Sunday, March 24, 2024

Israel Back Stabbed by Joe Biden for Political Power

The Democratic Party under President Joe Biden's leadership is exhibiting heightened concern regarding the potential loss in the upcoming 2024 Presidential election, leading to a preoccupation that risks overshadowing their recognition of key allies and supporters.

In Biden's fervent pursuit of maintaining political dominance, there appears to be a tendency to overlook the importance of nurturing alliances and fostering relationships with trusted partners.

This phenomenon underscores the imperative for the party to recalibrate its strategies and prioritize collaborative efforts with both longstanding allies and emerging supporters in order to fortify their position and ensure a resilient path forward for their continued political power.

Keep in mind that "Joe Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy decision in the last 4 decades"

Since the 1979 takeover of Iran by the country’s Islamic revolutionary government it has had one overriding ambition: to be the lead player in shaping the future of the Middle East and it wants Israel weaker and the United States gone from the region after decades of primacy. To quote their own statements " It wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth."

Yet we have heard that Britain, France, Germany and the USA governments all preach and say they are firm supporters of Israel's right to exist. Yet, each is also facing domestic criticism of that support as is the week US President Joe Biden who, keep in mind, "Joe Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy decision in the last 4 decades."

Israel is supposedly an Allie and protected by the USA, Britain, France and Germany however, remember the USA's position during the beginning of the Second World War was one of isolationism and appeasement by the Democratic Party. Today the Democratic Party and its leader President Joe Biden are concerned about the votes in the following states that have a Muslim population as follows:

North Carolina. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.3% ...

Arizona. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.5% ...

Massachusetts. Percentage of Muslim Population: 1.9% ...

Minnesota. Percentage of Muslim Population: 2% ...

Virginia. Percentage of Muslim Population: 2%

At the same time keep in mind that today France actually has the largest Muslim and Jewish populations in Europe. Macron - President Emmanuel Macron of France says that he supports Israel's right to defend itself. But he's trying to also call for a humanitarian truce to get aid through which also is a stab in the back to the Isreal people and its government.

I strongly suggest that the purported leaders of democracy in the USA, Britain, France, and Germany exhibit a greater preoccupation with maintaining political power and their incumbency than with safeguarding Israel's inherent right to self-defence, especially as the sole democracy in the Middle East. Rather than upholding their commitments as principled statesmen, they should take decisive action against terrorism, particularly Hamas, which is fueled by Iranian support.

It is imperative for these leaders to unequivocally support Israel in eradicating the threat posed by Hamas once and for all, rather than misleading the Israeli government and its people with calls for ceasefires. While hostages remain in the clutches of this terrorist group, continually funded by Iran. and until Hamas is once and forever defeated and eradicated as a terrorist organization in Gaza.

Otherwise, like after WW1 and WW2 the world because of these weak-kneed leaders shall find themselves fighting such barbarian terrorists in their own countries for years to come. Appeasement did not work and does not work with terrorist organizations and nations whose sole aim is the destruction of Israel.


 These Countries Presently Don’t Recognize Israel

























North Korea




Saudi Arabia





United Arab Emirates





Monday, March 11, 2024

Todays Progressive, Socialist, Liberal leftism

The leftist is ant individualistic, and pro-collectivist. He/she wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, and take care of them. They are not the sort of persons who have an inner sense of confidence in their ability to solve one’s own problems and satisfy one’s own needs. The liberal leftists are antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, they feel like losers.

What one is trying to get at in discussing liberalism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Yet today the movement is fragmented, and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When speaking of liberal leftists, one has in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, climate activists, globalists, and the like.

Yet not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. Thus, what one means by “liberalism” is perhaps to indicate roughly and approximately the two psychological tendencies that are the main driving force of modern liberal leftism.

By no means can one group or movement claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, this is meant to apply to modern liberal leftism only. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern liberal leftism are called “feelings of inferiority” and “over-socialization”.

Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern liberal leftism, while over-socialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern liberal leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

By “feelings of inferiority” in the whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him/her (or about groups with whom she/he identifies) one can conclude that he/she has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “black”, “oriental”, “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy”, “dude” or “fellow”. The negative connotations have been Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology is not the average person of colour, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society.

Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior.

The leftist liberals themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly, they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Liberal Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good, and successful. They hate Canada; and America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality and the view of others.

The reasons that liberal progressive leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say and claim they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in third-world cultures, the liberal leftist finds excuses for them, or at best they GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas they ENTHUSIASTICALLY point out (and more often than not greatly exaggerate) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

These faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. They hate, Canada, America, and the West because they are strong and successful.  Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”, “initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.

Have you noticed that art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat, and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment?

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality and insist that everything is culturally relative. One can indeed ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.

They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior).

The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he/she cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.

Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behaviour because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it.

Thus, if a person is “inferior” it is not his/her fault, but society's, because he/she has not been brought up properly. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him/her a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, or a ruthless competitor.

This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself/herself but rather a deficit in his/her sense of power and self-worth, but they can still conceive of themselves as having the capacity to be strong, and his/her efforts to make himself/herself strong produce their unpleasant behaviour. 

But the leftist is too far gone for that. Their feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that they cannot conceive of themselves as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. They can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which they identify.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police and others to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. 

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principles do play a role for the leftists of the over-socialized type. But compassion and moral principles cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behaviour; so is the drive for power.

Moreover, much leftist behaviour is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously, it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.

However leftist activists such as Black Lives Matter do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.

In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.  If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

Let me stipulate and emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

Saturday, March 9, 2024

January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard

Liz Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had ‘no evidence’ to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s January 6 Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital, a previously hidden transcript obtained by The Federalist shows.

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Not only did the committee not accurately characterize the interview, they suppressed the transcript from public review. On top of that, committee allies began publishing critical stories and even conspiracy theories about Ornato ahead of follow-up interviews with him. Ornato was a career Secret Service official who had been detailed to the security position in the White House.

Top Takeaways:

A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion before the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.

Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”  Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity.

Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.

Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. “So then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”

Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.

Read the full article below: