Will The Biden-Harris Administration Allow the World’s Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism to Acquire Nuclear Weapons? by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20909/biden-harris-iran-nuclear-weapons

Iran’s runaway strides in its nuclear program have taken place largely under the watch of the Biden-Harris administration.

Will this administration allow the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to acquire nuclear weapons? It many have been what the Obama administration wished — so long as it was “not on my watch” — but it was a terrible idea then, and it is a worse one now. The prospect of Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arming groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias with nuclear weapons is bad for the world’s health.

Iran’s regime that has also repeatedly vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and the United States— after that, presumably, the oil-rich Gulf states. Iran already controls five other countries in the region: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. There are flashing neon signs that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s dream of “exporting the Revolution” is steadily extending to America’s backyard. Latin American rogue states allied with Iran could potentially be transformed into nuclear-armed threats.

Why the West Must Fight for Its History Frank Furedi

https://quadrant.org.au/features/ideas/why-the-west-must-fight-for-its-history/
Dr Frank Furedi is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent. This was an edited extract from his introduction to his new book, The War Against the Past, to be published by Polity this month.

There was no formal declaration of war. No gunshots rang out. It didn’t even make the local news. But, sure enough, at some point at the turn of the twenty-first century, a war against the past was launched.

Who were the culprits? They are hard to pin down. The partisans supporting the assault on the legacy of European civilisation are not members of a party. They have not issued any war aims and have never formulated an explicit strategic vision. They are also a heterogenous bunch, a coalition of disparate interests and movements.

In an earlier era—the 1990s—when the first wave of mobilisation was taking shape, the English historian J.C.D. Clark warned against representing the promotion of this conflict as the “outcome of a grand conspiracy”. He wrote that it is “the result of a thousand separate, distantly related acts, the promptings of widely absorbed assumptions”. Nevertheless, argued Clark, despite its diverse and uncoordinated prompting, it amounted to a “distinct enterprise of historical disinheritance”.

Hostility towards the past evolved slowly, and then all at once, its intensification occurring haphazardly without any serious long-term thought. The use of the term “war” to account for the systematic pursuit of historical disinheritance is not simply metaphorical. In effect, this war leads to the diminishing of the authority of the past, to the discrediting of its legacy and to the killing of the soul of communities whose way of life remains underpinned by European culture.

This book’s principal argument is that the main driver of the culture war is an undeclared War Against the Past.

At times, supporters of the culture war against Western civilisation behave as if this perilous territory continues to represent a menace to the contemporary world. Their constant targeting of the legacy of the past—its physical symbols, values and achievements—resembles a frenetic moral crusade seeking to make people feel ashamed about their origins and who they are. Culture warriors have, in effect, opened up a second front to gain mastery over how the past is viewed.

The goal of cancelling the legacy of Western civilisation is pursued through reorganising society’s historical memory and disputing and delegitimating its ideals and achievement. They seek to erase the temporal distinction between the present and the past to achieve this objective. There has never been a time in living memory when so much energy has been devoted to readjusting the past and questioning and criticising historical figures and institutions. At times, it seems as if the boundary between the present and the past has disappeared as activists casually cross over it and seek to fix contemporary problems through readjusting the past.

The deaths of these hostages shame the Western conscience It is time to call out Western liberals’ craven silence in the face of Hamas’s fascism. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/01/the-deaths-of-these-hostages-shames-the-western-conscience/

The discovery of the bodies of six Israeli hostages in a tunnel in Rafah confirms what many of us knew about Hamas – that it is a Jew-killing machine that masquerades as a national-liberation movement. That it has no purpose beyond the persecution and slaughter of the Jewish people. That its aim, for all the crowing of its useful idiots in the West about ‘resistance’ and ‘decolonisation’, is nothing more and nothing less than the fascistic terrorising of the inhabitants of the Jewish State. The ‘brutal murder’ of these six people, their only crime their Jewishness, is the bloodiest proof yet that in Hamas Israel faces not only a military foe, but also a virulently racist, existential threat.

But the discovery of the slain Jews shines a harsh light on other people, too. Not just Hamas, but also us, the West, and especially that portion of it that calls itself ‘progressive’. When I saw the photos of the four men and two women killed by their captors in a dank lair in Rafah, I thought to myself: there are people in my community here in the UK who have defaced posters of these people. There are people on my streets who scrawled the word ‘coloniser’ on their faces. There are people in my profession who described the day they were kidnapped as a ‘day of celebration’. There are people in London – and New York, Berlin, Sydney – who expressed solidarity not with these six seized Jews, but with the racists who seized them.

And it made me think: it is not enough today to condemn Hamas. We must also ask how so many in the West came to share in Hamas’s twisted, bigoted hatred for these six human beings. Why so many in the West made excuses for their abduction, vandalised their likenesses and falsely called their persecution ‘resistance’. The barbarism uncovered in Rafah is on Hamas. But the Western conscience is not wholly innocent of this depraved crime.

