People tend to forget the bad things and remember positive memories. Plus, the fact is that this election is a unicorn. A former president is running against the current president. Trump has a record in office.


Voter nostalgia is working in Trump’s favor so far. The top issues for voters are the economy, illegal immigration, and law and order. Trump wins all those categories over Biden. Americans know what they were paying for groceries and gas when Trump left office. Even with the pandemic and its hit on the economy and jobs, the economy was slowly beginning a recovery when Biden took office. Instead of staying the course and continuing the recovery with his policies, Biden blew it up. He refused to do anything as Trump did and that attitude has backfired to the detriment of ordinary Americans. 

Biden is a chronic liar. He tells lies that are easily disproved. For example, he claims that inflation is lower now than when he took office. When he took office, inflation was 1.6%. The current Annual Inflation for the 12 months ending March 2024 is 3.48%. Sure, that’s down from the historical high of 9.06% that Biden’s policies created, but Biden’s claim is a lie. Biden is boasting about correcting his own disastrous mistakes. 

Gallup began asking Americans what they thought of past presidents decades ago. The pattern has been that voters think more favorably of past presidents than when they were in office. 

One explanation is political. As presidents leave office, partisan attacks recede. Some presidents, like Jimmy Carter, become well known for philanthropy or other good works. “You kind of move, as an ex-president, from being a political figure to someone who is above the fray,” Jeff Jones, a Gallup senior editor, told me.

Another explanation is historical. As years pass, popular culture and collective memory come to shape Americans’ views of presidents — especially for those too young to remember the actual events. History textbooks, for instance, tend to focus more “on the good things they did than the bad things, the historical contributions that they made as president rather than scandals or poor decisions or poor policies,” Jones said.

There are psychological explanations, too. Human memory is fallible. People often experience their current problems more acutely than they recall their past ones or think better of experiences in retrospect, which psychologists call recency bias. That can lead to a perpetual yearning for the supposed good old days.


All of that tracks, if you ask me. Voters remember the Trump years. They don’t like the inflation, record border crossings, and overseas wars during the Biden years. Voters want to go back to peace and prosperity. 

Biden put his faith in false narratives about the Trump years. He has engaged in lawfare against Trump, something that has never been seen before in a presidential campaign. Biden expects Trump to be convicted of something and be put in jail before the election. I don’t think he will get his wish.

Some voters indicate they may not support Trump if he is convicted of a felony before the November election. Will it be enough to derail his potential victory? That is something that remains to be seen. 

In the meantime, enjoy the Trump nostalgia. It’s spectacular. 

As we pop the popcorn and enjoy the panic that has set in with Democrats over Dementia Joe’s chances of re-election, let’s continue the fight against this hideous administration together. Please go to our VIP program page and consider a plan that will work for you. We need your support to continue what we do here, which is to get up every day and go to battle to save our country. We need all hands on deck. Please join us. Thank you.

More of Katherine Maher’s Far-Left Tweets

More of Katherine Maher's Far-Left Tweets 17

This post was originally published on this site

More of Katherine Maher's Far-Left Tweets 18

Ed mentioned this earlier today. Christopher Rufo has been digging up some of Katherine Maher’s old tweets and word of that is now getting some attention including at NPR. But NPR doesn’t include any of the tweets it merely describes two of them.


Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is among those now targeting NPR’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, for messages she posted to social media years before joining the network. Among others, those posts include a 2020 tweet that called Trump racist and another that appeared to minimize rioting during social justice protests that year.

For those that follow the link, they can see at least one of the tweets in question, but even that one has been downplayed by NPR. She didn’t just call Trump racist, she called him a “deranged racist sociopath.”

Similarly, the NY Times has a story up which only mentions a couple of tweets Rufo has turned up.

“Also, Donald Trump is a racist,” read one of Ms. Maher’s posts in 2018, which has since been deleted. Another post, from November 2020, shows Ms. Maher wearing a hat with the logo for the Biden presidential campaign.

Neither one of these tweets would be considered very daring by most Democrats these days, which is probably why they were selected. But there are lot more tweets that deserve some air time because they help pin Maher down as a person who is not just left but far left on every issue. Consider a few examples that won’t make it into the NY Times. Here she is tweeting about her “cis white mobility privilege.”


This one seems pretty relevant. How can we make our organization anti-racist if anti-racism isn’t the point of the organization?

Her idea of balance was to eliminate anything deemed “discriminatory content” which you can probably guess would not leave much room for criticism of whatever the left is saying at any given moment.

The idea that she could possibly run NPR with anything approaching a moderate take on the news is ridiculous. She’s not even aiming for that. Of course she was terribly upset by Tom Cotton’s op-ed back in 2020. The NY Times should never have published it, she said.

Meanwhile, her thoughts on white silence from the summer of 2020:


More thoughts on whiteness.

Of course she supports reparations.

It’s pretty clear where all of the world’s problems are coming from in Maher’s view. Substitute any other race and we would call this blatant racism.

White supremacy…It’s the real issue:

It’s the reason she hates Silicon Valley:


And on and on it goes.

A few more from Christopher Rufo:

And of course she’s against the gender binary.

She decided not to have kids because of climate change.

She has repeated every leftist trope of the last five years.

Here’s the one on “transit justice.”


Anyway, I wanted to drag all of these into a thread because they collectively created a very different impression than the couple of mild tweets that NPR and the Times chose to highlight. This isn’t just someone who is left-of-center, this is someone who is a hard left ideologue. She’s clearly someone who has no intention of running any organization with anything approaching fairness. It’s amazing that her outspoken partisanship was seen at a plus at NPR with no sense at all that maybe a publicly funded outlet should make an effort to represent more than a small sliver of the country.

Totalitarian: Brussels Mayor Shuts Down Conference Because it is Conservative

Totalitarian: Brussels Mayor Shuts Down Conference Because it is Conservative 19

This post was originally published on this site

Brussels, the home of the European Union Parliament, is trying to shut down Nigel Farage’s National Conservatism conference. As I write this the police are blockading the event on the orders of the Mayor. 


The reason? Wrongthink. 

No, I am not joking. Here is a key part of the Mayor’s order to shut down the conference:

Totalitarian: Brussels Mayor Shuts Down Conference Because it is Conservative 20

This conference isn’t some group of Nazis agitating for revolution; it is filled with current and former members of the European Parliament, politicians, intellectuals, and ordinary people sitting down quietly as they discuss the future of Europe. 

But according to the mayor, they are “ethically conservative” and should, therefore, be shut down from speaking. Somebody might get offended, or worse: they might agree! We can’t have that!

On Tuesday police officers in the Belgian capital attempted to shut down the National Conservatism conference while Nigel Farage was on stage.

Officers entered the venue to serve a court order demanding the event cease on the grounds it endangered public safety.

The police document, seen by The Telegraph, suggested speeches by speakers including Mr Farage and Mrs Braverman could lead to public disorder or display racist and homophobic views.


Farage was a member of the European Parliament himself, and Suella Braverman was a member of the UK Parliament, the former home secretary, and likely future leader of the Tory Party. 

They must be shut up!

AS of this writing the conference is still proceeding–violating the Mayor’s order–but the venue is blockaded from the outside. Nobody can enter, and if you leave, you may not return. Members of the EU Parliament–which is just down the street–are being prevented from attending. 

Police agreed to let the conference continue while the event organisers mounted a court challenge against the order but have prevented anyone from entering the venue.

Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, conference organisers claimed food and water was being blocked.

They said: “The police are not letting anyone in. People can leave, but they cannot return. Delegates have limited access to food and water, which are being prevented from delivery.”

Mr Farage said there was “no public order threat” at the conference. He said the attempt to shut it down was “monstrous” and it further convinced him that leaving the European Union was the right move for the UK.


This is what “defending democracy” looks like in the 21st century. It means, literally, sending the police or the FBI to harass or even shut down people in order to ensure that only the “right” opinions can be expressed. 

To give you an idea of what the right opinions are, note that the same Mayor who shut down this conference sponsored the mayor of Tehran on a visit to Brussels. Islamists are welcome, but conservatives are not. 

The police blockade of the event followed a campaign to prevent the conference from meeting at all. This was the third venue that agreed to host the event, but the first two canceled under pressure from the Mayor and activist groups. 

Nigel Farage is secretly gleeful because, well, his opponents are making his point for him. If there ever was any doubt that the West is drifting toward totalitarianism, that doubt has been put to rest

Nigel Farage has never looked more satisfied. Europe’s hard right was handed a gift today when the police tried to shut down the National Conservatism conference in Brussels. Farage was speaking as the police arrived to deliver a public order notice which said they had 15 minutes to shut down the conference. 

The order came from the local Socialist Party mayor Emir Kir who tweeted that the “far-right is not welcome” and explained that he banned the conference to ensure “public safety”. The police said one reason for the order were reports that counter-protesters were planning on attending the venue. There was no public disorder within the venue itself. Organisers have said that they are challenging the order in the courts. 

Nonetheless, a small group of police entered the building after being invited in by organisers who wanted to take them through to the green room. But the officers decided to leave after walking through the venue’s lobby. One police officer said he did not want to cause a scene – perhaps sensing that it was best to avoid the image of them entering a peaceful political gathering.


Of course, proving your case hardly means that the battle is won. No doubt liberals will defend the mayor’s actions as a necessary tactic to shut down the Nazi brownshirt free speech activists who still believe in human freedom. Nazis are like that, so punch a Nazi or something. 

The event is being held on the same road as the European Commission’s competition authority. The symbolism is undeniable. The actions of the police and the mayor will lead to far greater coverage of the conference than it would otherwise have received. It is also a testament to the conference’s argument that even at the heart of Europe free speech is under threat – a point the attendees are poised to make. 

This is where we are. Western governments are squelching dissent. Our publications, including this one, are punished for wrongthink. We get demonetized for speaking the truth. Constant legal threats beset presidential candidates. 

It is all of a piece. 

As I wrote earlier, we need your help to keep going despite all the attacks. Sign up to our VIP Program. Use the code CENSORSHIP for 50% off!