Let us be clear: the horror in Rafah is what some progressives in the West felt ‘exhilarated’ by, it’s what they ‘celebrated’. This is Hamas, this is its ‘resistance’. All six, according to the IDF, were ‘brutally murdered’ a ‘short time’ before being found. They were: Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23, an Israeli-American; Alexander Lobanov, a 32-year-old father of two; Carmel Gat, a 40-year-old from Tel Aviv who was visiting her parents in the Be’eri kibbutz on the day of the 7 October pogrom; Almog Sarusi, a 27-year-old who loved ‘travelling around Israel in his white SUV with his guitar’; Eden Yerushalmi, a 24-year-old who was bartending at the Nova music festival; and Ori Danino, 25, who was about to embark on an electrical-engineering course when he was seized.

Is the Western World Still Free? A shift in values has led to a rise in censorship in the West. As these new values gain prominence, the internet’s early, libertarian ethos has mostly faded. By Christopher Roach

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/03/is-the-western-world-still-free/

The recent arrest of Telegram CEO, Pavel Durov, has been in the news. Anti-Russian westerners cheered these events on, even though Durov had fled Russia years ago in order to pursue his techno-libertarian dreams in peace. Adding to the intrigue, the arrest may have included an element of treachery, as some reports say he was invited to visit France by French President Emmanuel Macron, only to be arrested on the tarmac. Mon Dieu!

The ostensible basis for Durov’s arrest is criminal responsibility for various unsavory things that have happened on his Telegram platform. This kind of vicarious liability for hosting websites, particularly those involving user communications and forums, is not entirely new, but it is controversial and always applied very selectively.

No one has rounded up Mark Zuckerberg, even though snuff films, child pornography, and a great many other terrible things have happened on Facebook. On the other hand, after the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting in 2018, there was an outcry against the less regulated Gab website, which is a more freewheeling discussion app similar to Twitter. Similarly, the 8chan message board, on which a mass shooter in El Paso posted a mini-manifesto in 2019, faced hosting and other boycotts from service providers leading to a shutdown shortly after the public outcry.

Whether aimed at individual speakers or entire forums, censorship is on the rise, and it finds its roots in a changing set of values. There is less respect for the principles of free speech, especially among younger people. New principles like the evil of “platforming” bad actors and the importance of psychological “safety” prevail.

As these new values have risen in prominence, the internet’s early, libertarian ethos has mostly gone away.

Deep State Gets More “Bang for the Buck” When Pressuring Monopolies

Can They Really Reinvent Kamala Harris in 70 Days? Harris is not so much a flip-flopper as a padder, who supports anything, without any worry about framing each new position by renouncing her original and opposite one. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2024/09/02/can-they-really-reinvent-kamala-harris-in-70-days/

An Opportunistic Mediocrity

In theory, it should be hard for Kamala Harris to win the presidency of the United States.

Under pressure, Harris just completed her first “live interview”—a disastrous performance that was mysteriously taped, edited, and emotionally supported by her co-interviewed running mate. During the interview, she claimed that her values remain the same even though her manifestations of them have admittedly changed. Translated, that means for the next 70 days, she will advocate for popular policies antithetical to her own values, which will inevitably resurface after the election once the current façade fades away.

She is a Berkelyite who, as attorney general of California, had a proud far-left tenure. The lifelong large corpus of Harris’s left-wing enthusiasm and causes are only now being unearthed. But they are singular in that her riffs of embracing wokism, being a radical, erasing ICE, doing away with private health insurance, or being the last person in the room when Joe Biden made his disastrous decisions were all given to sympathetic media or pandered to crowds.

As a result, she often doubled down. Her emphatic statements were intended to stun audiences. Unlike other leftists, she really was a proud woke, radical and wanted everyone else to be one as well—broadcasting her leftism as openly as she is now cloaking it.

In one respected survey, Harris’s voting record was rated as the most left-leaning in the United States Senate. If she voted to the left of the admitted hardcore socialist Bernie Sanders, what exactly does that make her?

Otherwise, Harris was undistinguished, and often overtly so, as she was exposed as inane in Senate hearings. Her envisioned 2019-2020 primary bid proved an utter disaster. When liberal Democrat voters nationwide were first made aware of her radical record, her left-wing agendas, and her weird wash/rinse/spin word-salad chats, they ran.

Harris’s well-funded 2019 campaign quickly blew up early. Indeed, she never entered much less won a single primary–and captured no delegates through voting.

In the frenzy following George Floyd’s death, and the mayhem and nationwide rioting and violence of late spring and summer, panicked 2020 nominee Joe Biden announced in advance he would select a diversity candidate as a running mate. And in no time, and under increasing pressure to trump his braggadocious promise, he boxed himself in by assuring his handlers that his running mate would be preselected as a black woman.

So what really was witheld from CNN’s 41-minute interview with Kamala Harris? By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/09/so_what_really_was_witheld_from_cnn_s_41_minute_interview_with_kamala_harris.html

Is CNN a news network or a public relations agency?

What else can one conclude but the latter, now that we learn that CNN did a 41-minute interview with Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris, but only released 18 minutes of it to the public, both in its broadcast and in its transcript.

That was its big news scoop, the first major interview of Kamala Harris since Joe Biden was forced to pull out of the race last month.

For a news agency to withold … the news … is strange stuff indeed, given that news is supposed to be what it does, and its bread and butter.

What’s more, experienced journalists, such as Catherine Herridge, have arched their eyebrows over that strange aversion to releasing the news they had actually gathered.
 

Herridge noted that this was what credible news agencies do, they release the full transcripts, even if their final broadcast doesn’t include all the news gathered. The New York Times has called it all the news that’s fit to print. 60 Minutes does an after-hours show for those interested in all the parts of its newsgathering that didn’t make it into their shorter news segments.

Iran’s Gaza War: Unfortunately, A Ceasefire Deal Will Not Bring the Hostages Back by John Richardson

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20916/gaza-ceasefire-hostages

The Biden-Harris administration apparently sees no problem with a Palestinian state being yet another terrorist state, committed to annihilating Israel — as both Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force commander General Esmail Qaani (“Israel is a cancer that must be eliminated”), and senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad have straightforwardly vowed.

A ceasefire might sound as if it is a “good thing” that benefits everyone — understandably if a friend or family member is a hostage. The problem seems to be the Hamas demand that Israel should leave the “Philadelphi corridor” on the border between Gaza and Egypt, so that Hamas, backed by its patrons Qatar and Iran, can resume smuggling weapons and ammunition into Gaza, rearm, rebuild and attack again.

It is probably more convenient, for all those trying to overthrow Netanyahu, to look at him rather than at the real perpetrators: Hamas, Iran and Qatar.

Qatar, “the Trojan Horse in Washington D.C.,” has long been financing Islamic terrorist organizations, as well as bestowing more than $6 billion on US universities to teach American youths whatever Qatar’s leaders decide. Nevertheless, the Biden-Harris administration decided that these qualifications made Qatar perfect to negotiate the Gaza war on America’s behalf, the same way the administration unfathomably decided to have Russia negotiate on America’s behalf with Iran over restarting the nuclear deal.

The Biden-Harris administration seems to want Netanyahu gone to be able to work with “their” prime minister: one who presumably would be delighted not only to have a terrorist Palestinian state on his borders — a state sworn to Israel’s destruction — and who would also be delighted if Iran — also sworn to Israel’s destruction — had nuclear weapons. It is the policy embraced by Obama, so long as Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons “on his watch.” Down the road, however, would be an altogether different story.

What many Israelis seem unwilling or unable to see is, sadly, that even with a ceasefire, the hostages will not be released. Hamas will hold on to as many of them as they can for as long as they can, to keep them in play as a weapon.

With a ceasefire, Israel unfortunately will not get peace and will not get the hostages. The Israelis might see a few hostages at a time dribbled out, the living ones first, they hope, each one exchanged for hundreds, if not more, of convicted Palestinian terrorists released from Israeli prisons, whose first job would be to go right back to terrorizing.

Meanwhile, the negotiations over every hostage would allow plenty of time for Iran and Hamas to bring more weapons in through the unguarded border from Egypt into Gaza, in order to rearm. The current leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, is himself a convicted terrorist who confessed to murdering four people with his own hands. Sinwar was serving four life sentences in an Israeli prison when he was released, among more than 1,000 terrorists, in exchange for one Israeli hostage, Gilad Shalit, in 2011.

There is at least one way to get the hostages back quickly…. “Many Americans believe that they owe Qatar for its hosting of the U.S. CENTCOM base. The truth is precisely the opposite: It is Qatar that owes the U.S., for locating this base there. Without this base’s presence in the country, Qatar would disappear within less than a week – its neighbors would eat it up.” — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, June 10, 2024.

Instead of saying, as the propagandists no doubt like, “Bring them Home,” meant to sound as if Netanyahu is hiding the hostages under the Knesset, Israelis would be better off saying, “Release the Hostages” — directed at Hamas, Qatar and Iran.

A ceasefire deal unfortunately will not bring back the hostages any time soon. Hamas will drag out each negotiation, continue attacking Israel and try to make Israelis miserable enough to give up the fight, as many seem to be doing even now.

The murder of six more Israeli hostages — Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi, Alexander Lobanov, Almog Sarusi and Ori Danino — captured by the terrorist group Hamas appears to be leading many Israelis, along with most of their ever-gullible media (remember the Oslo Accords?) to think that if only their government would agree to a ceasefire, they would get their hostages back. Most people, at least in the West, would desperately like that — not just the American ones — all 120 of them, especially before Hamas finishes murdering them. If the Israelis really want their hostages back, however, they had better think again.

Kamala’s push for Palestinian statehood Ruthie Blum

https://www.jns.org/kamalas-push-for-palestinian-statehood/

During her 27-minute interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Thursday night, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris prefaced several of her answers with the expression, “Let me be clear.” She then provided anything but lucidity regarding how she would lead the country if elected in November.

This was worse than pathetic, particularly when one considers the circumstances of her first actual encounter with a journalist since being catapulted into the Democrat candidacy. The conversation was conducted by a friendly member of the media of her own choosing; her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, was at her side for support; and the exchange was pre-taped to enable the deletion of bloopers.

That it wasn’t cut in the end makes sense, because if the embarrassing bits of word salad tossed by Harris and Walz had been removed, there wouldn’t have been enough material to fill a full minute of TV time. Whether this will have an effect on floating voters is doubtful, however.

“Mamala Kamala” isn’t new on the scene. Her poor public performances are not only a matter of record; they were among the reasons for her lack of popularity before her disdain-filled party apparatus gave her a massive P.R. makeover.

Bash aided in the above endeavor by not pressing Harris too hard on domestic issues, such as fracking and inflation, on which she’s clueless or has changed her position. In fairness, it’s not easy to pull off a defense of the incumbent administration, in which she’s a prominent figure, while criticizing it for its failures.

CHAPTER 34: In a World Obsessed with Feelings, Whose Feelings Matter? Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is* by Linda Goudsmit

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/28017/chapter-34-in-a-world-obsessed-with-feelings

goudsmit.pundicity.com  and website: lindagoudsmit.com 

Hidden deep within the Gospel of Yuval Harari is the question “Do children belong to their parents or to the state?” Harari’s position clearly favors the state, because the “intelligent design” he describes is an arm of the state body politic. To repeat what he said at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos on January 24, 2020:

In the coming decades, AI and biotechnology will give us godlike abilities to reengineer life, and even to create completely new life-forms. After four billion years of organic life shaped by natural selection, we are about to enter a new era of inorganic life shaped by intelligent design.

Harari’s “evolutionary” biology sees human beings as hackable animals whose future will be shaped by artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and the reengineering of life into new life-forms. The new life-forms Harari refers to are transhumanist beings totally controlled by the globalist elite—the “intelligent designers.”

To “transcend” means to go beyond the range or limits of something. Transhuman means going beyond the current limits of being human and acquiring the powers and abilities of an enhanced human being in what the World Economic Forum calls “Humanity 2.0″—the stated goal of “intelligent design.” Harari’s narrative is grooming your children for Humanity 2.0.

To understand the insidious plan to move humanity from Humanity 1.0 to Humanity 2.0, it is necessary to examine the tactical shift away from meritocracy—the traditional metric of achievement foundational to American life, progress, and success.

In a society that eliminates meritocracy by shifting its metrics from achievement to feelings, whose feelings actually matter? What is the political purpose of the shift?

Dark Tunnels and Moral Beacons The names of the six murdered Israeli hostages—and the evil ideology of their executioners—should be seared into the minds of all who wish to live in civilization. Bari Weiss

https://www.thefp.com/p/bari-weiss-dark-tunnels-and-moral?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_

Today at The Free Press, we mourn the six innocent Israelis murdered by Hamas terrorists who stole them nearly a year ago.

They are:

Eden Yerushalmi, a 24-year-old from Tel Aviv, who attended the Nova music festival with friends.

Ori Danino, a 25-year-old from Jerusalem who escaped the Nova music festival, but returned to help save others and was captured.

Alex Lobanov, 32, the head bartender at the Nova music festival, who leaves behind two children, one who was born while he was held captive.

Carmel Gat, a 40-year-old yoga instructor and occupational therapist from Tel Aviv. She had been visiting her mother in Kibbutz Be’eri on October 7. Released hostages reported that Carmel had been seen practicing yoga with other hostages.

Almog Sarusi, 27, from Ra’anana, north of Tel Aviv, who attended the Nova music festival with his girlfriend. She was murdered there.

And Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23, the American-Israeli citizen who lost part of his left arm reportedly fending off grenades, and was taken hostage from the Nova music festival.

Hersh Goldberg-Polin (courtesy of family)

It is that last name that will be most familiar to you.

Hersh’s father, Jon Goldberg-Polin, was one of the first people The Free Press interviewed in the hours after we learned of the October 7 massacre. Jon told us that at 8:11 a.m. that morning, he and his wife, Rachel, received two text messages from their only son. “Message number one said ‘I love you.’ Message number two said ‘I’m sorry,’ ” Jon told us on Honestly. “It’s been chaos ever since.”